See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318136333

Improvising Economy: Everyday Encounters and Tourism Consumption

Chapter · May 2017

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-51799-5_14

CITATIONS READS

2 346

2 authors:

G. T. Jóhannesson Katrín Anna Lund

University of Iceland University of Iceland
35 PUBLICATIONS   523 CITATIONS    31 PUBLICATIONS   318 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Innovation in Tourism and Hospitality View project

Arctic Encounters: Contemporary Travel/Writing in the European High North View project

All content following this page was uploaded by G. T. Jóhannesson on 26 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Tourism on the Verge

Dianne Dredge
Szilvia Gyimóthy Editors

Collaborative
Economy and
Tourism
Perspectives, Politics, Policies and
Prospects
Tourism on the Verge

Series editors
Pauline J. Sheldon
University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA
Daniel R. Fesenmaier
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13605
Dianne Dredge • Szilvia Gyimóthy
Editors

Collaborative Economy
and Tourism
Perspectives, Politics, Policies and Prospects
Editors
Dianne Dredge Szilvia Gyimóthy
Department of Culture & Global Studies Department of Culture & Global Studies
Aalborg University Aalborg University
Copenhagen SV, Denmark Copenhagen SV, Denmark

ISSN 2366-2611 ISSN 2366-262X (electronic)

Tourism on the Verge
ISBN 978-3-319-51797-1 ISBN 978-3-319-51799-5 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-51799-5

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017942749

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface

The collaborative economy is, quite possibly, one of the most significant driving
forces shaping the future of tourism. Described as a disruptive innovation that is
contributing to the de/restructuring of economic and social systems, its ramifica-
tions extend in all directions, and its impacts on and consequences for tourism are
enormous. As a consequence, explorations of the collaborative economy and its
intersections with tourism require a multidisciplinary and multi-focal approach, and
it requires us to move fluidly across different disciplinary lenses, frameworks and
concepts. We need to weave together the global and local, to appreciate public and
private spheres, to be critical of the politics and be attuned to highly contextualised
landscapes of power. No wonder that tourism scholars have generally watched
developments in the collaborative economy from the sidelines, not knowing where
to start, how to approach it or what to prioritise in the myriad of questions emerging
about its impacts. Coming from this perspective, our approach to this book has been
underpinned by our interest in excavating the theoretical and practical territory of
the collaborative economy and tourism. It is by no means a definitive exploration
but one we see as particularly important if we are to be future-oriented scholars and
teachers.
To date, there has been limited investigation into the character, depth and
breadth of these disruptions and the creative opportunities for tourism that are
emerging from these shifts. This book provides this platform and addresses both
theoretical and practical insights into the future of tourism in a world that is,
paradoxically, both increasingly collaborative and individualised.
This book belongs in the Springer Series Tourism on the Verge. The series is
edgy, it pushes the conceptual envelope, it is future oriented and it addresses deeply
complex and challenging issues. Collaborative Economy and Tourism: Perspec-
tives, Politics, Policies and Prospects takes an interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral lens

v
vi Preface

to explore the collaborative dynamics that are disrupting, re-creating and

transforming processes of tourism production and consumption. It also explores
the way that governments, industry and the new public sphere—global civil society,
networks and governance—are dealing with these transcendental changes to create
and re-create capacities to innovate, control and manage the collaborative
economy.

Copenhagen, Denmark Dianne Dredge

August 2016 Szilvia Gyimóthy
Acknowledgements

In developing this edited volume, the authors would like to acknowledge the
wonderful support, good humour and inspiration provided by our close working
colleagues in TRU, the support of Aalborg University and the very positive
feedback we have received from our colleagues in the European Commission’s
D-GROWTH (Directorate-General for International Market, Industry, Entrepre-
neurship and SMEs).
Dianne would especially like to thank Pauline Sheldon, Roberto Daniele, Johan
Edelheim, Caryl Bosman, Tazim Jamal, Szilvia Gyimóthy, Carina Ren, Martin
Trandberg Jensen, Adriana Budeanu, Anders Sørensen, Renuka Mahadevan,
Gillian Warry and Bobbie Kay for their generous inspiration and unending
patience, humour and light. I am truly grateful for their generous inspiration, love
and laughter.
Szilvia is truly grateful for the ceaseless encouragement of Dianne and the
original perspectives you have brought into our discussions. Special thanks go to
Martin Trandberg Jensen and Carina Ren for their inspiration and collegial support,
as well as to Jane Widtfeldt Meged, Mia Larson, Can Seng Ooi, Johannes Vangsen,
Britta Timm Knudsen and Anders Sørensen for their friendship and wit. Finally, we
would like to recognise the importance of creative writing and thinking spaces,
most notably Klitgaarden, Torvehallerne, Ristinge and Professor Kan’s
Collaboratorium.

vii
Contents

Collaborative Economy and Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Dianne Dredge and Szilvia Gyimóthy

Part I Theoretical Explorations

Definitions and Mapping the Landscape in the Collaborative
Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Szilvia Gyimóthy and Dianne Dredge
Business Models of the Collaborative Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Szilvia Gyimóthy
Responsibility and Care in the Collaborative Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Dianne Dredge
Networked Cultures in the Collaborative Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Szilvia Gyimóthy
Policy and Regulatory Challenges in the Tourism Collaborative
Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Dianne Dredge

Part II Disruptions, Innovations and Transformations

Regulating Innovation in the Collaborative Economy:
An Examination of Airbnb’s Early Legal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Daniel Guttentag
Free Walking Tour Enterprises in Europe: An Evolutionary
Economic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Marı́a del Pilar Leal Londo~no and F. Xavier Medina
Airbnb: Turning the Collaborative Economy into a Collaborative
Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
D. Michael O’Regan and Jaeyeon Choe
ix
x Contents

Sharing the New Localities of Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Greg Richards
Collaborative Economy and Destination Marketing Organisations:
A Systems Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Jonathon Day
Working Within the Collaborative Tourist Economy: The Complex
Crafting of Work and Meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Jane Widtfeldt Meged and Mathilde Dissing Christensen

Part III Encounters and Communities

Embedding Social Values in Tourism Management: Community
Currencies as Laboratories of Social Entrepreneurship? . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Rita Cannas
Improvising Economy: Everyday Encounters and Tourism
Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Gunnar Thór Jóhannesson and Katrı́n Anna Lund
Community and Connection: Exploring Non-monetary Aspects
of the Collaborative Economy Through Recreation Vehicle Use . . . . . . 255
Anne Hardy
Collaborative Economy in Tourism in Latin America:
The Case of Argentina, Colombia, Chile and Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
Helene Balslev Clausen and Mario Alberto Velázquez Garcı́a
Peer-To-Peer Accommodation: Drivers and User Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Juho Pesonen and Iis Tussyadiah

Part IV Futures
New Frontiers in Collaborative Economy Research in Tourism . . . . . . . 307
Dianne Dredge and Szilvia Gyimóthy
List of Contributors

Rita Cannas is Assistant Professor in Management and Business Communication,

University of Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy. She holds a PhD in Economics (University of
Bologna), a Master of Research Methodology in Business degree (University of
Strathclyde) and a Marie Curie Fellowship (University of Malta). She coordinated a
Master of Management for sustainable and responsible tourism at the Study Centre
for Youth Tourist (CTS) in Rome (Italy). Her research interests include sustainable
tourism management, particularly in Mediterranean coastal destinations; tourism
seasonality; cultural and heritage tourism; and social entrepreneurship.

Jaeyeon Choe is a Senior Lecturer in Events and Leisure, Faculty of Management

at Bournemouth University. She is a fellow of the Royal Geographical Society and
visiting scholar at the Centre for Asian Tourism Research, Chiang Mai University.
Since she completed her PhD in Tourism Management (Minor in Cultural Anthro-
pology) at the Pennsylvania State University, she has contributed to the field
publishing her work in peer-reviewed academic journals, conference proceedings
and book chapters, including high impact journals such as Current Issues in
Tourism and Leisure Studies Journal. She primarily researches religious/spiritual
tourism, cross-cultural study, Chinese consumer behaviour, migration and well-
being.

Mathilde Dissing Christensen has a Masters degree in Geography and Commu-

nication from Roskilde University. As a research assistant, she has explored the
material cultures of biking and cross-cultural encounters in public space. Currently,
Mathilde is a PhD student at Roskilde University (DK) and Drexel University
(USA), where her dissertation focuses on Airbnb and the ongoing negotiation of
private and public spheres amongst users of the platform.

Helene Balslev Clausen holds a PhD and is a researcher at Aalborg University

(Denmark). Her expertise lies in Latin American politics and culture, tourism,
mobilities and social entrepreneurship. Her main areas of research interest include
transnational mobilities and tourism, social enterprise, community participation and
xi
xii List of Contributors

Latin American studies. In addition, she is coordinator for several research projects
financed by the Mexican Research Council (CONACYT—SECTUR) including El
fomento y la promoci
on turística in collaboration with Mario A. Velázquez (2016).

Jonathon Day is an Associate Professor in Purdue University’s School of Hospi-

tality and Tourism Management, and has over 20 years’ experience in destination
management. An award-winning marketer, Dr Day has worked with destination
marketing organisations in Australia, New Zealand and the USA. Dr Day is
committed to ensuring tourism is a force for good in the world. Dr Day’s research
interests focus on sustainable tourism, responsible travel and strategic destination
governance within the tourism system. He is interested in the role of business in
solving grand challenges through corporate social responsibility programmes and
social entrepreneurship.

Dianne Dredge is Professor of Tourism and Destination Development in the

Department of Culture and Global Studies, Aalborg University, Denmark. Origi-
nally trained as an environmental and urban planner, her research interests are in
collaborative economy, tourism policy ecologies and the role of education in social
innovation and community capacity building. In her research and consulting activ-
ities, she adopts embedded community case study methodologies, community
participation and human-centred design approaches. She is co-editor of Stories of
Practice: Tourism Planning and Policy (Ashgate, 2011).

Daniel Guttentag is an Assistant Professor in Hospitality and Tourism Manage-

ment at the College of Charleston, located in Charleston, South Carolina. He holds a
Ph.D. in Recreation and Leisure Studies and a Master’s degree in Tourism Policy
and Planning, both from the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada. He is
interested in tourism innovations, particularly peer-to-peer short-term rental ser-
vices like Airbnb. Daniel has previously published on a range of topics, including
Airbnb, virtual reality, volunteer tourism and casino gambling behaviour.

Szilvia Gyimóthy is an Associate Professor in Market Communications in Tour-

ism and Head of Research at the Tourism Research Unit, Department of Culture and
Global Studies, Aalborg University, Denmark. Her research focuses on strategic
placemaking and competitive differentiation of regions in the experience economy.
She has studied the narrative repositioning of European destinations along culinary
inventions, outdoor adventures and popular culture. In the past years, she has been
investigating the novel value-creation mechanisms of digital collaborative endeav-
ours and the potentials of the sharing economy for urban and coastal destinations
alike. She is co-editor of Tourism Social Media: Transformations in Identity,
Community and Culture (Emerald, 2013).

Anne Hardy is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Tasmania and the Director of
the Tourism Research and Education Network (TRENd). She is a specialist in tribal
marketing, the drive tourism and recreational vehicle market and issues related to
List of Contributors xiii

sustainability. Her research has been conducted both in Australia and overseas,
including in Canada, the UK and New Zealand. Anne is particularly interested in
collaborative research that forms two-way linkages between the university and the
broader tourism industry.

Maria del Pilar Leal London ~o holds an international PhD and an MSc in Geog-
raphy, Territorial Planning and Environmental Management (University of Barce-
lona). She has collaborated in international consultant companies in Germany and
Colombia. She has also been a guest lecturer in tourism in Colombia and Spain and
has been a guest researcher at the Scottish Rural College in Scotland and the
University of Heidelberg in Germany. She has published several articles in different
languages about food, tourism and territorial development. Currently, she is the
academic director of the Bachelor and Master Degrees at Ostelea International
School of Tourism & Hospitality, Barcelona.

Katrı́n Anna Lund is an anthropologist and Associate Professor in the Depart-

ment of Geography and Tourism at the University of Iceland. Her research is on
landscape, place, narratives and modes of travelling in southern Spain, Scotland and
Iceland. She is a co-editor of the volume Conversations with Landscape, published
with Ashgate 2010.

F. Xavier Medina holds a PhD in social anthropology (University of Barcelona).

He is the Director of the Department of Food Systems, Culture and Society of the
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC), Barcelona. He is also Director of the
UNESCO Chair on “Food, Culture and Development” at the same university. He
is currently the Chair of the European section of the International Commission on
the Anthropology of Food and Nutrition (ICAF). He is the Director of the Interna-
tional Interdisciplinary Research Group on Tourism (GRIT-EAE). He is also the
author or editor of a dozen of books and more than 150 papers in scientific journals.

Gunnar Thór Jóhannesson is Associate Professor at the Department of Geogra-

phy and Tourism, University of Iceland. His research interests are in the areas of
entrepreneurship in tourism, tourism policy and destination development as well as
research methodologies. He is a co-editor of Tourism Encounters and Controver-
sies: Ontological Politics of Tourism Development, published with Ashgate
in 2015.

D. Michael O’Regan is a Senior Lecturer in Events and Leisure at Bournemouth

University, UK. He worked alongside the National Tourism Development Author-
ity of Ireland before joining Gulliver and later Wicklow County Tourism as
Marketing Executive. He has a PhD from the School of Sport and Service Man-
agement (University of Brighton). His research interests are slow, alternative,
historic, future and cultural mobilities. He has recently published articles in relation
to hitchhiking, a backpacker habitus and the sharing economy.
xiv List of Contributors

Juho Pesonen is the head of eTourism research at the Centre for Tourism Studies
in the University of Eastern Finland. In his research, Juho focuses on how infor-
mation and communication technologies are changing tourism with the emphasis
on consumer behaviour. In particular, he studies market heterogeneity and the
possibilities it creates for different tourism stakeholders. He has published in
numerous academic journals including Journal of Travel Research and Journal of
Travel & Tourism Marketing.

Greg Richards is Professor of Placemaking and Events at NHTV Breda Univer-

sity of Applied Sciences and Professor of Leisure Studies at the University of
Tilburg in the Netherlands. He has worked on projects for numerous national
governments, national tourism organisations and municipalities, and he has exten-
sive experience in tourism research and education.

Iis P. Tussyadiah is Reader in Hospitality and Digital Experience with the School
of Hospitality and Tourism Management at the University of Surrey (UK). She
investigates the roles of information technology in shaping traveller behaviour and
experiences and transforming the travel and tourism industry. In particular, she
focuses on the use of information technology for behavioural design in various
tourism contexts. She has published her work in Annals of Tourism Research,
Journal of Travel Research and other tourism and hospitality journals. She has
received several best paper awards in international conferences such as ENTER,
ADM and I-CHRIE.

Mario Alberto Velázquez Garcı́a is Associate Professor at Colegio del Estado de

Hidalgo (Mexico). He holds a PhD in Sociology from el Colegio de México,
Mexico, and is member of the National System of Research (SNI). His main
research interests include social movements, tourism and the collaborative econ-
omy. Mario has coordinated several major research projects about tourism financed
by Mexican Research Council (CONACYT—SECTUR).

Jane Widtfeldt Meged is Associate Professor, PhD and academic coordinator at

the Tourist Guide Diploma Program at Roskilde University. Her research interests
are in the micro-sociology of co-produced tourism experiences, the working life of
front personnel in the experience economy, the collaborative tourism economy and
networked IT-driven innovation in guided tours.
Collaborative Economy and Tourism

Dianne Dredge and Szilvia Gyimóthy

Abstract The digital collaborative economy is one of the most fascinating devel-
opments to have claimed our attention in the last decade. Not only does it defy clear
definition, but its historical links back to non-monetised sharing and gift economies
and its contemporary foundations in monetising idle assets and spare capacity make
it difficult to theorise. In this chapter, we lay the foundation for a social science
approach to the exploration of the collaborative economy and its relationship with
tourism. We argue that “collaborative” and “economy” should be conceptualised in
a broad and inclusive manner in order to avoid narrow theorisations and blinkered
accounts that focus only on digitally-mediated, monetised transactions. A balance
between individual and collective dimensions of the collaborative economy is also
necessary if we are to understand its societal implications.

Keywords Collaborative economy • Collaborative consumption • Tourism •

Critical studies • Sharing • Globalisation

1 Introduction

On February 2, 2014 Amsterdam launched its Amsterdam Sharing City campaign

and officially became Europe’s first named sharing city. Since that time the City has
embraced a diversity of sharing activities and has actively sought to facilitate both
digital and non-digital forms of sharing economy. Amsterdam promotes the benefits
of the sharing economy as a means of achieving the dual goals of economic inno-
vation and sustainability. Following Amsterdam’s lead, other world cities including
Paris, London and Singapore have also opened their doors to policy reforms that
could facilitate the sharing economy. But it has been a complicated and politically
volatile journey for many other cities.
Berlin, Barcelona, San Francisco and New York are just some of the cities that
have sought to find policy solutions to a range of impacts emerging in different

D. Dredge (*) • S. Gyimóthy

Department of Culture and Global Studies, Aalborg University, A.C. Meyers Vænge 15,
Copenhagen 2450, Denmark
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 1

D. Dredge, S. Gyimóthy (eds.), Collaborative Economy and Tourism,
Tourism on the Verge, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-51799-5_1
2 D. Dredge and S. Gyimóthy

sectors, most notably the ride sharing and collaborative economy accommodation
sectors. Debate has been highly political and marred in controversy. Most of the
concerns being raised relate to the perceived impacts of extractive, profit-driven
models of the collaborative economy such as Airbnb and Uber. However, whether
responsibility can be directly attributed to these extractive collaborative economy
models, or whether they have simply exacerbated pre-existing and historically-
situated problems is a matter of debate (Dredge, Gyimóthy, Birkbak, Jensen, &
Madsen, 2016).
For us, as the editors and authors of this volume, the collaborative economy is
one of the most fascinating developments to have gained attention over the last
decade. What is the collaborative economy? What are its impacts on and conse-
quences for tourism? What does it mean for society at large? Is it desirable? How
should we manage it? What can governments do? What can incumbent industry
actors do to address the unfolding change? These questions have been raised
numerous times in different fora and almost everyone has an opinion. Who then
should we believe? And whose advice should we take? We cannot pretend to offer
definitive advice given the highly contextualised nature of current debates and
issues. However, in taking a social science approach, we seek to deepen under-
standings, provide alternative conceptualisations and ways of framing the problems
and opportunities, and in the process uncover new and creative ways of addressing
the issues at hand.
We start our explorations acknowledging that the collaborative economy is not a
new phenomenon, but is linked to very old forms of economic exchange including
the sharing and gift economies (Belk, 2010). However, in its contemporary digital
form, wide reaching social, economic, environmental and political consequences
cross sectoral boundaries and create contradictions and tensions that require con-
siderable skill, patience and knowledge to unravel. Technology has sped up the
rolling out of this digital collaborative economy, it has enabled everyone with a
mobile device and an Internet connection to become a micro-entrepreneur, and it
has facilitated global market access to a range of previously untapped products,
services and experiences. In the process, in just 10 years, small start-ups with a
virtual platform as their main asset have grown into global corporations dwarfing
traditional competitors such as hotel chains, taxi and car rental companies. Such has
been the scale and speed of the collaborative economy’s development that govern-
ments, incumbent industry actors and communities are now grappling to unravel
and understand the emerging consequences and to identify appropriate and accept-
able actions (Dredge & Gyimóthy, 2015).
For researchers unafraid of the challenge and willing to transcend disciplinary
divides, the collaborative economy represents a veritable playground. Rittel and
Weber (1973) first coined the term “wicked problem” to describe policy problems
that defy neat description, where there is no clear identifiable solution, and where
addressing the problem requires actions on multiple fronts where no single actor has
complete authority and control. Fast forward 40 years and Rittel and Weber could
have written their seminal paper about the collaborative economy today. The
collaborative economy epitomises the disruptive rescaling of economic structures
Collaborative Economy and Tourism 3

and practices of a postmodern, post-structural world (Beck, Giddens, & Lash, 1994;
Giddens, 1990; Harvey, 1989). It demonstrates individualisation in mass markets;
the speed of global digital transactions exemplify time-space compression; and the
global nature of digital platforms demonstrates a liquid organisation reminiscent of
Bauman’s liquid modernity (Bauman, 2000).
At the same time, Botsman and Rogers (2011) and Gansky (2010) argue that the
collaborative economy responds to the need for alternative economies that address
over-consumption and the unsustainable trajectories of modern capitalism (Harvey,
1996; Healy, 2009). While this argument is often cited, in the absence of evidence it
has been increasingly questioned, and a very important distinction has been made
between the extractive and generative collaborative economy models (Bauwens,
2005; Scholz, 2016). While this distinction is discussed below, these contributions
flag a much greater level of critical engagement and more robust attempts to build a
knowledge base about the collaborative economy. This book contributes to this
larger project.
The aim of this book is to explore and theorise the nature, character and
operation of the collaborative economy and its relationship with tourism. We
seek to expand the narrow focus often taken on the collaborative economy that
conceptualises it as a set of digitally mediated peer-to-peer transactions. Instead, we
take a wider more holistic view of what collaborative economy might look in social
and economic life in tourism settings. Our focus is deliberately broad in order to
capture perspectives, ideas and intersections between “collaboration” and “eco-
nomy” and “tourism”. For the editors and authors, the collaborative economy is a
theoretical, conceptual and practical playground where we “play” with different
ways of seeing, understanding and engaging with the collaborative economy and
tourism. In the process we also encourage readers to play with the ideas and
understandings that unfold, reflecting back to their own disciplinary framings,
theoretical preferences and practical experiences. As a caveat, we do not claim
that the following chapters provide a comprehensive analysis. Rather, their role is to
prompt us to think critically and creatively about the collaborative economy so that
we can crystallise these insights with our own experiences and understandings to
develop a deeper appreciation of its problems and potentials.

2 What Is the Collaborative Economy?

Defining the collaborative economy is a much more slippery and elusive task than
readers first imagine. The most commonly cited definition is that of Botsman (2013)
who defines it as:
. . .an economy built on distributed networks of connected individuals and communities
versus centralized institutions, transforming how we can produce, consume, finance, and
learn.
4 D. Dredge and S. Gyimóthy

But as discussed in a critical evaluation of definitions and key concepts in

Gyimóthy and Dredge (2017), definitions of the collaborative economy have
come under increasing scrutiny. Scholars and practitioners, anchored in different
disciplinary perspectives and interests, have offered different definitions and ter-
minologies and have attempted to categorise it in various ways and for their own
purposes. Not surprisingly, there is a mounting number of definitions that empha-
sise various aspects of the collaborative economy including innovation and market
growth; disruption to business chains; the ethical characteristics of the sharing
transaction; or its contribution to economic transformation.
We see the challenge of defining the collaborative economy as something of a
moving target. On one hand, the characteristics of the collaborative economy are on
the move as new innovations emerge, as disciplinary contributions highlight vari-
ous attributes of exchange, and as the consequences and implications become more
apparent. On the other hand, for governments to understand and develop their
positions, to undertake analysis, and to respond with considered policies, definitions
are important. To this end, the European Commission (2016) has developed a
definition that offers characteristics and dimensions that may be operationalised
in research and policy:
. . .the term “collaborative economy” refers to business models where activities are facil-
itated by collaborative platforms that create an open marketplace for the temporary usage of
goods or services often provided by private individuals. The collaborative economy
involves three categories of actors: (i) service providers who share assets, resources, time
and/or skills—these can be private individuals offering services on an occasional basis
(‘peers’) or service providers acting in their professional capacity (“professional services
providers”); (ii) users of these; and (iii) intermediaries that connect—via an online plat-
form—providers with users and that facilitate transactions between them (‘collaborative
platforms’). Collaborative economy transactions generally do not involve a change of
ownership and can be carried out for profit or not-for-profit.

While we see value in various attempts to define the collaborative economy for
specific purposes, we are cautious that any attempt to offer a decisive definition will
create boundaries around how authors engage with the two key words: “collabo-
rative” and “economy”. We conceptualise the collaborative economy as a much
wider phenomenon, it has a much longer history, and it includes a variety of
collaborative transactions that extend well beyond the current focus on digital
platforms, monetised transactions and the disruption currently caused by particular
models. In our excavations of the collaborative economy and tourism, we see the
collaborative economy as including, but not limited to, the digital collaborative
economy. We include a range of different types of collaborative transactions
(e.g. social transactions, monetised and non-monetised transactions, ethical trans-
actions based on moral responsibility, etc.), and we embrace different models
ranging from extractive for-profit models to commons or generative models
(Kostakis & Bauwens, 2014; Scholz, 2014).
Our commitment to adopting this wider interpretation is based on our belief that
a narrow definition could limit a fuller understanding of what the collaborative
economy in tourism might be and how it impacts economic, social and political life.
Collaborative Economy and Tourism 5

So, for our own purposes in the development of this book, we have deliberately
sought not to define the collaborative economy in a clear-cut manner in these early
stages, but to inductively return to this challenge in the concluding chapter.

3 Approach and Scope

The approach taken in each of the following chapters varies, however there are
some common threads. In this volume, we have sought to encourage multi/trans/
postdisciplinary approaches to explorations of the collaborative economy in tour-
ism. While the disciplinary backgrounds and preferences of chapter authors have
influenced their engagement with the subject matter, the hard and dirty work of
translating, synthesising and making sense of the world of collaborative economy
also comes with the challenge of recognising how one’s own perspective and voice
gets interwoven into the text (Anderson-Gough & Hoskins, 2005). To this end,
authors have drawn upon and woven together different disciplinary influences and
have used different methods of data collection and analysis.
In keeping with this approach, we have also asked the authors to adopt a critical
stance. This criticality takes different forms. Some authors have been inspired by
radical and Marxist interpretations and have been critical to the power relations,
silenced voices and injustices that characterise aspects of the collaborative eco-
nomy; they have sought to highlight the impacts of collaborative economy on class/
labour relations; and they have excavated the manner in which collaborative
economy capitalism has contributed (or not) to the redistribution of assets and
wealth from the commons to private interests. Others have taken on a different
approach to criticality, placing emphasis on the process of translating their data into
stories and to the articulation of their perspectives and to those of others. In doing
so, they have tuned in to the logocentricism of their own writing and positionality
and have tried to balance this with respect for the voices of others (Fuller & Kitchin,
2004).
We have encouraged the investigation and interpretation of values, and how
those values are transformed into decisions and actions in the collaborative eco-
nomy. This direction has inspired a variety of quantitative and qualitative research
approaches and methodologies, including surveys, descriptive statistical analysis,
interviews and dialogic approaches, participant observation, reflective accounts and
story-telling that have sought to question what is really going on. In addressing this
challenge, we seek to examine the way that governments, industry and the public
sphere can and are responding to the challenges presented by the collaborative
economy and we discuss what these changes mean for the future of tourism as a set
of social, economic, cultural, environmental and political practices. The collected
volume thus becomes a varied account of collaborative economy and tourism and
an ideal foundation for future research.
6 D. Dredge and S. Gyimóthy

In setting out the broad aim, approach and scope in this way, our hope is that
readers will start to appreciate the complexities of the collaborative economy and
refrain from simply aligning it with Airbnb or Uber as the dominant market models.
The collaborative economy is consistent with and symptomatic of broader meta-
sociological trends including late modernism, post-structuralism, (post)globalisa-
tion and (post)neoliberalism. Understanding this broader context, and sharpening
our theoretical as well as practical understandings of the collaborative economy, in
its macro-micro interrelations, is essential for more informed and appropriate
responses to the future challenges it presents.

4 Why Study the Collaborative Economy?

There are many reasons why greater focus should be given to researching the
intersections of collaborative economy and tourism but three main reasons underpin
the development of the approach and scope to this book. First, the collaborative
economy has fuelled a range of disruptive innovations and understanding the nature
and implications of this change is essential when contemplating the future of
tourism. These disruptive innovations include product innovations that have, for
example, increased the range and diversity of products and on-demand services
available (e.g. guiding and personal services, health, recreation and leisure equip-
ment sharing, etc.) that facilitate the delivery of customised services to mass
markets (Owyang, Samuel, & Grenville, 2014; Rifkin, 2014). Process innovations
have been unlocked by the matching of micro-producers and consumers via sharing
mobile apps thereby cutting out intermediaries and improving cost efficiencies.
Management innovations are demonstrated in, for example, online on-demand
reservation and payment options that reduce friction in transactions and the need
for and cost of labour (Stokes, Clarence, & Rinne, 2014). Market innovations can be
found in the development of reputational mechanisms such as user feedback and
ratings systems, which have been effectively used to build markets and customer
loyalty (Belk, 2014). These innovations have wide-ranging effects, the conse-
quences of which have not been fully explored, but are likely to have significant
ramifications for the future of tourism.
Second, the collaborative economy has attracted significant media attention. It
has been hotly debated and self-proclaimed experts are multiplying at an astonish-
ing rate. Dredge and Gyimóthy (2015) have argued that this new and highly volatile
space has become characterised by a large number of experts who have diagnosed
the problem and applied their own lens to identify potential solutions. Asymmetries
of information have emerged depending on the (self)interests of these experts. The
scholarly voice has largely been missing from these debates. As editors, we believe
that it is important to add scholarly analyses into these debates, to introduce
alternative ways of problematising and analysing the issues and to deepen
understandings.
Collaborative Economy and Tourism 7

Third, and related to the above, Dredge and Gyimóthy (2015) have identified a
number of myths that have emerged and that require deeper and more balanced
assessment including:
• That collaborative economy social technologies unlock hidden wealth.
• That the collaborative economy embraces openness, inclusivity and the com-
mons; it reallocates wealth across the value chain, and it carries the seeds of a
more fair, just and equal society.
• That the collaborative economy focuses on community lifestyle and living local
movements, it is an antidote to the failures of capitalism, and it contributes to a
moral turn in consumer decision-making.
• That the collaborative economy represents a free unfettered and more efficient
market place where producers and consumers exchange goods and services and
without the heavy-handed regulation.
• That the collaborative economy possesses the capacity to self-regulate and
address market failures.
These myths are variously addressed by chapter authors and will be reflected upon
in the conclusions.

5 Collaborative Economy Actors

The collaborative economy is characterised by a number of stakeholder groups that

can be broadly divided into the following interdependent and overlapping groups
described below (see Dredge et al., 2016). These groupings are not exclusive: actors
may belong to more than one group and move between groups over time. Their
interests may also converge or conflict depending on the social, economic, political
and environmental factors at play. While these groupings are indicative, they are
nevertheless useful in conceptualising the relational setting1 of the collaborative
economy.
Consumers Consumers are those that purchase and consume the goods and
services offered in collaborative economy.
Providers Providers are a large and diverse group of stakeholders, motivated by a
variety of reasons, who offer the use of their assets, resources, expertise, knowledge
and labour to a collaborative network for their consumption. The resource, asset or
service that providers offer may not necessarily be idle or spare, but may be a
specific investment made for the purposes of offering it on a collaborative platform
as an alternative business model.

1
To our knowledge there is no research examining the network characteristics of collaborative
economy tourism accommodation stakeholders to date. The conceptualisation in this chapter will
therefore be useful in future studies of this nature.
8 D. Dredge and S. Gyimóthy

New Service Entrepreneurs New service entrepreneurs are often small and
micro-business operators who provide goods and services that support the collabo-
rative economy sector and in the process contribute to new ecologies of entre-
preneurship and business opportunity. These may include, for example, meet and
greet hospitality services, destination concierge services, cleaning services and
key exchange services.
Local Residents and Community Local residents may be directly or indirectly
impacted by the collaborative economy. These are, for example, the residents in
neighbouring houses and apartments that must deal with local impacts (e.g. noise
and nuisance caused by tourist behaviour, loss of community cohesion, impacts of
community facilities, impacts on rental and property prices, etc.) of collaborative
economy accommodation. This group of stakeholders may also take other roles
from time to time, including Consumers and/or Providers.
Incumbent Operators Incumbent actors or industry operators are those tradi-
tional providers (e.g. hotels, taxi companies) that, as a result of the growth in the
collaborative economy, face pressures such as increased competition, inequitable
regulatory burdens, and traditional business models and supply chains are being
challenged. These stakeholders include individual businesses, destination manage-
ment organisations and other interest-based organisations (e.g. rental agencies,
B&B associations, etc.).
Collaborative Economy Platforms or Networks Collaborative economy plat-
forms take a variety of organisational forms. They may include both digital
platforms and non-digital peer-to-peer networks, and may be extractive or com-
mons-based.2 Regardless of organisational form, collaborative economy platforms/
networks add value by providing the context and forum for the transaction. This
value adding may be in terms of administrative services, customer verification
procedures, advertising and peer rating mechanisms.
Governments Supra-national agencies, national, regional and local governments
have a role in protecting public interests, in facilitating innovation and societal

2
The extractive collaborative economy is a model where approximately 15% of the value created
is diverted to the platform company and its investors and 85% is earned by the provider. Extractive
platforms do not invest back into the provider’s asset, product or labour, earning criticism that they
are merely extracting and redistributing wealth from the commons rather than generating sufficient
new value for a host or community to thrive, be socially fair and sustainable. The commons
collaborative economy is based on three broad social movements: (i) sustainable citizenship;
(ii) fairness based around the creation and distribution of value that is shared; and (iii) the
commons movement which embeds a commitment to open source and sharing for a vibrant
society. The commons collaborative economy is more often a ground up initiative and any profit
is invested back into the commons (Bauwens, 2005).
Collaborative Economy and Tourism 9

Governments

Collaborative Other publics

economy platforms

Individual

Incumbent industry
COLLABORATIVE Consumers
operators & groups
ECONOMY

Collective

Accommodation
Local residents providers
& communities
New service
entrepreneurs

CONTEXT

Fig. 1 Relational approach to studying the collaborative economy

interest. Roles and responsibilities vary, and government approaches are also influ-
enced by institutional cultures and historical policy decisions.
Other Publics There are a range of other (future) stakeholders and interests that
may not yet be apparent, whose voices may not yet have emerged, and these may
vary from location to location. These interests may be important in the future, and
for this reason, these stakeholders are acknowledged here in order to prompt policy
makers and regulators to think beyond the immediate discussions taking place
about regulating the collaborative economy.
Figure 1 shows a visual representation of this relational setting, raising attention
to the context in which these relations play out. It also seeks to acknowledge both
the individual dimensions (such as individual motivations, peer-to-peer transactions
between individuals) and the collective dimensions (such as the formation of
networks, tribes, platforms and the impacts on other publics) in the collaborative
economy. The chapters that follow highlight the diverse relational characteristics of
the collaborative economy at theoretical, pragmatic and contextualised levels.
10 D. Dredge and S. Gyimóthy

6 Structure of this Book

Based on the above outline, our explorations of the collaborative economy and
tourism can be loosely grouped into three major themes. Following this introduc-
tion, the first set of chapters engages in theoretical explorations of the collaborative
economy and tourism. In the chapter “Definitions and Mapping the Landscape in
the Collaborative Economy” (Gyimóthy & Dredge), the foundation is laid for the
broad interpretation of the collaborative economy and tourism that we adopt in this
book. In the chapter “Business Models of the Collaborative Economy”, Gyimóthy
explores the diversity of collaborative economy business models helping to build a
deeper appreciation for the various motivations underpinning collaborative trans-
actions. Dredge (see “Responsibility and Care in the Collaborative Economy”) then
examines moral responsibility in the collaborative economy and tourism arguing
that we need to slow down the speed at which we move from problem identification
to response and to nurture ethical decision-making that cares for the various
interests at play. In the chapter “Sociology of the We-conomy: Understanding
Networked Cultures”, Gyimóthy takes as her starting point, the networked relations
of the collaborative economy by examining the sociology of the “we-conomy”. The
final chapter in this section, “Politics, Policy and Regulatory Perspectives in the
Collaborative Economy” (Dredge), examines the political landscape, the path
dependencies created by previous industrial policy approaches, and the influence
of neoliberal ideologies on policy and regulation in the collaborative economy.
In Part II, the second set of chapters explores the disruptions, innovations and
transformations of the collaborative economy from a kaleidoscope of perspectives.
In the chapter “Regulating Innovation in the Collaborative Economy: An Exami-
nation of Airbnb’s Early Legal Issues”, Guttentag captures the complexity of
regulatory issues characterising the world’s largest accommodation sharing plat-
form and lays out the challenges for both the company, regulators and incumbent
industry actors. Shifting the focus to free walking tours, (see “Free Walking Tour
Enterprises in Europe: An Evolutionary Economic Approach”), Leal Londo~no and
Medina explore free walking tours as a manifestation of collaborative economy in
tourism, and they pay particular attention to way in which these companies are
embedded in traditional capitalist models of tourism production and consumption.
In the chapter “Airbnb: Turning the Collaborative Economy into a Collaborative
Society”, O’Regan and Choe ask why critical questions are not being raised about
the collaborative economy, and they explore what the authors consider to be an
unbalanced, short-term and ahistorical rhetoric fostered by collaborative economy
evangelists. Richards opens up a discussion of the collaborative economy and
tourism from a geographical perspective in the chapter “Sharing the New Localities
of Tourism”. In this chapter, the way that the collaborative economy is contributing
to the co-creation of tourism spaces and contributing to the restructuring of tourist
cities is examined. In the chapter “Working Life in the Collaborative Tourism
Economy”, Meged and Christensen explore how workers in the collaborative
tourism economy craft meaning and identity in work and discuss transformations
Collaborative Economy and Tourism 11

in the established labor market induced by the collaborative economy. Day then
draws our attention to the impact of the collaborative economy on destination
management organisations (see “Collaborative Economy and Destination Market-
ing Organisations: A Systems Approach”) identifying key challenges for the future.
Part III examines the encounters and communities in collaborative economy and
tourism. In the chapter “Embedding Social Values in Tourism Management: Com-
munity Currencies as Laboratories of Social Entrepreneurship?”, Cannas takes us to
Sardinia. She explores the Sardex mutual credit system and its role and value in
tourism. From Sardinia we travel to Iceland where Jóhannesson and Lund (see
“Improvising Economy: Everyday Encounters and Tourism Consumption”)
explore an improvised collaborative encounter in the Icelandic Museum of Sorcery
and Witchcraft. In the process they open up the notion of collaboration and how
collaborative encounters affect the growth of tourism economies. Hardy (see
“Community and Connection: Exploring the Outcomes of the Collaborative Econ-
omy Through Recreational Vehicle Use”) continues along these lines by exploring
the tribal characteristics of collaborative encounters of RVers drawing attention to
the importance of non-monetised transactions in the collaborative economy. In
“Collaborative Consumption in Tourism in Latin America: The Case of Brazil,
Mexico, Argentina, Columbia and Chile”, Clausen and Velázquez challenge our
understanding of the collaborative economy in the Global North. They frame the
collaborative economy as an extension of historical economic models in Latin
America and argue that understandings of collaborative phenomena are currently
limited by its framing in post-industrial societies. In the last chapter in this Part,
Pesonen and Tussyadiah (see “Peer-to-Peer Accommodation: Drivers and User
Profiles”) return to the digital collaborative economy, offering insights into the
users and non-users of P2P accommodation services and how they differ from each
other in terms of the personal and behavioural factors.
The insights and understandings of these chapters contribute to an unravelling of
a collaborative economy landscape that extends well beyond the current and
relatively narrow discussion of the digital collaborative economy and the dominant
extractive models that we are familiar with. In the final chapter, (see “New
Frontiers”), Dredge and Gyimóthy identify and confront these challenges offering
insights into the myths previously identified and a research agenda for the future.

References

Anderson-Gough, F., & Hoskins, K. (2005). What is it to be post-disciplinary? The dirty business
of translation. In Critical policy studies—Enacting critical management: Integration of the
critical and the technical. University of Cambridge. Accessed June 8, 2016, from http://doi.
org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity.
Bauwens, M. (2005). 1000 days of theory—The political economy of peer production. cTheory,
12/1/2005. Accessed June 8, 2016, from www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id¼499
12 D. Dredge and S. Gyimóthy

Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and
aesthetics in the modern social order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 715–734.
Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online.
Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595–1600.
Botsman, R. (2013). The sharing economy lacks a shared definition. Accessed May 21, 2016, from
https://www.fastcoexist.com/3022028/the-sharing-economy-lacks-a-shared-definition#4
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2011). What’s mine is yours: How collaborative consumption is
changing the way we live. New York: Collins.
Dredge, D., & Gyimóthy, S. (2015). The collaborative economy and tourism: Critical perspectives,
questionable claims and silenced voices. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(3), 286–302.
doi:10.1080/02508281.2015.1086076.
Dredge, D., Gyimóthy, S., Birkbak, A., Jensen, T. E., & Madsen, A. K. (2016). The impact of
regulatory approaches targeting collaborative economy in the tourism accommodation sector:
Barcelona, Berlin, Amsterdam and Paris. Impulse Paper No.9. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission. (2016). A European agenda for the collaborative economy. Brussels:
European Commission.
Fuller, D., & Kitchin, R. (2004). Radical theory/critical praxis: Making a difference beyond the
academy? Vernon, BC: Praxis (e)Press.
Gansky, L. (2010). The mesh: Why the future of business is sharing. New York: Penguin Books.
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gyimóthy, S., & Dredge, D. (2017). Definitions and mapping the landscape in the collaborative eco-
nomy. In D. Dredge & S. Gyimóthy (Eds.), Collaborative economy and tourism: Perspectives,
politics, policies and prospects. Cham: Springer.
Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harvey, D. (1996). On planning the ideology of planning. In S. Campbell & S. Fainstein (Eds.),
Readings in planning theory (pp. 176–197). Cambridge: Blackwell.
Healy, S. (2009). Alternative economies. In R. Kitchin & N. Thrift (Eds.), International encyclo-
pedia of human geography. (online) (pp. 338–344).
Kostakis, V., & Bauwens, M. (2014). Network society and future scenarios for a collaborative eco-
nomy. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Owyang, J., Samuel, A., & Grenville, A. (2014). Sharing is the new buying: How to win in the
collaborative economy. Accessed November 28, 2015, from http://tms.visioncritical.com/sites/
default/files/pdf/sharing-new-buying-collaborative-economy-report.pdf
Rifkin, J. (2014). The zero marginal cost society: The internet of things, the collaborative commons,
and the eclipse of capitalism. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Rittel, W., & Weber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2),
155–169.
Scholz, T. (2014). The politics of the sharing economy. Accessed November 27, 2015, from
http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/the-politics-of-the-sharing-economy
Scholz, T. (2016). Platform cooperativism: Challenging the corporate sharing economy.
New York: Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung.
Stokes, K., Clarence, E., & Rinne, A. (2014). Making sense of the UK collaborative economy.
London: Nesta. Accessed May 5, 2015, from http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/making-
sense-uk-collaborative-economy
 Part I
Theoretical Explorations
Definitions and Mapping the Landscape
in the Collaborative Economy

Szilvia Gyimóthy and Dianne Dredge

Abstract This chapter examines definitions of the collaborative economy and

maps out the landscape of collaborative economy in tourism. We cast a wide and
inclusive net, acknowledging that the collaborative economy is found in the inter-
section of two words: “collaborative” and “economy”. Any attempt to narrow its
definition to digitally-mediated, monetised transactions limits the potential under-
standings that we may develop about this phenomenon. We argue that the collab-
orative economy involves collaboration through which there is an exchange of
resources, assets or services. By corollary, researchers should pay attention to the
properties of that exchange, the relational qualities of the actors directly and
indirectly involved, and the social, economic, political and environmental factors
that influence that exchange.

Keywords Collaborative Economy • Collaborative Consumption • Tourism •

Critical Studies • Sharing • Key Terms

1 What’s in a Term?

Sharing economy. Gift economy. Gig economy. Access economy. On-demand

economy. We-conomy. The collaborative economy is known by many names,
all of which are attempts to capture or accentuate different features (Belk, 2014a,
2014b; Dredge & Gyimóthy, 2015). In this chapter, we call it the collaborative
economy, but in doing so we are keen not to limit the full array of understandings
that might inductively emerge from the following chapters. Moreover, it is impor-
tant to understand this phenomenon in context, since the digital collaborative
economy has burst upon our consciousness in the last decade as a new, disruptive
and innovative development and, in the process, obscured the very important
on-going work of, for example, the commons or community economy. It has
demanded our attention in social media, in urban politics, in our consumer choices,

S. Gyimóthy (*) • D. Dredge

Department of Culture and Global Studies, Aalborg University, A.C. Meyers Vænge 15,
Copenhagen 2450, Denmark
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 15

D. Dredge, S. Gyimóthy (eds.), Collaborative Economy and Tourism,
Tourism on the Verge, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-51799-5_2
16 S. Gyimóthy and D. Dredge

and now, in our research. But what is in a name? And why might it be important to
consider its meaning in a deeper way? These are the central questions of this
chapter, which help us to lay the foundation for the remainder of this book. In
answering these questions, it is important to acknowledge that it is not, as some
believe, a new development, and so it is here we begin.
Sharing, gift and barter economies have always existed in closely-knit commu-
nities. Anthropologists, ethnologists and sociologists have studied these collabora-
tive transactions for centuries, drawing attention to the multiple motivations,
interests and agendas that underpin these transactions (Belk, 2010; Mauss, 1922/
1990; Rehn, 2014). In these explorations, excavating what “collaboration” means
has been key, and has been linked to aspects such as community capital building,
social cohesion and informal social welfare systems. In the last 10 years, the digital
collaborative economy has usurped our attention. Social and economic conditions
have fed the growth of mobile technologies and access to the Internet has allowed
access to products and services at unparalleled scales. The digital collaborative
economy, epitomised by platform capitalists such as Airbnb and Uber, have drawn
our attention, and in the process, a “new” economic activity known as the collab-
orative economy has emerged (Botsman & Rogers, 2011; Gansky, 2010). The rise
of this new collaborative economy has prompted Time magazine to claim it as one
of the top ten ideas to change the world (Walsh, 2011).
Taking into account these historical threads, this chapter examines definitions
and key terms. In doing so we seek to cast a wide net, to be inclusive, and to
acknowledge that the collaborative economy is in fact, the intersection of two
words: “collaborative” and “economy” and that attempts to narrow its definition
to digitally-mediated, monetised transactions limits the potential understandings we
may develop about this phenomenon. Our approach is to acknowledge that the
collaborative economy involves collaboration through which there is an exchange
of resources, assets or services. Transactions may be monetised or non-monetised
and may take place for a variety of motivations ranging from very utilitarian “You
have what I want or need” commercial transactions to communitarian “I give, swap
or share because I want to help my community for a better world” exchanges. There
are both individual and collective dimensions to these transactions. The character-
istics of exchange, the relational qualities of actors, and any contextual influences
are relevant grounds for the explorations contained in this book.

2 Key Terms and Definitions

2.1 Historical Roots

In anthropological studies, sharing can be traced back to historical concepts such as

gift, exchange or barter economies. Sharing and gift-giving within family, close kin
and friends are often characterised by non-monetary exchanges between people
Definitions and Mapping the Landscape in the Collaborative Economy 17

who know each other. Barter systems have existed and shaped society since
prehistoric times, and cultural anthropologists have studied the cultural norms
and conventions governing them for over a century (Derrida, 1992; Humphrey,
1985; Mauss, 1922/1990). Belk (2007) and other social anthropologists have
theorised the social and cultural features of sharing, defining it succinctly as
“nonreciprocal, pro-social behaviour” (Frey & Meier in Benkler, 2004, p. 275).
The altruistic act of sharing serves a social purpose: to forge and reinforce social
bonds between individual members of a group or community. Sharing encapsulates
the collective use or consumption of commodities without compensation or perma-
nent transfer of ownership. In contrast, gift giving, swapping and bartering rely on
reciprocity and permanent transfer ownership where no monetary transaction is
involved. In these exchanges, relationships between giver and receiver are gener-
ally founded on mutual trust, intimacy, empathy, care or other relations of
proximity.
Contemporary sharing economy phenomena differ significantly from the types
of exchange defined above. They increasingly, but not always, involve interactions
among strangers and transcend a geographically defined community. Exchange is
most often monetised, systematised in a business model, and facilitated by tech-
nology. In recent conceptualisations, the exchange of services has also been added
to the array of goods being shared. The first generation of faux sharing commercial
ventures (a term coined by Belk, 2014a) emerged in the 1980s. For instance,
Michael Linton developed the Local Exchange Trading System (LETS) to facilitate
the exchange of in-kind services within members of a small community in British
Columbia (Linton, 1984). With the advent of the Internet and the social technolo-
gies of Web 2.0, the opportunities to liaise on a global scale have multiplied. Lisa
Gansky labelled digital interconnectedness ‘the mesh’ (Gansky, 2010), emphasising
the variety of new, peer-to-peer (P2P) distribution platforms to access goods and
services. In tourism these include couchsurfing, house-swapping, dinner sharing,
ridesharing and others.
Twentieth-century consumer cultures have developed along the credo ‘you are
what you own’ (Belk, 1988). Hence, consumable possessions have been considered
significant accessories of identity construction, an observation also made within
tourism studies (Holstein & Gubrium, 2000; Wearing & Wearing, 1996; Welk,
2004). However, contemporary consumer narratives are less frequently framed
around the ownership of consumables and enduring goods. Jeremy Rifkin (2000)
claims in his influential book, The Age of Access, that temporary access to posses-
sions is becoming increasingly more important than ownership. As technological
platforms enable zero-threshold, real time access to a range of experience economy
commodities (e.g. music, films, books), the worth of identity-forming possessions
becomes obsolete. Such access-based economy business models are becoming
attractive innovation opportunities within tourism and the hospitality industry,
exemplified by timeshare and office-on-demand concepts in urban hotels. Intangi-
ble tourist experiences, such as local guided tours or dining experiences with locals,
are also examples. Common to these collaborative concepts is that they are facil-
itated by matchmaker intermediaries (e.g. Airbnb, Wimdu, VRBO, etc) and can be
18 S. Gyimóthy and D. Dredge

thus characterised as market-mediated access (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012) rather

than auto-mediated peer-to-peer exchanges orchestrated by individuals between
other individuals. However, given the rapid rise and worldwide dispersal of market-
mediated digital platforms, there is no widespread agreement on a single
terminology.
On a slightly different note, the strategic management and marketing literature
has also addressed the shift from production to service societies, reconceptualising
the market as an interaction platform (Normann & Ramirez, 1993; Prahalad &
Ramaswamy, 2004). This conceptualisation acknowledges the rise of dialogic and
collaborative value co-creation between firms and customers. Service marketers
even go so far as to claim a paradigm shift away from utilitarian logic of transaction
exchange towards a new, service-dominant logic (Lusch & Vargo, 2006; Vargo &
Lusch, 2004). This perspective upgrades (depicted earlier as passive) customers to a
more active role, highlighting their significance as repositories of intangible
resources such as knowledge, skills and competences. Although these thoughts
bring important conceptual advances in regards to highlighting interactive value
constellations in collaborative economy, the kernel of value creation is still
theorised as a market relationship (i.e. the provider-customer dyad), which neglects
other collaborative formats.

2.2 Reincarnations and Innovations in Terms

The term “collaborative consumption” was first coined by Felson and Spaeth (1978)
who were interested in studies of joint and social consumption activities such as
collaboratively buying a pitcher of beer as a more effective option than purchasing
individual glasses. Published 20 years before the Internet, understandably there was
no explicit focus on intermediation or technological platforms in their work.
Botsman and Rogers (2011) appropriated and re-interpreted the term to include
both auto-mediated and market-mediated monetised ‘sharing, bartering, lending,
trading, gifting and swapping activities’. For Botsman, collaborative consumption
represents a superior and enlightened economy: “a system activating the untapped
resources of assets through models and marketplaces that enable greater efficiency
and access” (ibid, p. 24). Belk (2014b, p. 1597) finds this to be a “mis-specified” use
of the term because “it is too broad and mixes marketplace exchange, gift-giving,
and sharing”. Indeed, some forms of collaborative consumption such as
couchsurfing do not involve monetised transactions and explicitly forbid
it. Instead, Belk offers an inclusive definition: “people coordinating the acquisition
and distribution of a resource for a fee or other compensation” (Belk, 2014b,
p. 1597). Such a definition, he argues, is superior because it incorporates both
monetised exchange and sharing. So, even in its short life, these definitional debates
illustrate that the term is already embedded with multiple meanings, and has been
distanced from Felson and Spaeth’s original conceptualisation. More recently, a
new term collaborative economy (subsequently used in this book) has gained
Definitions and Mapping the Landscape in the Collaborative Economy 19

momentum in an effort to recognise that these collaborative constellations also

extend beyond consumption “to make better use of skills, goods and other useful
things” (Stokes et al., 2014, p. 10).

2.3 A Genealogy of Definitions

Our explorations reveal much about the purposes for which definitions are devel-
oped, and, by corollary, their strengths and limitations. Genealogic investigations
reveal not less than 18 terms related to the sharing economy. These terms often
frame the sharing economy as a hybrid, digitally facilitated, alternative economic
model embedded in (or rediscovering) deep-rooted cultural, moral and ecological
rationales. Different conceptualisations take their point of departure in human
ecology, computer science and neoclassic microeconomics, anthropology, post-
modern sociology, philosophy, politics and cultural theory. As such, collaborative
economy metaphors are formulated along and unite previously incompatible ideas.
For example:
1. Models of economic systems combine social concepts using terms such as
circuit, regime, networks, ties, transactions and relationships.
2. Economic transactions have been combined with cultural and moral perspectives
to derive terms such as lifestyle micro-entrepreneurship, connected consumption
and moral economy.
3. Ideas of efficiency and enhanced value creation are combined in terms such as
zero marginal costs, full interconnectedness, direct exchange, optimised capac-
ity use and the recirculation of idling resources.
Table 1 lists these terms and identifies the various streams of authorship and
disciplinary inspirations that have contributed to their development. It is notewor-
thy to mention that most recent conceptualisations are postdisciplinary in nature—
bridging, crossing and moving beyond classic scientific disciplinary boundaries.
These discussions reveal that definitions struggle to capture aspects such as
technology-facilitated transactions, the nature of relationships beyond the immedi-
ate exchange, the temporary sharing or pooling of resources, and so
on. Conceptualisations are primarily directed at connecting historical lines of
thought, or to reflect business logics including digital intermediation and intercon-
nectedness, temporary access and exchange of possessions, and the effective
mobilisation of idle resources. Underlying the discourse is also an unquestioned
neoclassic notion of “perfect markets”, where full and complete information is
available to both providers and consumers are well informed, monopolies do not
exist and prices are not manipulated. This perfect market, we know, does not exist
(Koopman, Mitchell, & Thierer, 2014; Mason, 2015). Instead, complex, contested
and asymmetry-ridden relationships among actors (i.e. producers, consumers,
20 S. Gyimóthy and D. Dredge

Table 1 A chronological illustration of the genealogy of the concept of the sharing economy
Term Author Definition Metaphor
Human Hawley (1950) Human populations organise Ecosystem (biology)
ecology Human Ecology: A themselves in communities
Theory of Community (symbiotic and
Structure commensalistic relationships)
to adapt to their environment.
Joint and coordinated per-
formance to gain sustenance
Collaborative Felson and Spaeth “Actors of collaborative con- Community (sociol-
consumption (1978) Adapting the sumption [are] events in ogy, human ecology,
ideas of Hawley to which one or more persons consumer
consumer behaviour consume economic goods or behaviour)
services in the process of
engaging in joint activities
with one or more others”
(Felson & Spaeth, 1978,
p. 614)
Access Rifkin (2000) The Property regimes have Transaction
economy Age of Access: A New changed to access regimes exchange (neoclas-
Culture of characterised by short-term sical
Hypercapitalism limited use of assets con- microeconomics)
trolled by networks of
suppliers
Moral Bauman (2003) Liq- “A community, Culturally embed-
economy uid Love and Human neighbourhood, circle of ded human/ist coex-
Bonds friends, partners in life and istence (postmodern
partners for life [. . .] fellows sociology)
in the on-going, never-ending
joint effort of shared life
building and making shared
life liveable” (Bauman, 2003,
p. 70)
Social sharing Benkler (2004) Shar- Sharing is nonreciprocal pro- Transactional
ing Nicely: On social behaviour. [. . .] Social exchange (neoclas-
Shareable Goods and sharing and exchange is sical
the Emergence of becoming a common modal- microeconomics)
Sharing as a Modality ity of producing valuable
of Economic desiderata at the very core of
Production the most advanced econo-
mies—in information, cul-
ture, education, computation,
and communications sectors
(Benkler, 2004, p. 278)
Alternative Gibson-Graham Envisions, politicises and Post-capitalist social
post-capitalist (2006) A post- enacts economic transforma- movement (marxist
economies capitalist politics and tion by empowering placed- inspired alternative
Take back the econ- based community economies)
omy Gibson-Graham, approaches to unlocking
Cameron, and Healy diverse economies
(2013)
(continued)
Definitions and Mapping the Landscape in the Collaborative Economy 21

Table 1 (continued)
Term Author Definition Metaphor
Collaborative Botsman and Rogers A system activating the Circular system
consumption (2011) What’s Mine untapped value of assets (neoclassical micro-
v. 2.0 Is Yours: How Col- through models and market- economics, systems
laborative Consump- places that enable greater theory)
tion is Changing the efficiency and access
Way We Live (Botsman, 2014b, p. 24)
Collaborative Botsman and Rogers Collaborative Lifestyles: Lifestyle (cultural
lifestyles (ibid.) Adapting the “people with similar interests theory)
ideas of Felson and are banding together to share
Spaeth (1978) and and exchange less tangible
Rifkin (2000) assets such as time, space,
skills, and money” (Botsman
& Rogers, 2011, p. 73)
The Mesh (aka Gansky (2010) Why Digital technologies of Web Mesh ¼ highly
the sharing the Future of Busi- 2.0 provide full interconnec- interconnected net-
society) ness is Sharing? tedness among people to work of computers
access and distribute goods (computing science)
and services at the exact
moment they need them,
without the burden and
expense of owning them
Circuits of Zelizer (2010) Circuits are social transac- Transactional cir-
commerce tions and [. . .] consist of cuits (neoclassical
dynamic, meaningful, inces- microeconomics)
santly negotiated interactions
among individuals, house-
holds, organisations, or other
social entities, [based on] dis-
tinctive media (for example,
legal tender or localised
tokens) and an array of
organised, differentiated
transfers (for example, gifts or
compensation)
Access-based Bardhi and Eckhardt Transactions that may be Market-mediated
consumption (2012) Adapting the market mediated in which no transactions (neo-
ideas of Jeremy transfer of ownership takes classical
Rifkin to P2P trans- place (Bardhi & Eckhardt, microeconomics)
port/carsharing 2012, p. 881)
Peer-to-peer Bauwens et al. (2012) P2P business models allow Exchange system
economy direct exchanges among peers (neoclassical
and entail a variety of plat- microeconomics)
forms on which citizens rent,
sell and share things without
the involvement of shops,
banks, agencies and other
intermediaries
(continued)
22 S. Gyimóthy and D. Dredge

Table 1 (continued)
Term Author Definition Metaphor
Moral econ- Germann Molz Based not on the exchange of Exchange system
omy (2013) Adapting the money but on cooperation (cultural economics)
(of alternative ideas of Bauman and generosity, shared goods
tourism) (2003) to P2P tourism and services, mutual help and
phenomena support a moral economy
e.g. Couchsurfing involves a far different kind
of exchange from the market
economy (Molz, 2013)
Sharing Belk (2007, 2010, Collaborative consumption is Economic model
vs. Pseudo- 2014a) Synthesises an economic model based on based on more-than-
sharing ideas from anthropol- sharing, swapping, trading, or economic, coordi-
ogy (gift giving and renting products and services nated transactions
sharing] with the pro- enabling access over owner- (cultural economy)
ponents of collabora- ship. [. . .] Coordinated
tive consumption acquisition and distribution
of a resource for a fee or
other compensation (Belk,
2014b, p. 1597)
Connected Schor and Connected Consumption is Culturally condi-
consumption Fitzmaurice (2015) based on a culture of access, tioned collaborative
Collaborating and use, and re-circulation of behaviour (cultural
Connecting: The used goods as alternatives to economy)
emergence of the traditional private ownership.
sharing economy (Schor & Fitzmaurice, 2015)
Collaborative Sigala (2015) Collaborative commerce cre- Collaborative value
commerce Adapting Huang and ates an exchange economy co-creation (neo-
Benyucef’s (2013) whereby customers become classic microeco-
ideas on social producers/suppliers and nomics, service
e-commerce sellers of their own travel marketing)
goods by negotiating and
bartering exchanges for trad-
ing these goods even without
having the use of money.
Such C2C transactions pro-
vide alternative travel goods
that can also enhance tourism
sustainability by generating
various forms of social value
(Sigala, 2015, p. 3)
Sharing Lessig (2008) Remix: The Sharing Economy is a Socio-economic
economy Making art and Com- socio-economic ecosystem system (human
merce Thrive in the [. . .] which embeds sharing ecology, microeco-
Hybrid Economy, and collaboration at its heart nomics, cultural
among others [. . .]. It includes the shared theory)
creation, production, distri-
bution, trade and consump-
tion of goods and services by
different people and orga-
nisations. (Matovska, 2015)
(continued)
Definitions and Mapping the Landscape in the Collaborative Economy 23

Table 1 (continued)
Term Author Definition Metaphor
Hybrid Rifkin (2015) The “The plummeting of marginal Digitally facilitated
economy Zero Marginal Cost costs is spawning a hybrid socio-economic sys-
Society: The Internet economy—part capitalist tem (human ecol-
of Things, the Col- market and part Collabora- ogy, microeconom-
laborative Commons, tive Commons—with far ics, cultural theory
and the Eclipse of reaching implications for and computing
Capitalism society. [. . .] In this new science)
world, social capital is as
important as financial capital,
access trumps ownership,
sustainability supersedes con-
sumerism, cooperation ousts
competition, and “exchange
value” in the capitalist mar-
ketplace is increasingly
replaced by “sharable value”
on the “Collaborative Com-
mons” (Rifkin, 2015, p. 2)

intermediaries, governments and civil society) are present but not acknowledged,
and there is no acknowledgement of fundamentally different rationales underpin-
ning collaboration.

2.4 Key Features

So what are we left with if we acknowledge all of these weaknesses and limitations
in current definitions? Our own view is that the these attempts at defining what we
are calling “the collaborative economy” are very useful in laying the groundwork
for research, particularly if we are critical to their strengths, weaknesses and
limitations. We acknowledge that, for some researchers, definitions are useful in
delimiting the scope of the phenomenon under investigation, but they can also limit
more complex postdisciplinary and poststructural understandings of practices that
can be deeply woven into economic and social life. To this end, we seek not to
define the collaborative economy in any schema that might limit our investigations
at the outset, but we are keen to raise attention to the following features that provide
a useful focus for research:
• The nature of the transaction itself such as the characteristics of the connections,
motivations for the transactions, the resources, assets, services exchanged, tools/
techniques of mediation and so on.
24 S. Gyimóthy and D. Dredge

• The relational characteristics of the actors involved in the exchange including,

for instance, the influence of ethics, emotions (trust, empathy, reciprocity,
mutuality, responsibility, solidarity, etc.); social factors (ties, bonds, reputation,
etc.); issues of power, equality and justice.
• The contextual factors that influence the exchange (social, economic, environ-
mental, political conditions).
• The impacts and consequences of the collaborative economy over time and
space on the self and other.

3 Mapping the Landscape of Collaborative Economy

and Tourism

3.1 Extent of Collaborative Economy in Tourism

Tourism has traditionally been framed as an industry, and governments have

commonly responded with a range of neoliberal industry policy measures aimed
at boosting investment, increasing competitiveness, marketing and promotion to
increase consumer awareness, and reducing barriers to growth (Dredge & Jenkins,
2007; Halkier, 2010). However, growing concerns over environmental impacts,
resource depletion, climate change, poverty, and regular and persistent financial
crises have prompted calls for alternative socio-political models of tourism that can
more effectively address sustainable development (Burns & Bibbings, 2009;
Mosedale, 2012). It is within this ideological space that the collaborative economy
has gained momentum in tourism. Figure 1 shows the potential extent of collabo-
rative opportunities in tourism from the consumer’s perspective, and identifies
examples in food, travel services, health and wellness, currency exchange, travel
companions and support, accommodation and work space, transport and education.

3.2 Enabling Conditions

There are a number of broad societal conditions that have fed the rise of the
collaborative economy. This growth has predominantly been in commercial,
for-profit, extractive models of the collaborative economy in tourism and has
emerged as a response to several problems characterising late modern capitalism
in general, and the traditional tourism industrial system in particular. First, and
partially as a result of our consumption-oriented culture in Western societies,
redundancy is present in the form of dead capital, idling assets and latent expertise.
For example, empty apartments, rooms and couches, idle cars, bicycles and boats
can all now be accessed by visitors in a destination using the technology-mediated
Definitions and Mapping the Landscape in the Collaborative Economy 25

e.g. Airbnb, Houseswap,

OneFineStay, Windmu,
CouchSurfing, Flipkey,
Where can I stay?
Homeexchange, HomeAway,
Campinmy garden,
Roomarama

e.g. Upwork, Peerspace,

Workspace Seats2Meet, Sharedesk,
e.g. Kitchen Surfing, Eat with Breather
a local, Cookening, Where can I eat?
Where can I work?
MealSharing, Feastly

e.g. Chegg internships,

Temporary jobs
Jobbadical, WWOOFers
e.g. Rent-A-Suitcase,
BringWasMit, Peerby, Where can I get an item?
Spinlister
e.g. TaskRabbit, Taskangel,
Who looks after my place Homejoy, Airtasker,
while I'm away? Borrowmydoggie,
Dogvaycay

e.g. Groupon Getaways,

Where can I get travel
Vayable, Sidetour, Meetup,
products, tours, and
Palintown, Localaids, I Like
experiences?
Local, Destimundo TOURISM AND
e.g. Ubber, Lyft, Blabla Car,
COLLABORATIVE
Zipcar, Sidecar, Hailo,
ECONOMY Transport Services
Shuddle, Bridj, OlaCar,
GoMore,
Where can I get recreation,
e.g. Vint, Popexpert,
health, fitness and wellness
Juggernaut, Yoggabuddy
services?
e.g. RelayRides, Flightcar,
Loan Cars Scoot, Car2Go, DriveNow,

How can I get there/ get Flightcar

e.g. Cochange, We Swap around?

Where can I exchange cash?
Travel Money, CurrencyFair
e.g. Various city bikeshare
Bikes
programs

e.g. Wandermates,
e.g. Boatbound, Fun2Boat,
Outboundapp, travbuddy, Loan Boats
Where can I find a travel Boatsetter, Boatyard
yourlocalcousin,
companion and support?
TripTogether, Nanny in the
clouds
In situ personal
Where/what can I learn while
development, educational e.g. Popexpert, Meetup
I am there?
experiences

Fig. 1 The collaborative economy and tourism

platforms indicated in Fig. 1. Local expertise and knowledge idling in underem-

ployed workers can be monetised by offering guided tours, concierge services or
dining experiences with local hosts. According to protagonists, not only do these
idle assets add product diversity, but they can also provide local actors, once
previously excluded from the tourism economy, with the opportunity to generate
economic and/or other benefits. Such opportunities can fuel entrepreneurialism and
expand the scope of trade (Botsman, 2014a; Koopman et al., 2014).1
Second, in the existing tourism system, high transaction costs and distorted
information between market actors can reduce consumer trust and visitor satis-
faction, push up costs and inhibit repeat visitation. However, protagonists of the

1
This argument is much cited in the literature and rests on altruistic ideas about the motivations of
actors to address consumerism and “do good”. However, we feel compelled to offer a counter view
to this argument. Frictionless transactions at minimal or no cost in the collaborative economy have
created incentives for those with capital to invest. Investment properties and other goods are
purchased for the purpose of offering them in the collaborative economy on a commercial basis.
Not only does this allow the provider to bypass normal regulatory processes (e.g. land use
planning, consumer protections, etc.) but lower transaction costs make the product or service
highly competitive especially in price-sensitive markets. Thus, incentives exist for commercial
motives to be foregrounded and collaborative/sharing motives become less important in the
market-mediated digital collaborative economy.
26 S. Gyimóthy and D. Dredge

collaborative economy in tourism posit that tools, such as peer-to-peer feedback

where both suppliers and consumers are rated, can build trust and facilitate
authentic host-visitor relations not achievable within traditional tourism systems.
It allows customers and providers to transact directly enabling idling resources to
be used, and it also minimises transaction costs. The ITB (2014, p. 27) explains:
“. . .they [intermediaries] are attractive because they offer lower prices, better
accessibility, ease of use and ‘a user-focused mission’ including transparency and
interactive communication”. This digital transparency and comparability of
offers/prices benefits consumers, and increases the availability of niche products
and specialised alternatives, including the return of ‘genuine’ cross-cultural
encounters (Yannopoulou, 2013).
Third, asymmetries of regulation have impeded innovation, allowed some pro-
ducers to capture and take advantage of regulations, and have restricted the entry of
new entrepreneurs and ideas into the marketplace (Koopman et al., 2014). For
instance, costs of insurance, accreditation, industry memberships, licenses and so
on are passed onto consumers and built into pricing structures. In the accommoda-
tion sector, products can be overregulated by bureaucratic quality control systems
and costly consumer and eco labelling. The result is an inhospitable hospitality
industry (Ritzer & Jurgenson, 2010). Mitchell (2014) explains further: “Uber is
successful because it isn’t a cartelized taxi company” and therefore it does not need
to pass on the costs of heavy and cumbersome regulation. Regulations have a way
of locking in the status quo and rendering innovation more difficult, whereas
collaboration based around digital platforms offers greater flexibility and access
to the marketplace.
Fourth, as discussed above, the preferences of the postmodern tourist extend
beyond the streamlined and impersonal experiences, services and products often
associated with the traditional tourism system. Consuming travel is intimately
bound to identity construction and narratives of authentic encounters with local
cultures. Driven by the ambition of deviating from the beaten track, new gener-
ations of travellers are converging on digital platforms to retrieve recommenda-
tions and information from fellow travellers and local residents, i.e. sources other
than traditional market intermediaries (ITB Berlin, 2014; World Travel Market,
2014), and to explore alternative experiences. Airbnb and other accommodation
platforms offer opportunities for guests to stay in treehouses, refurbished jumbo
jets, concrete drain pipes, vintage caravans and ski jumps, thereby meeting
postmodern demands.
Fifth, destination competition and innovation in the traditional tourism system
can be thwarted by difficulties in attracting capital investment or by what bankers
might consider “safe” investments. As Botsman (2014b) explains: “Airbnb’s model
is ‘asset light’; it does not need to build or own inventory, but instead facilities
access to existing assets, such as spare rooms, holiday houses, entire islands or
treehouses”. In this way, the collaborative economy offers a way of overcoming
barriers to innovation, investment and product diversity.
Definitions and Mapping the Landscape in the Collaborative Economy 27

3.3 Extractive Versus Generative Collaborative Models

The market-mediated digital collaborative economy has taken hold relatively

quickly as a result of these enabling conditions and, as will be discussed later, a
wide range of models has emerged (see Gyimóthy’s chapter “Business Models of
the Collaborative Economy”). However, it is important to note in our broader
mapping of the collaborative economy in tourism that these enabling conditions
have predominantly empowered extractive models of collaborative economy over
commons-based, communitarian or generative models.
In extractive models, for-profit platform capitalists extract on average 15% of
the value created by providers and distribute it back to themselves and their
investors. Bauwens (2005) has argued that this redistribution of wealth makes the
rich richer and makes market-mediated matchmaker collaborative economy plat-
forms nothing more than traditional capitalism. He argues for a generative com-
mons model of the collaborative economy where the collective of hosts and service
providers benefit from reinvestment and there is no redistribution of wealth away
from the collective. In tourism, such models have not yet emerged that we are aware
of, but may provide an opportunity in the future (Dredge, Gyimóthy, Birkbak,
Jensen, & Madsen, 2016).
In the absence of alternative collaborative economy models, the extractive
model epitomised by Airbnb, Wimdu, VRBO and others continues to hurtle for-
ward with some estimating that the collaborative economy now accounts for
approximately 40% of the overall world outbound accommodation market (ITB
Berlin, 2014). However, we know little about its wider impacts on local, regional
and national economies and whether (or how) it might lead to the restructuring of
tourism systems. We know even less about how it will it affect citizens and
communities in different geographical settings, or how it will transform guest-
host relationships. These questions provide the stimulus for the research in subse-
quent chapters.

4 Conclusions

There is no doubt that the collaborative economy is full of contradictions. The

collaborative economy is linked to the past but is innovative and disruptive in the
present and future. It is deeply individualistic and personalised, yet global in its
reach and local in its consequences. To date, research efforts examining the
collaborative economy have predominantly focused on its effects and uptake in
the marketplace, its influences and consequences for certain stakeholders, the range
and potential impacts of policy responses, and on various sectors and market
segments. Some impacts, such as those associated with Uber and Airbnb, have
dominated much of the discussion and certain agendas and interests have tended to
28 S. Gyimóthy and D. Dredge

frame research (Dredge & Gyimóthy, 2015). Indeed, the collaborative economy is
also much wider, more complex and involves a greater diversity of models than
those models discussed above.
In tourism, investigations into the characteristics, impacts and consequences of
the collaborative economy have only just started to emerge. These investigations
need to take into account the broad range of definitions and interpretations available
instead of jumping to conclusions that it is only a market-mediated digital platform
phenomenon. To date, there has been a tendency to focus on a few collaborative
economy platforms and business models, and research has only scratched the
surface of the very complex and interconnected socio-political and economic
characteristics of collaborative economy. Our interest is to explore the collaborative
economy as it unfolds in different contexts, at different global to local scales, and to
apply a range of theoretical and contextual lenses to better understand this phe-
nomenon. We seek to challenge the notion that the extractive models of platform
capitalism are the only possible models of collaborative economy. Our position
instead is that the collaborative economy involves a range of transactions, is
underpinned by different motivations, that various forms of collaboration are
present, and not all are monetised. We also call attention to the need for more
research examining the deep structural changes in the economy that are associated
with collaborative economy, and the need to examine the range of new
organisational and business models and practices that are uprooting traditional
modes of operation.

Acknowledgement Some sections of this chapter have been inspired by Dredge, D. and
Gyimóthy, S. (2015). The collaborative economy and tourism: Critical perspectives, questionable
claims and silenced voices, Tourism Recreation Research, 40(3), 286–302.

References

Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing. Journal
of Consumer Research, 39(December), 881–898.
Bauman, Z. (2003). Liquid love: On the frailty of human bonds. Cambridge: Polity.
Bauwens, M. (2005). 1000 days of theory—The political economy of peer production. cTheory,
12/1/2005. Accessed May 21, 2016, from www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id¼499
Bauwens, M., Mendoza, N., & Iacomella A. (2012). Synthetic overview of the collaborative
economy. Report by Orange Labs and P2P Foundation. Retrieved from http://p2p.coop/files/
reports/collaborative-economy-2012.pdf
Belk, R. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Studies, 15, 139–168.
Belk, R. (2007). Why not share rather than own? The ANNALS of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 611(1), 126–140.
Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 715–734.
Belk, R. (2014a). Sharing versus pseudo-sharing in web 2.0. Anthropologist, 18(1), 7–23.
Belk, R. (2014b). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online.
Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595–1600.
Benkler, Y. (2004). Sharing nicely: On shareable goods and the emergence of sharing as a
modality of economic production. The Yale Law Journal, 114, 237–358.
Definitions and Mapping the Landscape in the Collaborative Economy 29

Botsman, R. (2014a). Collaborative economy services: Changing the way we travel. Accessed
May 9, 2015, from http://www.collaborativeconsumption.com/2014/06/25/collaborative-econ
omy-services-changing-the-way-we-travel/
Botsman, R. (2014b). Sharing is not just for startups. Harvard Business Review, 92(3), 23–26.
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2011). What’s mine is yours: How collaborative consumption is
changing the way we live. New York: Collins.
Burns, P. M., & Bibbings, L. J. (2009). The end of tourism? Climate change and societal changes.
Journal of the Academy of Social Sciences, 4(1), 31–51.
Derrida, J. (1992). Given time I. Counterfeit money. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dredge, D., & Gyimóthy, S. (2015). The collaborative economy and tourism: Critical perspectives,
questionable claims and silenced voices. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(3), 286–302.
Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (2007). Tourism policy and planning. Brisbane: Wiley.
Dredge, D., Gyimóthy, S., Birkbak, A., Jensen, T. E., & Madsen, A. K. (2016). The impact of
regulatory approaches targeting collaborative economy in the tourism accommodation sector:
Barcelona, Berlin, Amsterdam and Paris. Impulse Paper No. 9. Brussels: European
Commission.
Felson, M., & Spaeth, J. L. (1978). Community structure and collaborative consumption: A routine
activity approach. American Behavioral Scientist, 21(4), 614–624.
Gansky, L. (2010). The mesh: Why the future of business is sharing. New York: Penguin Books.
Germann Molz, J. (2013). Social networking technologies and the moral economy of alternative
tourism: The case of couchsurfing.org. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 210–230.
Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2006). A postcapitalist politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Gibson-Graham, J. K., Cameron, J., & Healy, S. (2013). Taking back the economy: An ethical
guide for transforming communities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Halkier, H. (2010). EU and tourism development: Bark or bite? Scandinavian Journal of Hospi-
tality and Tourism, 10(2), 92–106.
Hawley, A. (1950). Human ecology: A theory of community structure. New York: Ronald Press.
Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2000). The self we live by: Narrative identity in a postmodern
world. New York: Oxford University Press.
Huang, Z., & Benyoucef, M. (2013). From e-commerce to social commerce: A close look at design
features. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12(4), 246–259.
Humphrey, C. (1985). Barter and economic disintegration. Man, 20, 48–72.
ITB Berlin. (2014). ITB world travel trends report 2014/2015. Berlin: Messe Berlin GmbH.
Koopman, C., Mitchell, M., & Thierer, A. (2014). The sharing economy and consumer protection
regulation: The case for policy change. Arlington: George Mason University.
Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy. NewYork:
Penguin.
Linton, M. (1984). The LETsystem: A local currency that works. In Context, 7. Accessed May
21, 2016, from http://www.context.org/iclib/ic07/linton/
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate, and
directions. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.
Mason, P. (2015). Airbnb and Uber’s sharing economy is one route to dotcommunism. Accessed
May 21, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/21/airbnb-uber-
sharing-economy-dotcommunism-economy
Mauss, M. (1922/1990). The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. London:
Routledge.
Matovska, B. (2015). What is the sharing economy. Retrieved from http://www.
thepeoplewhoshare.com/blog/what-is-the-sharing-economy/
Mitchell, M. (2014). The sharing economy. Accessed May 5, 2015, from http://
neighborhoodeffects.mercatus.org/2014/09/30/the-sharing-economy/
30 S. Gyimóthy and D. Dredge

Mosedale, J. (2012). Diverse economies and alternative economic practices in tourism. In

I. Ateljevic, N. Morgan, & A. Pritchard (Eds.), The critical turn in tourism studies: Creating
an academy of hope (pp. 194–207). London: Routledge.
Normann, R., & Ramirez, R. (1993). Designing interactive strategy. Harvard Business Review, 71
(4), 65–77.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value
creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14.
Rehn, A. (2014). Gifts, gifting and gift economies: On challenging capitalism with blood, plunder
and necklaces. In M. Parker, G. Cheney, V. Fournier, & C. Land (Eds.), The routledge
companion to alternative organization (pp. 195–209). London: Routledge.
Rifkin, J. (2000). The age of access: The new culture of hypercapitalism, where all of life is a
paidfor experience. New York: Putman.
Rifkin, J. (2015). The zero marginal cost society: The Internet of things, the collaborative
commons, and the eclipse of capitalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, consumption, prosumption: The nature of capi-
talism in the age of the digital “prosumer”. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(1), 13–36.
Schor, J. B., & Fitzmaurice, C. J. (2015). Collaborating and connecting: The emergence of the
sharing economy. In L. Reisch & J. Thogersen (Eds.), Handbook on research on sustainable
consumption (pp. 410–425). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Sigala, M. (2015). Collaborative commerce in tourism: Implications for research and industry.
Current Issues in Tourism, 20(4), 346–355. doi:10.1080/13683500.2014.982522.
Stokes, K., Clarence, E., & Rinne, A. (2014). Making sense of the UK collaborative economy.
London: Nesta. Retrieved from http://www.nesta.org.uk/
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 68, 1–17.
Walsh, B. (2011). 10 ideas that will change the world. Time Magazine. Accessed March
14, 2015, from http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2059521_
2059717_2059710,00.html
Wearing, B., & Wearing, S. (1996). Refocussing the tourist experience: The flaneur and the
choraster. Leisure Studies, 15(4), 229–243.
Welk, P. (2004). The beaten track: Anti tourism as an element of backpacker identity construction.
In G. Richards & J. Wilson (Eds.), The global nomad. Backpacker travel in theory and practice
(pp. 77–91). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
World Travel Market. (2014). World travel market global trends report 2014. Berlin: ITB.
Yannopoulou, N. (2013). User-generated brands and social media: Couchsurfing and Airbnb.
Contemporary Management Research, 9(1), 85–90.
Zelizer, V. A. (2010). Economic lives: How culture shapes the economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Business Models of the Collaborative
Economy

Szilvia Gyimóthy

Abstract Collaborative business models are often equated with disruptive com-
mercial endeavors, epitomised by a handful large global sharing platforms. They
represent a certain archetype of business model, extracting profit from market-
mediated peer exchanges. A narrow focus on for-profit models obstructs coming to
terms with the full scope of the collaborative economy phenomena, driven by
purposes and actors beyond commercial market domains. This chapter attempts
to broaden this perspective by reviewing alternative value creation mechanisms and
presents emerging business model archetypes.

Keywords Collaborative economy • Business models • Value creation • Value

platforms • Communitarian business model • Profit extractive business model •
Collaborative lifestyles • Place based cooperatives

1 Introduction

Airbnb. Vayable. Getmyboat. OffWeFly. EatWith. Gearshare. Travelbuddy. Col-

laborative business models are becoming attractive within tourism, encompassing a
wide range of digitalised platforms where people can share or swap tangible
resources, services, expertise and experiences. A wide range of assets are made
accessible to meet the needs and demands of potential tourists, opening up collab-
oration on multiple levels and networks. Collaborative platforms tap into the
capacities of peer travellers and local community members simultaneously. They
are empowered (or involuntarily made) to play new roles and take responsibilities
previously carried out by commercial and public actors. Consumers become part-
time marketers, intermediaries and quality supervisors. Citizens undertake the role
of part-time destination ambassadors and suppliers of a range of tourism products
and services. Take the example of free guided tours in metropolitan cities, which
are often run by self-employed expats, bypassing not only industrial operators, but

S. Gyimóthy (*)
Department of Culture and Global Studies, Aalborg University, A.C. Meyers Vænge 15,
Copenhagen 2450, Denmark
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 31

D. Dredge, S. Gyimóthy (eds.), Collaborative Economy and Tourism,
Tourism on the Verge, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-51799-5_3
32 S. Gyimóthy

also local regulative and control systems (addressed by Meged & Dissing, 2017;
Leal Londo~ no & Medina, 2017). Nevertheless, the business model of free guided
tours is fundamentally different from that of rideshare and peer accommodation
rental, not only in terms of purpose, alternative recruitment and distribution sys-
tems, but also in terms of the benefits and impact they generate.
It is important to acknowledge the diversity of value creating objectives, mech-
anisms and the disruptive scope of various collaborative phenomena. In order to
provide a clear understanding of the different types business models that co-exist in
the collaborative economy, this chapter contributes threefold. First, it condenses the
main tenets of the business model literature; second, it reviews early attempts to
categorise collaborative and sharing business models and; third, based on these, it
identifies generic criteria along which we can distinguish collaborative business
endeavours in tourism.

2 Business Models and Value Creating Mechanisms

Since the turn of the millennium, the business model as a conceptual tool has
received increased attention in a range of subfields in management (strategy,
sustainable production, e-commerce, technology and innovation) and among prac-
titioners. The network school of strategic management enables us to rethink com-
petitive advantage and value perceptions along more porous firm boundaries and
dynamic capabilities. It has been acknowledged that value is not created autono-
mously by a firm, but rather in collaboration with other firms and market players
(Beattie & Smith, 2013; Zott, Amit, & Massa, 2011). Although definitions differ,
there is broad agreement that the business model is a new unit of analysis, distinct
from the product, firm, network or sector. By focusing on collaborative ties and
value co-creating activities between firms and their stakeholders, business model
analysis takes a holistic approach to explaining “how firms do business” (Zott &
Amit, 2010).
Business models capture the essence of a firm’s competitive strategy by defining
three key components; its value proposition (benefits offered to target segments), its
value creation mechanisms (resources, supplier and distribution channels and
partners) and value capture (cost structures and revenue models) (Osterwalder &
Pigneur, 2010). This framework enables us to take firm-level and system-level
perspectives simultaneously, and address firm performance both in terms of corpo-
rate strategic goals as well as its impacts on stakeholders, environment and society.
As such, a structured analysis of business purposes, value creation processes and
revenue streams may help to categorise novel concepts on the market into distinct
types of business models. For instance, by reviewing a multitude of cases on
sustainable innovation, Bocken, Short, Rana, and Evans (2014) developed eight
sustainable business model archetypes, entailing three technological, three social
and two organisational innovations. Archetypes capture the essence of the value
proposition, e.g. “maximize material and energy efficiency”, “create value from
Business Models of the Collaborative Economy 33

waste” or “deliver functionality rather than ownership” (ibid.). Some of these

archetypes are not operated by firms in the traditional sense, but rather through
new socio-economic arrangements, public-private partnerships and entrepreneurial
initiatives.

3 Early Categorisations of Collaborative Business Models

Developments in digital technologies and interactive communication platforms in

the past decade opened up fundamentally new ways to create and deliver value.
This has led to rapid expansion of new transaction architectures and unconventional
exchange mechanisms, for instance along the fusion of e-commerce and social
networking sites (Amit & Zott, 2001; Sigala, 2015). The novelty of collaborative
business platforms lies in their hybrid networking functionalities, which may
simultaneously serve commercial and social purposes. Some of the new platforms
are built around genuine sharing and pooling of resources while others facilitate
monetised exchanges among strangers. For instance, Schor and Fitzmaurice (2015)
differentiate between four types of sharing: recirculation of goods, swapping
services, optimizing the use of durable assets, and building social connections.
This hybridity confuses the conceptualisation of new business phenomena, as long
as we try to approach them along a classic value chain framework or conceptual
dichotomies, such as buyer-seller, user-provider, host-guest or citizen-foreigner.
Acknowledging that there are fundamental differences between facilitating sharing
among strangers to members of a neighbourhood or an interest community, we must
scrutinise various mediation (brokerage) solutions. Platform mediators play a
significant role in building and commodifying trust and maintaining social control
through the reliance on digital technologies.
Established definitions keep on adopting one particular business model arche-
type, conceptualising the collaborative economy as a peer-to-peer marketplace. For
instance, the European Commission defines the collaborative economy as “a com-
plex ecosystem of on-demand services and temporary use of assets based on
exchanges via online platforms” (European Commission, 2015, p. 3). Overt focus
is given to digital platforms that match people who want to buy, rent or share
products and services in the most cost effective way. Operators do not own the
property or assets that are traded on their platforms, but they provide immediate,
virtual access to assets on a large scale. Such collaborative business models thrive
on density and volume, and their success will depend on the enduring availability of
a broad supply of goods and/or services (Bardhi & Eckhart, 2012; Gansky, 2010).
Capturing a critical volume in the market is determined by two central factors: a
broad and far-reaching scaling and a dense and collaborative community (Smolka
& Hienerth, 2014. Accordingly, the most significant growth of collaborative busi-
ness phenomena takes place in cities and urban areas, with a high concentration of
resources (capital, property, skills) and year-round demand with high purchase
power.
34 S. Gyimóthy

Peer accommodation rental operators (Wimdu, Airbnb, Flipkey and HomeAway)

are up-scaled global models of a particular business setup, where profit is extracted
for the benefit of the private firm. On these digital platforms, value is generated by
members of the public who are neither employees (hence, lacking labor protection),
nor have shares in the private firm. This has come to be referred to as platform
capitalism or the extractive collaborative economy. However, the collaborative
economy also counts other constellations that are mobilised by social capital and
generate value in other ways. Carpooling and ridesharing platforms, voluntary
welcome services (e.g. Global Greeters) and peer traveller information sites
(backpackr.org) facilitate peer collaboration and communication where transactions
are not necessarily monetised and captured by single businesses. These models are
broadly known as communitarian models of collaborative economy or platform
cooperativism. In the broader mapping of collaborative business models we must
therefore acknowledge the existence of both platform capitalism and platform
cooperativism respectively (Scholz, 2016). In line with this, two generic collabora-
tive business model archetypes are reviewed.

3.1 Corporatised Extractive Models

Koopman, Mitchell, and Thierer (2014) identify five ways in which collaborative
businesses create and capture value. First, they mobilise “dead” capital by utilising
idle assets (empty apartments, inactive labour, excess knowledge). Second, peer
market exchanges are made instantaneous and effective by bringing together
multiple buyers and sellers through a simple, standardised mediation process.
This lowers transaction and bartering costs, yielding more competitive prices,
thereby making collaborative offerings available to previously marginalised
customers (Rifkin, 2015). Third, trust between buyers and sellers is enhanced
through the transparent peer rating system, which aggregates the evaluation of
past consumers. Fourth, reputational feedback mechanisms represent a more direct
and instantaneous quality assurance system, that replaces traditional third-party
quality control mechanisms such as star classifications. Fifth, the demand-driven
setup enhances new innovations and may optimise service and delivery processes.
As demonstrated below, competitive advantage is created across all elements of the
business model; the value proposition, value creation mechanisms and value
capture processes.
Corporatised extractive models are designed along market mediated transactions
embedded in strict social control mechanisms. The commercial intermediary
secures a powerful position to capture value along the entire process. In order to
avoid bypassing the intermediary, full contact addresses are only delivered after
payment. In most cases the price is charged at the time of booking, but first
transferred to respective hosts 24 hours after departure. Platform operators typically
charge 15% to cover transaction and administrative costs, including verification
procedures, quality assurance and instructions of the hosts. Furthermore, when
Business Models of the Collaborative Economy 35

taking a closer look at these companies’ disclaimers, responsibilities are devolved

as far as possible to the parties involved. There is no explicit insurance policy
protecting either hosts or guests. The illustrious guarantees (amounting to one
million dollars on some platforms) only apply in extreme cases of misconduct,
should the company “decide in its sole discretion”. Apart from this, the corporate
sharing platforms disclaim all warranties regarding the correctness of information
provided by the hosts, including the availability, reliability or quality of rented
assets or compliance with local laws and regulations. Such disclaimers elegantly
bypass the lack of control over health and hygiene, and personal and labour
security, which points to multiple problems in the operating and regulating of
footloose commercial enterprises across the blurred boundaries of private and
commercial hospitality.
These blurred boundaries become controversial as we focus closely on the mass-
customised, but allegedly “intimate and authentic” host-guest encounters among
strangers. The modular design of market-mediated platforms evokes the design of
contemporary digital dating apps, ensuring near or perfect matches between hosts
and their guests beforehand. In the business models of peer accommodation rental
and social dining, hospitality itself is conditioned and reduced to a number of
transparent parameters, elegantly organised along a searchable and bookable
menu. As such, the menu operates as a mediator and a buffer between the individual
autonomy of customers and structures of power (Korczynski & Ott, 2006). The
enticing website listings of hosts appeal to guests’ sense of freedom to choose the
optimal accommodation or meal experience and the disguised payment through a
third party platform enhances the illusion of private hospitality.
The ritualised, selected and standardised presentation of welcoming, service-
minded hosts upholds the enchanting myth of guests’ sovereignty. Guests are
simultaneously reminded and exempted from culturally established hospitality
practices; for instance, they are encouraged, but not obliged to bring small gifts
for their hosts. On the other hand, they are automatically prompted to use peer
rating systems, designed along other online market valuation platforms, like
Tripadvisor. Affiliated hosts are evaluated by their patrons subsequent to their
visit along a few parameters (e.g. overall experience, welcome or cleanliness).
Over time, the peer rating system results in social control and a virtual social
hierarchy, where hosts with the highest scores are elevated to a differentiated status
(e.g. Airbnb’s “superhosts”).
This crude meritocratic system is a double-edged sword that mostly benefits the
customer. It may simplify the selection process of accommodation providers in the
same location, but negative reviews may also expose hosts and their reputation in
the long term. The extractive platforms do not protect hosts against biased criticism,
let alone invest back into the providers’ assets, product or labor. It has been claimed
that collaborative economy businesses offer benefits for society on all levels:
consumers, citizens, unemployed, entrepreneurs. While sustainable business
models have adopted triple bottom line approaches to demonstrate their wider
impact, the annual reports of global sharing platforms do not provide a systematic,
detailed documentation of their societal, environmental and economic footprint. As
36 S. Gyimóthy

such it has been argued that they are merely extracting wealth rather than generating
sufficient new value for a community to thrive, be socially fair and sustainable
(Slee, 2015).

3.2 Communitarian or Commons Models

At the other end of the spectrum, an alternative to the extractive model is a

commons model of the collaborative economy where peer-to-peer mediated sharing
is powered by solidarity, mutuality and co-ownership, and where benefits are
returned back into building the capacity of users or to the commons (Scholz,
2016). If a surplus is generated, it is invested back to the people who contribute
or in the maintenance of the platform itself. Communitarian business platforms
models are often a result of bottom-up initiatives and are typically locally-owned
(e.g. a municipality, housing cooperative, or potentially even a destination market-
ing organisation). For instance, neighbourhood help, gear swapping sites or volun-
tary visitor greeter services are cooperative marketplaces that offer sharing options
similar to global platforms but profits would be invested into city projects and
community facilities, or distributed amongst participating residents.
The value creation processes of communitarian collaborative business models
are fundamentally different from extractive ones. Strong communal ties and mutual
consent with the core values of the group implies that trust mechanisms differ from
those in extractive models. Trust is paid forward and assessed through commitment,
rather reputational capital alone. For instance, to get access to the collective pool of
resources, members of communitarian platforms must contribute with in-kind
assets (e.g. a room, couch or apartment), reciprocating the contribution of other
members. The Couchsurfing community requires all members to be prepared to let
their couches out for fellow couchsurfers, hence trust is embedded in a boundary-
defining membership (Molz, 2013). The medium of exchange is nonmonetary;
couchsurfer hosts offer their time, private property and local knowledge in return
for virtual reputation and member endorsements. Another distinct feature of the
communitarian model is its auto-mediated organisational setup. Instead of a com-
mercial intermediary, cooperative platforms are either owned and managed by the
group itself, or mediated by a public or nonprofit body. For instance, a Danish
museum has recently enhanced a regional pilgrimage trail by hosting a digital
platform on which hikers may directly connect with local citizens and book
experiences ranging from private dinners to birdwatching and berry-picking. The
platform, Camønoen.org neither charges for intermediation, nor is responsible for
vetting procedures. As the market overtakes quality control mechanisms, the
trustworthiness (and ultimately, the survival) of the platform will depend on the
volume and support of contributing members.
Communitarian models may also be built around a certain cause or interest such
as subcultures, or consumer tribes (backpackers, film fans or foodies). For instance,
the Social Dining Network in Cornwall is connecting gastronomy enthusiasts,
Business Models of the Collaborative Economy 37

where the platform not only enables dinner dating but also the exchange of recipes
and cooking experiences. The communitarian model thrives on the commitment of
its members and reciprocal relationships among them. Collaborative communities
create network and information spillover effects and economies of scale, and can
best be described as ecosystems with high social impact (Smolka & Hienerth,
2014). As Hardy (2017) points out, collaborations among RVers are built around
sharing intangible or immaterial assets (e.g. skills, experiences), where value is not
necessarily monetised or bound to discrete one-to-one exchanges. This implies that
some communitarian, auto-mediated models are not purely functional transaction
sites but also sites of convergence. The value proposition of “promoting a collab-
orative lifestyle” is enabled on virtual meeting platforms offering diverse interac-
tion opportunities other than market exchanges.

4 Collaborative Business Model Archetypes in Tourism

Based on the generic categories of extractive and communitarian business models it

is possible to identify some common features along which collaborative economy
business endeavors in tourism can be described and distinguished (Table 1). These
are: (1) global peer-to-peer marketplaces to enable temporary access of idle assets;
(2) place-based cooperatives enabling small local providers to provide tourism

Table 1 Comparing and contrasting collaborative business models along key characteristics
Place-based Virtual community
Global peer marketplace cooperative meeting place
Main purpose Commercial redistribution Trading ecosystem Site of convergence for
system for market among local commu- interest communities
exchanges among peers nity members (tribes)
Value Optimal use and access to Recirculate goods and Promoting a collabora-
proposition idle durable assets and swap services tive lifestyle building
skills social connections
Value Extractive: surplus Communitarian: sur- Communitarian:
capture extracted by commercial plus recirculated into recirculated among
mediator neighbourhood community members
Scope of Strangers—anyone can Neighborhood or local Interest community
collaborative participate community (member- (membership criteria
community ship criteria apply) apply)
Strength of Loose Semi-loose Strong
communal
ties
Mediating Market-mediated Publicly mediated Automediated
mechanisms
Examples Airbnb Global Greeters Couchsurfing
Boatflex Camøno Gearshare
Free walking tours Yays
38 S. Gyimóthy

services and experiences and finally, (3) virtual community platforms where inter-
est communities converge. Each archetype differs in terms of purpose, value
proposition, value capture, scope of the sharing community and the strength of
communal ties among members as well as mediation/brokerage mechanisms.

5 Conclusion

Collaborative business models are new structures that cross-appropriate old forms
of sharing (e.g. building social connections, recirculating tangible goods, swapping
services and intangible assets) with effective digital intermediation to extract value
from idle capacity and assets. Business models in the collaborative economy can
vary significantly. However, tourism scholars and practitioners have so far mainly
been concerned with profit-extractive models even though communitarian models
of collaborative economy are well-established in various contexts (see chapters by
Cannas, 2017; Clausen & Velázquez, 2017; Hardy, 2017). The extractive model,
manifested in a small number of strong global platforms, has tended to dominate the
marketplace, facilitated by media coverage and scholars keen to identify and claim
lead status in the next “big research theme”. This chapter has offered a broader
mapping of collaborative models, and has contributed much needed insight by
sketching three archetypes with distinct features, scope and value creation mecha-
nisms. A more nuanced typology may shed light by highlighting the existence of
alternative, communitarian or commons-based businesses in tourism. These can
potentially mobilise resources and communities not only in urban, but also in rural
and coastal destinations, usually under-prioritised by industrial investments and
development opportunities.

References

Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22,
493–520.
Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing. Journal
of Consumer Research, 39, 881–898.
Beattie, V., & Smith, S. J. (2013). Value creation and business models: Refocusing the intellectual
capital debate. The British Accounting Review, 45(4), 243–254.
Bocken, N. M. P. B., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to
develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65(1), 42–56.
Cannas, R. (2017). Embedding social values in tourism management: Community currencies as
laboratories of social entrepreneurship? In D. Dredge & S. Gyimóthy (Eds.), Collaborative
economy: Perspectives, politics, policies and prospects. Cham: Springer.
Clausen, H. B., & Velázquez, M. G. (2017). Collaborative economy in tourism in Latin America:
The case of Argentina, Colombia, Chile and Mexico. In D. Dredge & S. Gyimóthy (Eds.),
Collaborative economy and tourism: Perspectives, politics, policies and prospects. Cham:
Springer.
Business Models of the Collaborative Economy 39

European Commission. (2015). Upgrading the single market: More opportunities for people and
business. https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2015/EN/1-2015-550-EN-F1-1.PDF
Gansky, L. (2010). The mesh: Why the future of business is sharing. New York: Penguin Books.
Germann Molz, J. (2013). Social networking technologies and the moral economy of alternative
tourism: The case of couchsurfing.org, Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 210–230.
Hardy, A. (2017). Community and connection: Exploring non-monetary aspects of the collabora-
tive economy through recreation vehicle use. In D. Dredge & S. Gyimóthy (Eds.), Collabora-
tive economy and tourism: Perspectives, politics, policies and prospects. Cham: Springer.
Koopman, C., Mitchell, M., & Thierer, A. (2014). The sharing economy and consumer protection
regulation: The case for policy change. Arlington, VA: Mercatus Center, George Mason
University.
Korczynski, M., & Ott, U. (2006). The menu in society: Mediating structures of power and
enchanting myths of individual sovereignty. Sociology, 40(5), 911–928.
Leal Londo~no, M. P., & Medina, F. X. (2017). Free walking tour enterprises in Europe: An
evolutionary economic approach. In D. Dredge & S. Gyimóthy (Eds.), Collaborative economy
and tourism: Perspectives, politics, policies and prospects. Cham: Springer.
Meged, J. W., & Christensen, M. D. (2017). Working within the collaborative tourist economy:
The complex crafting of work and meaning. In D. Dredge & S. Gyimóthy (Eds.), Collaborative
economy and tourism: Perspectives, politics, policies and prospects. Cham: Springer.
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries,
game changers, and challengers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Rifkin, J. (2015). The zero marginal cost society: The internet of things, the collaborative
commons, and the eclipse of capitalism. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Scholz, T. (2016). Platform cooperativism: Challenging the corporate sharing economy.
Accessed June 12, 2016, from http://www.rosalux-nyc.org/wp-content/files_mf/scholz_
platformcooperativism_2016.pdf
Schor, J. B., & Fitzmaurice, C. J. (2015). Collaborating and connecting: The emergence of the
sharing economy. In L. Reisch & J. Thogersen (Eds.), Handbook on research on sustainable
consumption. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Sigala, M. (2015). Collaborative commerce in tourism: Implications for research and industry.
Current Issues in Tourism, 20(4), 346–355. doi:10.1080/13683500.2014.982522.
Slee, T. (2015). What’s yours is mine: Against the sharing economy. New York: OR Books.
Smolka, C., & Hienerth, C. (2014). The best of two worlds: Conceptualizing trade-offs between
openness and closedness for sharing economy models. Paper presented at the 12th International
Open and User Innovation Workshop, Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Boston,
MA, USA.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long Range
Planning, 43(2/3), 216–226.
Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and future
research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019–1042.
Responsibility and Care in the Collaborative
Economy

Dianne Dredge

Abstract This paper explores moral responsibility in the collaborative economy

using examples from the collaborative economy accommodation sector as the
context to excavate key issues and challenges. The paper traverses difficult philo-
sophical terrain in order to better understand the relationship between concepts such
as ethics, responsibility and moral action in the collaborative economy. The tradi-
tional approach is for governments to adopt universal rules to determine who is
responsible for what consequences and to prescribe remedies so that actors can
‘earn’ the claim of being responsible. However, the global and liquid nature of the
collaborative economy operating across jurisdictions and the difficulty and lack of
interest in implementing strict regulatory frameworks that contradict neoliberal free
market ideology suggest that utilitarian and rule bound approaches to defining and
apportioning responsibilities are unlikely. A care ethics approach to responsibility,
that relies on articulating values, establishing emotional connections to place and
people/communities, and that encourages public-private collaborative action
towards a caring end is argued to be a potential way forward.

Keywords Responsibility • Care ethics • Collaborative economy • Tourism •

Accommodation sharing • Planning • Policy

1 Introduction

If you believe some reports, in May 2016 Berlin’s government banned Airbnb
(Berlin has banned Airbnb, 2016; Oltermann, 2016; Payton, 2016). The legislation,
which evoked considerable controversy in the media and ignited concern across the
world, was introduced in response to brewing tensions some of which were
explained by Hollersen and Mingels (2012) some four years earlier:
In this odd environment, two types of people are coming into conflict: On the one hand,
there are the foreigners, or new Berliners, who are looking for something to buy. On the

D. Dredge (*)
Department of Culture and Global Studies, Aalborg University, A.C. Meyers Vænge 15,
Copenhagen 2450, Denmark
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 41

D. Dredge, S. Gyimóthy (eds.), Collaborative Economy and Tourism,
Tourism on the Verge, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-51799-5_4
42 D. Dredge

other, there are the locals, the old Berliners, who wonder how much longer they’ll be able to
stay. Those in the first group tend to look up as they walk the streets, checking out buildings
and looking for good investments. Those in the second are just trying to get home.
Despite these differences, they are all anxious. The foreigners are anxious about their
modest assets, which they hope to convert into valuable real estate before the euro goes
bust. Meanwhile, native Berliners are worried about the city they call home. And this
anxiety, which affects all of Germany and many other European countries, is being
transformed into a euphoria of sorts in the Berlin real estate market.

Hollersen and Mingels identified just two perspectives: local residents and
mobile investors/new residents. Local residents within apartment complexes were
living with the daily impacts of visitors coming and going and the City was growing
at a rapid rate with the tenants association claiming that 45,000 new Berliners were
searching for accommodation each year (Berliner Mieter Gemeinschaft, 2016). The
Senate was interested in protecting the interests of Berliners, both present and
future, so housing availability and affordability were key concerns. The legislation
required that approval for commercial accommodation be sought (i.e. where prop-
erty owners were not resident), and owners had been given 2 years to secure these
permissions. The intention of the legislation was to stop residential housing—and
particularly social housing—being illegally converted into short-term commercial
accommodation. Further, in recent personal communications with this author, a
government official further clarified that “the Senate Department for Urban Devel-
opment and the Environment does not undertake any regulatory activity with regard
to the tourism sector, the sharing economy, the collaborative economy or the hotel
and guesthouse sector” and that “the new law does not contain any regulatory
elements that are specifically targeted at the tourism sector, the sharing economy or
the collaborative economy” (Dredge, Gyimóthy, Birkbak, Jensen, & Madsen,
2016). Put simply, the legislative response was simply designed to protect housing
availability and affordability and not ban any particular platform. So, while collab-
orative economy accommodation platforms and some second homeowners and
property investors might have been adversely affected by the new legislation, the
claim that Airbnb had been banned was an exaggeration. Lawmakers, taking into
account their duties and responsibilities as elected representatives to their constit-
uencies, were simply making ethical decisions about what were appropriate actions
to protect public interests.
Not only does this episode illustrate inaccurate reporting of the developments in
Berlin (and why we need to remain critical to the claims in media in particular), but
it also illustrates the complexity of ethical decision-making faced by policymakers.
Policymakers have to decide what issues are more or less important, what values
they will uphold, what values can be traded-off, what stakeholders they answer to,
and, ultimately, what are responsible actions from a government’s perspective
bearing in mind their legal and moral responsibilities to citizens, communities
and the private sector. These decisions are based on ethical considerations and
inevitably result in winners and loosers. In the above case, sharing platform
companies were perceived to be the loosers, and Berliners in search of affordable
housing, were the winners.
Responsibility and Care in the Collaborative Economy 43

Smith and Duffy (2003), Fennell (2006) and Jamal and Menzel (2009) argue for
strengthening philosophical engagement with the ethical dimensions of tourism
development. This is the challenge to which this chapter responds. At a global level,
supporters of the collaborative economy reiterate that it is a sustainable alternative
to current consumption-oriented modes of economic activity (Owyang, Samuel, &
Grenville, 2014). Botsman (2010) explains:
. . .I believe we’re actually in a period where we’re waking up from this humongous
hangover of emptiness and waste, and we’re taking a leap to create a more sustainable
system built to serve our innate needs for community and individual identity. I believe it
will be referred to as a revolution, so to speak—when society, faced with great challenges,
made a seismic shift from individual getting and spending towards a rediscovery of
collective good.

But is the collaborative economy really a more responsible economy? Do these

claims of responsibility translate into more responsible behaviours by the range of
actors involved in the collaborative economy? The starting point for this chapter is
that moral responsibility in the collaborative economy is a reflection of our iden-
tities (i.e. who we are and what we want to be). Notions of responsibility are
socially constructed and politically framed, so it is important to be critical of
what we claim as responsible. To this end, this chapter seeks to encourage greater
theoretical reflection on the ethics of what ought to be done or not be done, what is
right and wrong, good and bad, and how this gets played out in collaborative
economy practices (Lawton, Van der Wal, & Huberts, 2016).

2 Why Are Ethics Important?

There are four key reasons why a deeper exploration of ethics in the collaborative
economy is urgently needed. First, the disruptive nature of the collaborative
economy demands immediate action which should be proactive not reactive. In
the collaborative economy responsibility for addressing impacts and consequences
are complex and distributed (Anderson & Um, 2015; Leigh, 2016; Slee, 2016). The
speed of change means that politics is driving public responses. Reflection and
theorising, if done at all, is post-hoc. Not only is greater understanding of the ethical
decisions and trade-offs in collaborative economy practices needed, but we also
need tools and frameworks to help us deliberate.
Second, moral responsibility is relational. The collaborative economy is a
distributed system comprising a range of actors including service providers, prop-
erty owners, investors, consumers and platform capitalists. It also relies on public
assets and common pool resources, such as publicly funded tourism marketing
activities, and intangible community assets and attractions that are not acknowl-
edged within peer-to-peer transactions. As a result, the effects of the collaborative
economy can impact upon a range of actors and public interests beyond those
involved in direct transactions (Dredge & Gyimóthy, 2015). For example, residen-
tial communities, future residents and property investors may not necessarily be
44 D. Dredge

directly involved in peer-to-peer transactions but may experience the consequences

of collaborative economy practices. Moral responsibility in the collaborative econ-
omy therefore involves multi-lateral relations.
Third, responsibility in the collaborative economy requires public-private
action. The governance literature reminds us that neither public nor private sectors
have exclusive control and negative externalities1 are a shared responsibility
(Haufler, 2013; Vigoda, 2002). Collaborative economy platform actors have
displayed quite varied willingness to act and their behaviour and attitudes towards
the impacts of the collaborative economy have at times raised controversy
(Sundararajan, 2014). The very different organisational cultures and values of the
platforms mean that reaching an understanding of ethical responsibility requires
dialogue and shared understanding.
Fourth, the liquid organisation of the collaborative economy makes assigning
responsibilities difficult. Liquid organisation denotes a fluid organisational form
that does not have rigid boundaries or membership and it is characterised by
autonomous actors operating to pursue their own loosely aligned values (Clegg &
Baumeler, 2010). Globalisation has facilitated the operation of liquid organisations
where responsibilities can be shifted elsewhere or even avoided. The collaborative
economy comprises a myriad of such liquid organisational platforms and practices,
which governments have found difficult to deal with (Monbiot, 2014, 2015; US
Federal Trade Commission, 2015).
Together, these reasons highlight that the collaborative economy is dynamic,
liquid and resistant to the rule bound ways that governments assign responsibilities
and make laws (i.e. a justice ethics approach). Instead, impacts and issues vary and
expectations and values (i.e. what might be good or bad, right or wrong) differ so
that universal principles and rules are difficult, if not impossible, to identify.
Furthermore, relationships between actors spread out in all directions so that
good actions towards one set of stakeholders might not yield desirable results in
another set of stakeholders (e.g. resident communities in destinations). Herein lies
the difficulty of thinking about moral responsibility in the collaborative economy.
This chapter does not, therefore, seek to determine or make any universal claims
about who should take responsibility for what issues and impacts. My intention
instead is to promote critical thinking about ethics and to move beyond superficial
claims that the collaborative economy is more responsible than current models of
economic production and consumption, a claim that Dredge and Gyimóthy (2015)
see as hollow and lacking in evidence. Drawing from care ethics, the chapter argues
that it is possible to excavate some core values that can help move us towards a
normative theory of responsibility in the collaborative economy. However, before
exploring the nature of caring and responsibility in the tourism accommodation

1
A negative externality is a cost or impact suffered by a third party (e.g. a community group or
resident) as a result of an economic transaction between two parties. In a simple example, residents
in an apartment building may be subject to the disruptive behaviours of sharing accommodation
guests even through they are external to the transaction between the provider (host), the guests and
the collaborative economy platform.
Responsibility and Care in the Collaborative Economy 45

collaborative economy it is first important to briefly explore key terms and

concepts.

3 Key Terms and Concepts

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that explores what is right and wrong, good and
bad, and helps us to make decisions about what we ought to do or not to
do. Different theoretical strands within the philosophy of ethics help us to theorise,
systemise and determine what ought to be done. Determining responsibility inev-
itably involves moral questions about what is the right course of action (deonto-
logical ethics); what action will lead to the best and most acceptable consequence
(consequentialist ethics); and what is the most virtuous thing to do in order that
society lives well and flourishes (virtue ethics). Traditional discussions of moral
responsibility—whether we deserve praise or blame for our actions—are quite
complex philosophical questions and often require consideration of what sort of
person we are and want to be; what we can do within the capacities and limitations
that we possess; how we understand and interpret all the possible actions that are
open to us; and how much control we have to undertake action. While deeper
discussion is not possible here, it is important to note that when governments make
decisions and enact laws that determine who is responsible for what, they rely on
universal principles and rules that can be applied equally, are accountable (to whom
is another question!) and justifiable. The case of Berlin above illustrates that these
universal rules and principles are underpinned by emotional and political responses
to the problem and the value systems that permeate the debate.
Moral responsibility is the consideration of whether a response or action
deserves praise or blame, and is often associated with a sense of duty, fairness or
obligation. Being responsible implies praise for a given action, while being irre-
sponsible implies blame for the negative consequences of an action. A philosoph-
ical view on moral responsibility invokes a much deeper discussion than I currently
have space for in this chapter. Instead, my intention is to retain a pragmatic focus on
exploring responsibility as moral agency in the collaborative economy.
Four key observations are raised with respect to moral responsibility. First, the
concept of responsibility cannot be simply cast as individual action undertaken
within private life; it also encompasses the actions of groups or collectives of
individuals operating jointly and/or on behalf of others (Boston, Bradstock, &
Eng, 2010). This perspective opens up the opportunity for us to consider the ethical
dimensions of how groups of actors such as politicians, policy makers and private
sector representatives work collectively to take morally responsible decisions and
actions for the public interest as in the above example in Berlin. Second, consid-
eration of what moral responsibility is in the collaborative economy invokes a range
of reactive emotions including empathy, care, goodwill, thoughtfulness, and so on
(Shafer-Landau, 2013). In the Berlin case, policymakers were empathetic to the
46 D. Dredge

poor who were experiencing a housing affordability crisis. Third, the process
wherein an individual or collective assigns praise or blame involves rule-bound
and value-based judgements. This socialisation of responsibility means that certain
actions are expected to be more or less responsible. The controversy arose in Berlin
because two sets of values about what is responsible—protecting housing for the
poor and support for the collaborative economy as a market innovation—came into
conflict. On this point, Ims and Jakobsen in Bina and Guedes Vaz (2011, p. 176)
warn that we need to pay greater attention to what kind of people and values our
current economic systems foster, because this affects the character and collective
moral agency of society to be responsible for our actions.
In line with this thinking, a care ethics approach to responsibility is adopted.
Care ethics draws attention to the interdependent relationship between self and
other, where caring for the other is not a rational, rule-bound exercise but one in
which deliberation takes into account contextual, relational and emotional consid-
erations (e.g. Gilligan, 1982; Noddings, 1984; Robinson, 2010). Care ethics high-
lights the mutually independent, connected and potentially vulnerable and
asymmetric relations between states, institutions and individuals (Collins, 2015).
It recognises that moral responsibility involves reciprocity, mutuality and depen-
dency in the face of unequal power and resources (Pettersen, 2011). This relational
ontology of care, and its reciprocal mode of caring for others, offers a framing of
responsibility that is not as well developed in conventional ethical theories and is
suited to the collaborative economy.
Emerging out of feminist writings in the 1980s and 1990s, care ethics raises
attention to the way that men and women construct moral problems differently
(e.g. see Gilligan, 1982; Noddings, 1984; Tronto, 1993). Gilligan’s work explored
questions of responsibility, the role of the self and others, and she focused attention
on the distinction between the ethics of care and ethics of justice. She noted that
women tend toward an ethics of care, framing responsibility as a relational and
deeply personal response to care for the self and others. In the ethics of justice,
responsibility is constructed around legal rules and concepts such as fairness, rights,
sanctions or consequences, and tends to be masculine in orientation (McKeon,
1957; Ricoeur, 2000). Gilligan (1982) argued that the mature human practises
both ethics of care and ethics of justice: girls had a more developed ethics of care
as a result of the closer relationships developed with their primary caregiver
(generally the mother) and that boys’ disconnection with women at an earlier age
was a driving factor in perpetuating patriarchal societies (p. xxiii).
Building upon this early work, and broadening its application beyond gendered
practices of caring and responsibility, Tronto (1993) built a normative ethics of care
and argued that care ethics was broadly applicable to moral dilemmas in society.
Tronto (1993) defined “care” as “everything we do to maintain, continue, and repair
our world so that we can live in it as well as possible” (p. 103). Thinking of
responsibility as caring invites us to think of the moral landscape in terms of the
way we conceptualise an issue, how we see and interpret injustice and inequity, and
also how we might respond given our interdependence to others in the issue
(Engster & Hamington, 2013). In this way, the ethics of care rebalances the
Responsibility and Care in the Collaborative Economy 47

dominance of universalising and rule-bound ideas about ethics as justice towards

ethics as a relational and contextualised response motivated by a desire to sustain,
nurture and protect (Held, 2005; Stens€ota, 2016).
Public policy has been characterised as “what governments choose to do or not
to do” (Dye, 1978). The object of public policy ultimately determines who wins and
looses and how the benefits and costs of those actions are distributed among present
and future actors. Returning to Berlin, as described in the introduction to this
chapter, what government chooses to do about the conversion of residential apart-
ments into collaborative economy accommodation is an ethical issue. What inter-
ests should government care for and prioritise in their policy response? European
labour and capital mobility benefits the middle classes who are able to invest and
profit in second homes that they can advertise on platforms such as Airbnb.
Increased tourism associated with the sharing economy accommodation sector
contributes to economic growth producing economic indicators that might also
make elected representatives look good. The poor will bear the costs in terms of
rising housing costs and decreased supply. Elected officials might act in their own
self-interest or they might seek to address a broader collective set of public
interests. In doing so, they are required to understand, evaluate and make trade-
offs about what is more or less important, and who will shoulder the benefits and
costs of those decisions. Public policy addressing the collaborative economy
accommodation sector therefore involves quite complex ethical decisions ranging
from how the problem is framed; what are potential actions and their consequences;
what values and actions are prioritised or cared for; and how these consequences are
valued and by whom.
Influenced by rationalism, modern policymaking has commonly adopted uni-
versal rules and abstract reasoning to determine a moral position on what should be
done. Issues were framed and decisions made based on, for example, cost-benefit
analysis and other techniques that removed emotions such as empathy, compassion,
caring and so on (Held, 2014). Ironically, these deliberations are usually
underpinned by a set of values that are not always explicit, and can be deeply
embedded and ideological but these were obscured under the guise of rationalism.
For example, Bramwell (2011) and Dredge and Jenkins (2007, 2012) discuss the
shifting ideological landscape shaping the role of government including the desir-
ability for the operation of free markets and declining support for interventionist
policy. Furthermore, as Porritt (2007) argues, these neoliberal values associated
with the global economy have become so embedded that there is no longer any
discursive space available to consider ethical questions about what governments
ought to do or where their responsibility lies. Instead, responsibility has become a
matter of what actions will support global economic development within the
parameters of a neoliberal agenda. This point is taken up further in the next section,
where in trying to isolate some core values in the ethics of care in the collaborative
economy, we also need to confront the unquestioned values embedded in neolib-
eralism that dictate definitions of responsibility that tend to prioritise markets and
growth over other societal issues.
48 D. Dredge

4 Core Values of Care and Responsibility

Proponents of the collaborative economy argue that collaborative economy inno-

vation unlocks idling assets. Monetising these assets contributes to goals such as
economic growth and job creation, and it opens up ecologies of economic innova-
tion leading to increased competition (Botsman, 2010). These advantages are
aligned with neoliberal values, and the unquestioned acceptance of these values
provides some policymakers with clear direction on what ought to be done with
respect to the collaborative economy—i.e. what we need to do to embrace its
growth potential and avoid regulatory measures that might stymie its development.
However, drawing from Porritt’s (2007) earlier point, these values are so embedded
that the notion of responsibility in the collaborative economy is unquestioned, and
our consideration of responsible actions are narrowed to only those that feed the
rolling out and consolidation of neoliberalism. The rationale underpinning neolib-
eralism is built on abstract rules and universal laws that require us to remove
feelings and emotions and to make objective, “considered judgements” about
what ought to be done (Held, 2014). Ironically, these “considered judgements”
are based on deeply embedded values and subjectivities that assume responsible
actions are those that lead to greater competition, free markets and growth. To date,
reflection and the questioning of these neoliberal values in the collaborative econ-
omy have occurred on the margins of mainstream discussion (e.g. see Bauwens,
2005; Scholz & Schneider, 2016; Slee, 2016). They have also had to compete with
the well-resourced research and media campaigns of collaborative economy
platforms.
Critics seeking to broaden the notion of responsibility beyond neoliberal values
have also argued that the extractive model exploits precariat2 workers where their
labour is subsumed into the product (Slee, 2016); it extracts wealth from common
pool resources, redistributes and privatises it (Slee, 2016); and it is disruptive to
communities and residents who bear the costs of overcrowding, rent increases,
housing shortages and declining community cohesion without receiving benefits
(Bauwens, 2005; Scholz & Schneider, 2016). For these critics, responsibility in the
extractive collaborative economy entails being responsive to the impacts and
negative externalities of the collaborative economy, the burden of which is cur-
rently being shouldered by the precariat (e.g. informal workers, silenced commu-
nities, the urban poor) (Slee, 2016). Here, a care ethics approach appears a useful
alternative to help flesh out a broader understanding of responsibility in the
collaborative economy.
Care ethicist, Virginia Held (2014, p. 109) argues “morality is less a matter of
rational recognition and more a matter of taking responsibility for particular other

2
The term “economic precariat” refers to the increasing number of people living precariously in
late modern capitalism. They generally lack the security of a living wage and the predictability of
regular income. The precariat often have to undertake extensive unpaid labour in order to remain
in the labour force, and the phenomenon is often associated with underemployment.
Responsibility and Care in the Collaborative Economy 49

persons in need”. She argues against a rational approach and calls for greater
attention to contextual, relational and emotional factors in determining responsi-
bility. She argues that the relational approach triggers a different kind of action that
fosters caring for human values. Building upon the work of Gilligan (2013), the
ethics of care offers resistance to injustice, to the silencing of alternative voices and
to the distancing of democracy, conditions that characterise current neoliberal
modes of governance.
But while the ethics of care is appealing as a way of re-orienting our delibera-
tions on what ought to be done, a caring ontology is difficult to capture in normative
guidance (Held, 2014; Pettersen, 2011). Normative theories attempt to provide us
with general guidance on how we should act or behave. A normative theory of care
is difficult to articulate because care, as discussed above, rests on relational
qualities that are contextual, emotional and cannot be easily coded into general
principles (Collins, 2015). Despite these reservations, some care ethicists remain
undeterred arguing that we cannot afford to give up and that it is possible to identify
“the normative heart of care” to guide us (Pettersen, 2011; Stens€ota, 2016).
Pettersen (2011, p. 54) argues a twofold normative approach to care being “the
universal condemnation of exploit and hurt, and the universal commitment to
human flourishing”. The relationship between the two values is further explained:
Care as a normative value is indeed related to the ideal of not inflicting harm, but it must
also include a reasonably limited commitment to actively working for the prevention of
harm. Furthermore, the normative value of care is related to the ideal of contributing to the
promotion of good, but it must be narrowed down in order to not entail self-sacrifice or the
sacrificing of the well-being of a third part. Care, the normative core of the ethics of care,
can be portrayed as a merging of the principle of non-maleficence when it is expanded to
allow for certain types of interventions, and the principle of beneficence when it is restricted
to the prevention of systematic self-sacrifice and the surrendering of the concrete others’
interests (Pettersen, 2011, p. 54).

Public policy researchers have also tried to capture a normative basis for care
ethics. Stens€
ota (2016), for example, argues for a public ethics of care (PEC) as a
general approach to facilitate policy formation and implementation that builds,
nurtures, sustains and protects relationships that promote societal well-being.
Drawing from the literature (e.g. see Barnett & Land, 2007; Held, 2005; Stens€ota,
2016; Tronto, 1993), the following core features can be identified:
1. Context matters. A caring response necessarily requires an appreciation of the
experiences, capacities, histories and relationships with others.
2. Relationships matter. A caring response recognises relational entanglements,
interdependence and dependence, and the flow of impacts and consequences in
different directions.
3. Values and emotions matter. Emotions, such as empathy, injustice and inequity,
and values such as respect, reciprocity and mutuality inform and motivate moral
commitment and can trigger deeper and more personal actions.
4. Individual and collective action matter. Care ethics involves an action orienta-
tion that is both an individual and a collective responsibility to care.
50 D. Dredge

In taking into consideration these above dimensions, care ethics opens up a

political thought project that triggers deeper philosophical thinking about how we
can frame responsibility as our capacity to care and be morally responsible for
others; it allows us to examine the relational consequences of actions; and it
prompts us to think about aspects such as generosity and obligation to whom and
for what purpose (Hooft, 2016; Massey, 2004). However, this normative heart of
care ethics is not complete or exhaustive, and care ethicists argue that a mature
approach to responsibility will also take into account a justice perspective
(Pettersen, 2011).
In developing this normative core of care ethics, theorists draw attention to the
role of the moral agent, their situatedness within their personal sphere, and their role
in society, as a citizen, as a professional, as an economic, social and political actor.
As a practice, care ethics requires continuous negotiation of caring—for one’s own
interests, for others’ interests, and for the collective interests of society. On one
hand an overemphasis on altruistic care and concern for others is debilitating,
undermining autonomy, integrity and personal growth. On the other hand, a self-
centred approach to care can be equally isolating, leading to narcissism, violence
and intolerance. To avoid overdeveloped altruism or self-centredness, an under-
standing of the core values of care discussed above and the capacity to reflect upon
care in context are essential. Thus, moving care ethics from a philosophical position
to pragmatic normative guidance requires that we “analyze and articulate value
systems, draw attention to problems and possibilities, and supply well-founded
justification when necessary” (Pettersen, 2011, p. 61). In the following section, the
challenges of caring within the collaborative economy are discussed.

5 Responsibility and Caring in the Collaborative Economy

Accommodation Sector

In the literature, discussions of responsibility in the collaborative economy have

generally circulated around two broad overlapping themes: (1) a justice inspired
view of ethical responsibility based on rules about who ought to take responsibility
for various impacts and consequences (Cannon & Chung, 2015; Koopman, Mitch-
ell, & Thierer, 2014); and (2) discussions about where moral responsibility lies in
the collaborative economy (Bauwens, 2005; P2P Foundation, 2015). However, and
as previously discussed, caring is an individual and a collective activity and caring
relationships, motivations and values go in all directions. The discussion below
illustrates just two types of caring that have been expressed in the collaborative
economy accommodation sector3: hosts caring for guests, and a platform caring for

3
These expressions of caring have been chosen only to illustrate the challenges, however there are
mutiple expressions of caring and fuller investigation of all these expressions is a potential line of
future inquiry.
Responsibility and Care in the Collaborative Economy 51

the broader community. These are used for illustrative purposes and are not
intended to represent a comprehensive discussion of caring in the collaborative
economy.
In the first, collaborative economy platforms are keen to project hosts’ commit-
ment to caring for guests:
If you can, make someone feel special. That cannot be explained. Nothing gives you joy
like making someone happy. That is, I think, the reason that motivates me to be a host.
Being a host, it’s not a very, very, casual decision. Being a host is a responsibility. India’s a
dynamic country. My objective is, if someone comes here they should be connected to the
place in the right way. Me, as a host, I think is kind of connecting these different dots
together, a kind of narrator. . . . We have an old (Indian) scripture: “Your mother is a god.
Your father is a god. And your guest is a god”. The presence of the guest here is that you
treat them as your family. They trust me, and I trust them. And that’s the reason it works. So
hospitality, if you ask me, is about taking care, It’s about welcoming with an open heart. . .’
(Transcript from host, Airbnb, 2016).

Readers might make a cynical quip about whether this passage expresses genuine
caring or is an attempt by Airbnb to highlight a competitive advantage that
differentiates the homestay product4 offered by its hosts from the commercial
hospitality sector. Cynicism aside, the above passage draws attention to the poten-
tial for genuine caring between accommodation providers and guests to be present
in the collaborative economy accommodation sector. Caring in this case demon-
strates all the above core values—context-dependent, relational, emotional and
values-based and it is action-oriented at individual and collective levels. However,
the use of this quote on Airbnb’s website suggests that caring may also be a staged
or managed claim and that caring about the business is heavily intertwined in the
motivation to care for guests.
Second, caring is also manifested at a collective level as evidenced in the Airbnb
Community Compact released at the Airbnb Open in Paris in late 2015:
Based on our core principles to help make cities stronger, Airbnb is committed to working
with cities where our community has a significant presence and where there is support for
the right of people to share their homes, both when they are present and when they are out of
town (Airbnb, 2015).

Airbnb further indicates a willingness to work with cities around the world to “treat
every city personally and help ensure our community pays its fair share of hotel and
tourist taxes”. . . (i.e. caring is context dependent) “to build an open and transparent
community”. . . (i.e. caring as a value) and to “promote responsible home sharing to
make cities stronger” (i.e. caring for communities through action) (Airbnb, 2015).
The impacts of short-term rental accommodation are threatening the very presence
of Airbnb in some cities (Ikkala & Airi, 2015; Kassam, 2015; New York State
Department of the Attorney General, 2014). In response, Airbnb has launched an

4
The Airbnb product comprises the rental of whole apartments, rooms and beds. In most destina-
tions, homestay experiences (taken to mean the renting of a room or a bed where the host is onsite
and personal service is provided) makes up a relatively smaller proportion of the product offer than
whole apartments where the host is absent.
52 D. Dredge

action platform (www.airbnbaction.com) that outlines its commitment to

addressing various impacts, including addressing the concerns of hosts, communi-
ties and governments. The platform is clearly intended to engage directly in this
debate by acknowledging concerns and by helping to maintain a positive construc-
tive debate. The Community Compact (Airbnb 2015) further states:
Based on our core principles to help make cities stronger, Airbnb is committed to working
with cities where our community has a significant presence and where there is support for
the right of people to share their homes, both when they are present and when they are out
of town.

In this quote, Airbnb is not taking responsibility for the impacts emerging at a
community level, but is expressing a willingness to work collaboratively to address
emerging issues. In this sense, the Community Compact might be regarded as an
expression of Airbnb’s corporate social responsibility intentions. The extent to
which Airbnb is responsible for a range of issues currently being linked to the
platform’s growth (e.g. housing supply and affordability issues, resident-visitor
impacts) is a contested point. Many of these issues are derived from historical
policies and pre-existing conditions in housing, tourism marketing, property invest-
ment and labour mobility (see Dredge et al., 2016). The linking of housing supply
and affordability issues with Airbnb, whose operations may have exacerbated
problems in some cities, has resulted in calls for the platform to take responsibility
for wicked policy issues well beyond its capacity and responsibility despite its
immense power as a corporate citizen. The global nature of the organisation further
exacerbates the difficulty of deciding where responsibility starts and ends. More-
over, accommodation providers are not employees but independent operators, so
Airbnb’s obligations are ill-defined in relation to the broader commitments that the
company is undertaking in its Community Compact.
The platform and their providers have some responsibility for contributing to the
wicked problems associated with the collaborative economy housing accommoda-
tion sector, but the extent and nature of this responsibility is very unclear. The
platform must work collectively with its accommodation providers; providers must
work collaboratively with their market (guests); and platforms, providers and the
market must work collaboratively with governments to address the issues. This
discussion demonstrates that responsibility is both an individual and a collective
issue, and is a public-private concern. Responsibility is also an expression of the
caring relationship between the individual/collective. The Community Compact
also illustrates Airbnb’s relational and contextualised city-by-city approach.
However, the global and liquid nature of collaborative economy platforms
operating across jurisdictions, and governments’ difficulty in implementing regu-
latory approaches (which would go against neoliberal ideology that promotes
economic innovation), suggest that utilitarian and rule bound approaches to defin-
ing and apportioning responsibilities are problematic. A care ethics approach to
responsibility, that relies on articulating values, establishing emotional connection
to place and people/communities, and that encourages public-private collaborative
action towards a caring end may offer a way forward in addressing community
Responsibility and Care in the Collaborative Economy 53

impacts. The object of caring is a central consideration here, since individuals and
collectives can simultaneously care for very different ends. Caring about markets,
growth, corporate image and reputation are traded off against caring for communi-
ties and people. The critical point here is that who is cared for, and what is cared
about are complex issues that do not receive the attention they deserve.

6 Discussion

This chapter has argued that care ethics offers an alternative approach to defining
moral responsibility in the collaborative economy and has briefly explored two
expressions of caring in the collaborative economy accommodation sector: hosts
caring for guests, and a collaborative economy platform (extractive model) taking
moral responsibility for impacts on communities. In undertaking this exploration of
how care ethics might be used to guide moral responsibility in the collaborative
economy, the deep political entanglements between global and local, between
public and private, between individual and collective, and between self and other
have been (albeit briefly) excavated. These entanglements should be understood as
dynamic tensions, simultaneously pushing and pulling stakeholders’ attention,
resources and action to care for some interests and impacts more or less. Care
ethics, as a philosophical approach to moral responsibility, sees action as both a
personal and collective response to relationships, emotions, values and context. In
conceptualising moral responsibility in this way, it is possible to balance rule-bound
and universal approaches to ethics with an ethics of care.
The challenge lies in moving the care ethics approach from a philosophical
pledge to normative directions and actions. The opportunity to introduce care ethics
relies on unlocking the opportunities that exist in the space between the fast
moving, liquid, global and highly politicised world in which issue identification
takes place and where action happens. Focusing on the opportunities to care that
exist within this space, to increase our capacity to care and take moral responsibility
requires that we resist quick judgement and expedient policy solutions. It requires
deliberation, reflection, mutual recognition and co-created understanding of the
impacts and consequences of the collaborative economy.
In the above discussion of care ethics in the collaborative economy we identified
four core values: context matters; understanding relations matters; values and
emotions matter; and individual and collective action matters. But when and
where in the policy and decision making process can these aspects be fully
considered? In the rapid, often contested and highly pressured arena of public
policy and media-led debate, it is often difficult to find the opportunity to consider
who should we care for and what should we care about. We need to slow down and
expand the “space” of deliberation. We need to expand the space of opportunity that
lies between two steps in policymaking—between issue identification and decision
making—so that we may discuss and deliberate more fully on the notion of care.
54 D. Dredge

Issue Identification Context matters 1 Assess the context

- External drivers and global-local influences
- Actors and their role as moral agents
Consumers - Situatedness of actors as citizens, professionals,
Communities political actors
government
collaborative - Relational entanglements
economy
Space to develop caring and moral responsibility

platforms
Property owners,
hosts
1 2 Analyse and reflect value systems (self and others)
- Actors and their role as moral agents
Relationships matter
- Power, injustice, obligation
- Empathy, reciprocity, mutuality,

Values and emotions matter 3 Commit to core values: do no harm (exploit or hurt)
and universal flourishing
- Interpret the meaning of core values in context
- Share knowledge and understanding of context
and relational conditions
- Build appreciation of and commitment to others
- Build social capital through strengthening relational
ties, positive emotions, commitment to values

Responsible caring actions that build, nurture and

protect relations that promote societal well -being
Individual and collective action matter. 4 - Identify/implement individual and collective actions
Action

Fig. 1 Space of caring and moral responsibility in the collaborative economy

Figure 1 conceptualises and expands this space between issue identification,

decision making and action drawing upon the earlier discussed directions from care
ethics. In this figure, we start by acknowledging that context matters and that
analysis of the context is also important. Relationships also matter, so we need to
identify the range actors and understand their relational entanglements. Values and
emotions also matter, so emotional connections and commitments between actors
need to be understood expanded and deliberated upon. Considered actions at both
individual and collective levels can then emerge.
Figure 1 is a conceptual framework that identifies opportunities for expanding
the space between issue identification and action, a space for creative exploration,
deliberation, and for the development of caring and moral responsibility. The
Figure acknowledges that interest structures are complex and that relations extend
in all directions. There will be shared values as well as individual values and
these common interests will co-exist with mutually exclusive interests.

7 Conclusions

The focus of this chapter has been on exploring moral responsibility in the collab-
orative economy using a care ethics approach, and the extractive collaborative
economy accommodation is used as the context for exploration. The chapter has
traversed difficult philosophical terrain in order to investigate relationships between
concepts such as ethics, responsibility and policy action. The traditional approach is
Responsibility and Care in the Collaborative Economy 55

for governments to adopt universal rules (justice ethics) to determine who is

responsible for what consequences and to prescribe remedies or consequences.
However, attempts to develop universal rules that prescribe roles and responsibil-
ities have proven to be highly political, difficult to implement, and significant
questions remain over the effectiveness of such approaches. Moreover, the diversity
of sharing economy models means that determining universal rules is a difficult
task. Factors that have contributed to this impasse include: the liquid, mobile and
global character of the collaborative economy; high levels of individualisation and
self-interest of heterogeneous stakeholders (platforms, hosts, consumers, residents,
governments, etc.); the highly contextualised and location specific nature of
impacts; and the power differentials that exist between powerful and well-resourced
platforms and governments and communities.
These factors mean that not only is it difficult to establish rules and responsibil-
ities, but the limitations of state sovereignty mean that implementing these rules and
demanding platforms and other actors take on responsibility defined by external
actors is fraught with difficulty. Under these circumstances it becomes clear that
responsible actions need to be generated from the emotional and interdependent
relationships and connections that actors have to the problem and to the conse-
quences of their actions on others. In order to do this, greater attention of the space
between issue identification and action is required.

Acknowledgement The author wishes to thank Associate Professor Tazim Jamal and Professor
Johan Edelheim for their invaluable comments and robust discussion on earlier drafts of this
chapter. The usual caveats apply—any omissions, errors and shortcomings are entirely my own.

References

Airbnb. (2015). The Airbnb community compact. Accessed May 21, 2016, from https://www.
airbnbaction.com/compactdetaileden/
Airbnb. (2016). Hosting standards. Accessed April 20, 2016, from https://www.airbnb.com/
hospitality
Anderson, L., & Um, S. (2015). Behind the bargains: How the sharing economy impacts health.
Toronto: Wellsley Institute.
Barnett, C., & Land, D. (2007). Geographies of generosity: Beyond the “moral turn”. Geoforum,
38(6), 1065–1075. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.02.006.
Bauwens, M. (2005, December 1). 1000 days of theory—The political economy of peer produc-
tion. cTheory. Accessed May 22, 2016, from www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id¼499
Berlin has banned Airbnb. (2016). Accessed May 21, 2016, from http://www.huhmagazine.co.uk/
11457/berlin-has-banned-airbnb
Berliner Mieter Gemeinschaft. (2016). Tenant report. Accessed May 30, 2016, from http://www.
bmgev.de/mieterecho/mieterecho-online/ihk-bericht.html
Bina, O., & Vaz, S. G. (2011). Humans, environment and economies: From vicious relationships to
virtuous responsibility. Ecological Economics, 72, 170–178. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.029.
Boston, J., Bradstock, A., & Eng, D. (2010). Ethics and public policy. In Public policy why ethics
matters (pp. 1–20). Canberra: ANU Press.
56 D. Dredge

Botsman, R. (2010). The case for collaborative consumption. TED Talk. Accessed May 21, 2016,
from https://www.ted.com/talks/rachel_botsman_the_case_for_collaborative_consumption/
transcript?language¼en
Bramwell, B. (2011). Governance, the state and sustainable tourism: A political economy
approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4/5), 459–477.
Cannon, B., & Chung, H. (2015). A framework for designing co-regulation models well-adapted to
technology-facilitated sharing economies. Santa Clara Computer and High—Technology Law
Journal, 31(1), 23–96.
Clegg, S., & Baumeler, C. (2010). Essai: From iron cages to liquid modernity in organization
analysis. Organization Studies, 31(12), 1713–1733. doi:10.1177/0170840610387240.
Collins, S. (2015). The core of care ethics. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Dredge, D., & Gyimóthy, S. (2015). The collaborative economy and tourism: Critical perspectives,
questionable claims and silenced voices. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(3), 286–302.
doi:10.1080/02508281.2015.1086076.
Dredge, D., Gyimóthy, S., Birkbak, A., Jensen, T. E., & Madsen, A. K. (2016). The impact of
regulatory approaches targeting collaborative economy in the tourism accommodation sector:
Barcelona, Berlin, Amsterdam and Paris (Impulse Paper No. 9). Brussels: European
Commission.
Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (2007). Tourism policy and planning. Brisbane: Wiley.
Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (2012). Australian national tourism policy: Influences of reflexive and
political modernisation. Tourism Planning and Development, 9(3), 231–251. doi:10.1080/
21568316.2012.678379.
Dye, T. R. (1978). Understanding public policy (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Engster, D., & Hamington, M. (2013). Introduction. In Care ethics and political theory (Vol.
15, pp. 583–605). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fennell, D. (2006). Tourism ethics. Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gilligan, C. (2013). Joining the resistance. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Haufler, V. (2013). A public role for the private sector: Industry self-regulation in a global
economy. New York: Carganie Institute.
Held, V. (2005). The ethics of care: Personal, political, and global. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Held, V. (2014). The ethics of care as normative guidance: Comment on Gilligan. Journal of
Social Philosophy, 45(1), 107–115. doi:10.1111/josp.12051.
Hollersen, W., & Mingels, G. (2012). Real estate boom threatens to end dream of affordable life in
Berlin. Accessed May 29, 2016, from http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/real-
estate-boom-threatens-to-end-dream-of-affordable-life-in-berlin-a-859420.html
Hooft, S. V. (2016). Ricoeur on responsibility. Borderlands, 3(1), 1–6.
Ikkala, T., & Airi, L. (2015, March 14–18). Monetizing network hospitality: Hospitality and
sociability in the context of Airbnb. Cscw Conference. Vancouver, BC: Canada.
Jamal, T., & Menzel, C. (2009). Good actions in tourism. In J. Tribe (Ed.), Philosophical issues in
tourism (pp. 227–243). Bristol: Channel View Publications.
Kassam, A. (2015). Airbnb fined €30,000 for illegal tourist lets in Barcelona. The Guardian.
Accessed July 7, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/07/airbnb-
fined-illegal-tourist-lets-barcelona-catalonia
Koopman, C., Mitchell, M., & Thierer, A. (2014). The sharing economy and consumer protection
regulation: The case for policy change. Arlington: Mercatus Center.
Lawton, A., Van der Wal, Z., & Huberts, L. (2016). The scope and scale of ethics in public policy
and management. In Ethics in public policy and management: A global research companion.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Leigh, A. (2016). Sharing the benefits of the sharing economy. Accessed March 9, 2016, from
http://www.policyforum.net/sharing-benefits-sharing-economy/
Massey, D. (2004). Geographies of responsibility. Geografiska Annaler, 86B, 5–18.
Responsibility and Care in the Collaborative Economy 57

McKeon, R. (1957). The Development and the significance of the concept of responsibility. Revue
Internationale de Philosophie, 13(1), 3–32.
Monbiot, G. (2014). Taming corporate power: The key political issue of our age. The Guardian.
Accessed May 21, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/08/tam
ing-corporate-power-key-political-issue-alternative
Monbiot, G. (2015). Uber and the lawlessness of ‘sharing economy’ corporates. The Guadian.
Accessed May 21, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/28/uber-law
lessness-sharing-economy-corporates-airbnb-google
New York State Department of the Attorney General. (2014). Airbnb in the city. New York.
http://www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/AIRBNB REPORT.pdf
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkley:
University of California Press.
Oltermann, P. (2016). Berlin ban on Airbnb short-term rentals upheld by city court. Accessed May
21, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/08/berlin-ban-airbnb-
short-term-rentals-upheld-city-court
Owyang, J., Samuel, A., & Grenville, A. (2014). Sharing is the new buying: How to win in the
collaborative economy. Accessed November 28, 2015, from http://tms.visioncritical.com/sites/
default/files/pdf/sharing-new-buying-collaborative-economy-report.pdf
P2P Foundation. (2015). Commons transition: Policy proposals for an open knowledge commons
society. Amsterdam: P2P Foundation. http://commonstransition.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/
11/Commons-Transition_-Policy-Proposals-for-a-P2P-Foundation.pdf
Payton, M. (2016). Berlin stops Airbnb renting apartments to tourists to protect affordable housing.
Accessed May 21, 2016, from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/airbnb-rentals-
berlin-germany-tourist-ban-fines-restricting-to-protect-affordable-housing-a7008891.html
Pettersen, T. (2011). The ethics of care: Normative structures and empirical implications. Health
Care Anals, 9(1), 51–64.
Porritt, J. (2007). Capitalism as if the world matters. London: Earthscan.
Ricoeur, P. (2000). The concept of responsibility: An essay in semantic analysis. Chicago: Chicago
University Press.
Robinson, F. (2010). After liberalism in world politics? Towards an international political theory
of care. Ethics and Social Welfare, 4(2), 130–144. doi:10.1080/17496535.2010.484257.
Scholz, T., & Schneider, N. (2016). The rise of platform cooperativism. A new vision for the future
of work and a fairer internet. New York: OR Books.
Shafer-Landau, R. (2013). Ethical theory: An anthology (2nd ed.). Malden: Wiley Blackwell.
Slee, T. (2016). What’s yours in mine: Against the sharing economy. New York: OR Books.
Smith, M., & Duffy, R. (2003). The ethics of tourism development. London: Routledge.
Stens€ota, O. (2016). A public ethics of care: Bringing ethics of care into public ethics research. In
A. Lawnton, Z. Van der Wal, & L. Huberts (Eds.), Ethics in public policy and management: A
global research companion. Abingdon: Routledge.
Sundararajan, A. (2014). What Airbnb gets about culture that Uber doesn’t. Accessed May
22, 2016, from https://hbr.org/2014/11/what-airbnb-gets-about-culture-that-uber-doesnt
Tronto, J. (1993). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. New York:
Routledge.
US Federal Trade Commission. (2015). The “sharing” economy: Issues facing platforms, partic-
ipants, and regulators. New York: US Federal Trade Commission.
Vigoda, E. (2002). From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next
generation of public administration. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 527–540.
Networked Cultures in the Collaborative
Economy

Szilvia Gyimóthy

Abstract This chapter charts diverse approaches to conceptualising the cultures of

connection characterising the collaborative economy. To decode the “we-conomy”,
we revisit classic notions of coexistence, collaboration and bonding in communities.
Informed by a multidisciplinary review (touching upon human ecology, sociology,
anthropology and cultural theory), the chapter identifies distinct theoretical frame-
works to describe the constitution of communities and discusses their relevance to
the collaborative economy. These frameworks explain the drivers of communitarian
behaviour and resource circulation, and together open up for multidimensional
interpretations of social exchange in the collaborative economy. The chapter con-
cludes with a critical reflection on the challenges of understanding the collaborative
economy in tourism, particularly when discourses are dominated by a communitar-
ian logic that overshadows the presence of other, and more pervasive, capitalist
logics.

Keywords Communities • Networked cultures • Peer-to-peer networks •

Collaborative economy • Tourism • Hybrid forms of exchange

1 Introduction

Before the Industrial Revolution, people tended to cluster in small towns and farming
communities, where citizens built tight-knit relationships over the course of many years. In
an economic system like that, where everybody knows everybody else, there’s a natural
incentive to treat people well [. . .] On a broader level, the members of these small,
homogeneous communities knew that their neighbours probably saw the world in the
same way they did, holding the same morals and belief systems, which made it easier to
conduct business with them. The sharing economy [. . .] suggests a return to pre-industrial
society, when our relationships and identities—social capital, to use the lingo—mattered
just as much as the financial capital we had to spend (Tanz, 2014).

S. Gyimóthy (*)
Department of Culture and Global Studies, Aalborg University, A.C. Meyers Vænge 15,
Copenhagen 2450, Denmark
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 59

D. Dredge, S. Gyimóthy (eds.), Collaborative Economy and Tourism,
Tourism on the Verge, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-51799-5_5
60 S. Gyimóthy

The quote above illustrates a prevailing and optimistic suggestion about the radical
societal transformative power of the collaborative economy. It conveys the vision
of a closely-knit (g)local society, emerging as an alternative to the alienated market
economy, driven by greed, egocentrism and calculative rationalism. The village
community is resurrected and upscaled, thanks to mediating infrastructures and
algorithms with warranties of transparency and equality. Contemporary social
networking platforms enable exchanges and interconnectedness among complete
strangers by institutionalising trust using sophisticated digital technologies. The
proponents of the collaborative economy frequently refer to the widespread success
of global tourism entrepreneurial phenomena (Airbnb, EatWith, Lyft, HomeAway)
to prove their point of the advent of a new era of digitally enabled intimacy between
fellow human beings.
Indeed, the most compelling narrative about the sharing economy is the utopian
return to the times in human history where people lived in egalitarian communi-
ties—a utopia that has actually never existed (Sparks, 2015). Peer-to-peer networks
on the social web appropriate the metaphors of face-to-face communitarian
constellations by stretching and infusing new meaning into terms such as sharing,
collaboration and symbiotic relationships. We must therefore address the implica-
tions of adopting an unsubstantiated, ahistoric and essentialist notion of the
community as the central analytical concept to understand collaborative phenom-
ena. This chapter challenges this naı̈ve framing by adding critical insights into the
momentum of the collaborative economy. Using a sociology of markets perspec-
tive, it addresses the question: How has the collaborative economy achieved such
broad appeal so rapidly, expanding along the discourse of a disruptive force that
will change the world?
To make sense of the collaborative economy (often called the “we-conomy”),
the chapter disentangles analytical endeavors focusing on how communities are
constituted via their transactions. In order to decode new cultures of connection
characterizing the collaborative economy, it charts diverse disciplinary approaches
to communities and networked societies and related conceptions of human
coexistence, collaboration and bonding. Four distinct theoretical frameworks are
identified to explain exchanges in the collaborative economy. To qualify and
contrast these frameworks, two themes are addressed in depth: the drivers of
communitarian behavior (i.e. what is the “glue” that binds networked cultures
together?) and the characteristics of resource circulation (i.e. how do people
trade commodities?). The chapter concludes with a critical reflection on the
challenges of understanding the collaborative economy in tourism, particularly
when discourses are dominated by a communitarian logic that overshadows the
presence of other capitalist logics.
Networked Cultures in the Collaborative Economy 61

2 The Constitutive Logic of Communities

Since the eighteenth century, social scientists have attempted to theorise the
character of human co-existence, addressing the question: why and how do people
organise themselves into communities? Why do we engage in joint efforts, build
collectives and share resources? How have communities evolved over time and
across societies? How are digital technologies shaping and shaped by collective
human activities? Human ecologists, economic sociologists, social anthropologists
and cultural theorists put forward fundamentally different views on the constitutive
logic of communities, each framed by an evolutionary take on their representative
empirical contexts: human evolution as a part of complex adaptive systems, the
maturation and diversification of market exchanges, the rise and decline of capital-
ist societies and the progress of consumer cultures.
As a consequence, there exists an ontological disparity within social sciences;
communities are being depicted along entirely different tenets and structural
metaphors. In Table 1, and as described below, four frameworks or perspectives

Table 1 Conceptual approaches to communities in the collaborative economy

Symbolic
Ecological- interactionist Communitarian
substantivist logic Utilitarian logic logic logic
Ethos Functionalist: Opportunist: Positional: Altruistic: care
coordinated optimising the semiotic and giving out
performance to benefits for the negotiation of of moral
sustain individual societal status responsibility
populations
Type of social Socio-economic One-to-one barter Complex socio- Shared sociality
connectedness teamwork for the transactions to cultural ties to (mutuality) and
and resource optimal use of maximise value in trade and inclusive
circulation scarce resources exchange, co-construct relations
or idle assets diversified brokers symbolic
capital
Value of Joint survival Individual Bonding for Collaborative
connectedness prosperity through distinction, care Reciprocity
alliances belonging to a to level out
community social
positions inequalities
identity
Value-making Subsistence: to Extractive: to Meritocratic: Distributive:
logic survive through maximise profit status collaborative
more efficient per transaction positioning commons
collaboration among peers
Metaphors to Flat/mesh (similar Circuits of Communities of Inclusive
describe to ecosystems and commerce (similar consumption communities
structural computer to value chains (similar to tribal
characteristics networks) with diversified hierarchies)
actors)
62 S. Gyimóthy

are identified (the ecological-substantivist, the utilitarian, the communitarian and

the symbolic-interactionist) to illustrate this diversity. Each provides concurrent
explanations regarding the constitutive logic and the forms of human co-existence.
Taken together, these perspectives offer notions that may strengthen a more
nuanced theorisation of collaborative economy, including its communitarian
ethos, models of social connectedness and diverse forms of value creation under-
lying the joint use of resources. Attempts to theorise the collaborative economy
may therefore start with exploring how seemingly incompatible ideas about
community dynamics can be intersected and converged to better understand hybrid
forms of exchange and collaboration (Dredge & Gyimóthy, 2015).

2.1 The Substantivist Perspective: Community as

Self-organising Ecosystem

Amos Henry Hawley’s seminal work on Human Ecology: A Theory of Community

Structure (1950) provides an ecological framework to analyse aggregating patterns
in human populations. His argument is that people would band together in symbi-
otic relationships to adapt to their environment and optimise the use of scarce
resources. Hunter-gatherer societies were organised along smaller units (a clan of
related families), each playing functional roles in sustaining the community.
Inequalities within the boundaries of the clan would be leveled out, where those
who had more capacity than needed shared with those who had not. This
interdependence has led to joint activities, such as the pooling and hierarchical
redistribution of resources and knowledge, and subsequently laid the foundations of
complex social institutions orchestrating and coordinating livelihoods. As commu-
nities expanded in size, exchange structures become more complex, leading to the
stratification of society. Market capitalism brought about an asymmetric accumu-
lation of individual wealth, culminating in unsustainable growth trajectories on a
global level. Hence, resource effectiveness and the pooling of spare capacity among
individuals became yet again a fundamental priority of sustainable societies and in
the discourse of collaborative economy (Botsman & Rogers, 2011). Ridesharing,
for instance, is a case of collaboration for sustaining a society through more
efficient use of resources that has implications on both individual and collective
levels. Commuters sharing a ride instead of driving separate vehicles are not only
saving money and time each, but also reduce their environmental footprint by
releasing less carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere.
The ecological-substantivist perspective defines the formation of human
communities as coordinated performance to survive difficult conditions. It is
perhaps more actual than ever, when contemporary societies are coping with
economic and environmental pressures, and the depletion of Earth’s resources
necessitates effective teamwork for the subsistence of its over seven billion inhab-
itants. The functionalist ethos of optimal resource use and effective systems was
Networked Cultures in the Collaborative Economy 63

revitalised in early conceptualisations of the sharing economy. Benkler’s (2004)

notion of commons-based peer production and Botsman and Rogers’ (2011)
reclaiming of Felson and Spaeth’s (1978) term collaborative consumption depicts
communities as sociotechnical ecosystems. Resource scarcity and technological
advances are identified as key drivers of emergent socio-economic systems
enabling sharing on a broad geographical scale (Botsman, 2014; Lessig, 2008;
Rifkin, 2000). Property regimes are being replaced by access regimes, where
consumers are connected to suppliers through networks bypassing traditional inter-
mediaries (Rifkin, 2000). In the past few years, digital network technologies have
given life to vastly diverse CBPP-phenomena, ranging from crowdsourced software
innovations to the swapping of homes and private accommodation. The rapid rise
and scale of new peer production and exchange platforms provided Benkler with a
plausible argument to conclude “social sharing and exchange is becoming a
common modality of economic production” (Benkler, 2004, p. 278). In a similar
vein, Lisa Gansky (2010) used a computer network analogy (“the mesh”) to
characterise the Sharing Society as a flat and fully interconnected digital global
marketplace, enabling direct, on-demand interactions among individuals to opti-
mise resource circulation.
There is a certain romanticisation about unmediated encounters within online
communities that are collaborating for the greater good. As Sparks argues,
discourses in the sharing economy reinstate the village and its neighbourly inter-
actions, yet these invoked times never actually existed (Sparks, 2015, p. 30). Void
of historical justification and context, the universal community is a hyperreal
simulacrum (Baudrillard, 1994), that is, a plausible projection of the past without
any factual grounding in reality. Pre-industrial, feudal societies were not particu-
larly egalitarian and peer-to-peer connectivity on a global scale was simply not
possible before the rise of the social web and Internet technologies.
The sociotechnical ecosystem metaphors introduced above are built on a naı̈ve
understanding of interconnectedness without addressing the social dynamics as
well as constraints of self-organizing systems among people. Equating human
collaboration with production systems or with an interlocked mesh of computer
networks distorts the notion of how people interact in groups. While computers are
absolutely capable of negotiating ever-increasing quantities of digital data to find
optimal and effective choices, the human mind has limited capacity to cope with
complexity.
In 1992, Dunbar suggested that the size of the brain’s neocortex imposes a limit
to the number of stable interpersonal relationships people can handle. He conducted
a series of experiments among human communities to establish the typical size of a
social network, estimating a stable group size between 100 and 200 individuals
(i.e. the Dunbar number). Dunbar’s Number has been tested and validated in studies
of online communities (Gonçalves, Perra, & Vespignani, 2011), confirming that our
social and cognitive capabilities of maintaining social relations online do not
increase with new technological affordances. Despite the possibility of being
continuously connected with unlimited other individuals, online collaborative
platforms do not automatically reproduce communities characterised by deep,
64 S. Gyimóthy

egalitarian and symbiotic social ties. The coordinated acquisition and distribution
of goods and services among 50 peers or above necessitates a set of digital tools
enabling sharing or exchanges on a larger scale. Socio-economic transactions are
organised along intermediating algorithms, including modular search, connection,
rating and review systems. Market mediated collaborative platforms list their best
performing providers to facilitate consumer decisions, thereby obstructing the
transparency of available offers. For instance, Airbnb search results always suggest
available superhosts as first options. Rather than being flat and egalitarian, these
constellations are organised along particular social hierarchies, coordinated by the
commercial platform owner (the broker of online peer exchanges). This leads us to
the second explanatory framework of networked communities, namely that of
market exchanges and the problematisation of commercial brokerage.

2.2 The Utilitarian Perspective: Community as Market

Exchange Platform

As argued above, communities in the sharing economy are complex constellations,

which are being produced, regulated and connected within socio-economic systems
termed “circuits of commerce” (Zelizer, 2010). The utilitarian perspective presents
an alternative constitutive logic for communities, in which the “glue” binding
human societies is framed through trade and transactions. The analogy of the
pre-modern village prevails (Sparks, 2015), but this time collaboration between
people becomes a means of economic progress and growth, rather than joint
survival. The foundational myth of the sharing economy is thus also inspired by a
neoclassic microeconomic ethos that has been around for over two centuries. Back
then, the economist Adam Smith naturalised bartering (the most primitive version
of market exchange) as a human trait: “There is certain propensity in human nature
. . . the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another” (Smith,
1776, p. 25). Market exchange denotes a transaction between two parts, when one
part transfers the ownership of a commodity (or an intangible resource) to another
part. The transfer of ownership is reciprocated by monetary or non-monetary
compensation and hence conceptualised as a calculated and rational exchange,
free of moral obligations transcending the transaction itself. The value of traded
resources becomes marketised (as value-in-exchange), depending on their worth
in a given transaction context framed by demand-supply configurations. Most
collaborative platforms facilitating monetised exchanges follow the valuation
practices of the market economy. For example, Airbnb’s or Uber’s prices are
calculated based on the attractiveness and availability of a given ride or room at a
specific time and location.
The utilitarian perspective adopts a marketplace analogy to understand human
interactions, and implicitly suggests that there can be put a price tag on all aspects
of human life. Derived from the tenets of social exchange theory (social
Networked Cultures in the Collaborative Economy 65

psychology), it is claimed that individuals are opportunistic in all social and

economic transactions, attempting to optimise the benefits for themselves. The
concepts of “rational man” and “reasoned action” have been the privileged depar-
ture point in consumer studies and economic analysis, also inspiring the egocentric
notion of the extended self (Belk, 1988, 2013). This instrumental trading logic is
also perceptible in Botsman and Rogers’ (2011, p. 73) analysis of emergent peer-to-
peer sharing phenomena. Self-interest is identified as the main raison d’être for
re/circulation of resources in the collaborative economy:
I lived in New York for 10 years, and I am a big fan of “Sex and the City.” Now I’d love to
watch the first movie again as sort of a warm-up to the sequel coming out next week. So
how easily could I swap our unwanted copy of “24” for a wanted copy of “Sex and the
City?” Now you may have noticed there’s a new sector emerging called swap-trading. Now
the easiest analogy for swap-trading is like an online dating service for all your unwanted
media. What it does is use the Internet to create an infinite marketplace to match person A’s
“haves” with person C’s “wants,” whatever they may be (Botsman, 2010).

Critics of the utilitarian perspective (Arnould & Rose, 2015; M.A.U.S.S., 1996)
warn against making sense of human and social phenomena solely along a self-
interested market discourse. Accordingly, this logic naturalises and prioritises
egocentric motives and expectations of return in the analysis of peer-to-peer
exchanges. As Arnould and Rose (2015) point out, utilitarianism not only reduces
human life to economism and the rationality of markets, but also reproduces
modernist dichotomies, which isolates market exchanges from gift giving, oppor-
tunism from altruism and generosity from self-interest. However, contemporary
collaborative economy phenomena defy such clear-cut distinctions. For instance,
the video testimonials of EatWith chefs (a dinnersharing platform) emphasise the
gratifying experience of bringing people together and share the enjoyment of
culinary delights:
[. . .] To get to see their faces and see their eyes light up when they take the first bite. . ..
That’s just priceless. . .. that long mmmm-sound, that’s what I love. That’s what I cook for!
(EatWith, 2014).

The gratification gained from guests’ compliments resonates well with Telfer’s
(2000) notion of hospitableness, identifying it as a benevolent, compassionate
action, driven by the desire for being with, pleasing and entertaining others. At
the same time, EatWith hosts do get decent compensation for their efforts; hence,
they represent both ulterior and altruistic motives. Collaborative phenomena, like
dinnersharing, are partly governed by capitalist market logic and partly by social
capital and collaborative values (Rifkin, 2015). In order to fully understand collab-
orative lifestyles and consumption, we must take note of cultural analytical
approaches which consider utilitarian and altruistic perspectives simultaneously.
66 S. Gyimóthy

2.3 The Symbolic-Interactionist Logic: Community

as Ideological Kinship

Arguably, the collaborative economy is not just a technological and economic

phenomenon, but also an ideological manifest and movement characterising the
cultural economy of the new millennium. As such, it can be understood using
cultural approaches to societal analysis, being sensitive to the sociocultural context
of consumption phenomena. Consumer culture theory (CCT) conceptualises the
integration of consumers into communities and takes inspiration in tribal metaphors
to describe their social hierarchy and organising principles (Arnould & Thompson,
2005; Maffesoli, 1996). Inspired by the principles of distinction and social strati-
fication put forward by Pierre Bourdieu, consumer culture theorists would argue
that consumption is a self-defining act in which individuals position themselves by
exploiting the symbolic meanings associated with commodities. In this view,
goods, services, tourism destinations, and even private homes, are accessories
used to fabricate a compelling story of the self and enhance status among peers.
Staying at a private Airbnb accommodation instead of a hotel room signifies a
reflexive and daring traveller identity in opposition to that of the mass tourist
(searching for authentic encounters away from the “beaten track”). The symbolic-
interactionist perspective suggests that the worth of commodities is defined through
the value added during the act of consumption (value-in-use), and hence, dependent
on the semiotic fabric of a given cultural context. Status-enhancing symbols and
meanings follow the trends of fashion and thus incessantly negotiated in social
interactions among individuals, subcultures, commercial actors and other social
entities. In contemporary tourism, “going local” (i.e. tapping into the everyday life
of a place visited) is one of the most enduring narratives, through which individuals
construct their traveller identities.
Consumption and consumer goods are not only a tool to construct a distinct
identity that sticks out from the mass, but also a way to signal belonging and
identification with like-minded others. Seen from this lens, the constitutive logic of
consumer communities is an ideological kinship of people sharing a passion for a
commodity, brand, leisure activity or lifestyle. For instance, urban hipsters made
fairtrade products, vintage clothing and organic food fashionable, establishing a
new regime of conscious consumption through their everyday market choices.
Consumer communities are constructed around the identities, relationships, signs,
rituals and everyday practices of members (Cova, Kozinets, & Shankar, 2007) who
may converge on physical events or virtual platforms to nurture and intensify social
bonds. Contrasted to a conceptualisation of the community bound to a certain
locality (as in the ecological and utilitarian logic), this perspective sees communi-
ties as virtual, footloose and networked across geographical space.
It is quite straightforward to deconstruct the ethos of “new” collaborative
lifestyles promoted by Botsman and Rogers (2011) with the help of symbolic-
interactionism. The “global sharing community” exhibits remarkable similarities
with the so-called Californian ideology (Barbrook and Cameron, in Sparks, 2015),
Networked Cultures in the Collaborative Economy 67

driven by visions of an egalitarian ecotopia, well illustrated in Airbnb’s community

compact:
Airbnb is a people-to-people platform—of the people, by the people and for the people—
that was created during the Great Recession to help people around the world use what is
typically their greatest expense, their home, to generate supplemental income. Airbnb
creates economic opportunity [. . .] at a time when economic inequality is a major chal-
lenge. Airbnb democratizes travel so anyone can belong anywhere. [. . .] Airbnb is home to
good travelers and good neighbors who contribute to their communities (Airbnb, 2015).

The Californian ideology is a cultural hybrid of San Francisco’s hipster bohemian-

ism, passion and colourful individual expressions and the maverick spirit of Silicon
Valley’s new high-tech startups. When in 2014 Airbnb relaunched its brand man-
ifesto with the polymorphous logo “Belo”, it subtly appropriated the values and
ideals of the Californian ideology as well as those of backpacker subcultures to
demarcate the company’s brand community. In a similar vein, The Compact in
Paris (2015) and the 2016 Airbnb Open Hosting Festival in Los Angeles was an
internal branding performance (or corporate domestication) to strengthen hosts’
sense of attachment and commitment to the company: “At Airbnb Open, we
celebrate the spirit of belonging through which we care for our guests and embrace
them as part of our family.” It has been suggested that part of Airbnb’s success lies
in carefully crafted narrative strategies to recruit and maintain their hosts. Douglas
Atkin, the Global Head of Community and Mobilization at Airbnb is the author of
the book titled ‘The Culting of Brands: Turn Your Customers Into True Believers’
(Atkin, 2004), which analyses and relates the social dynamics of cult brand
communities (Apple, Harley-Davidson) to those of real cults (Unification Church
and the Hare Krishna movement). He pointed out that cult brands address and
engage with their devotees by invoking community identification and loyalty. “It’s
easy to see the same kind of cult-like enthusiasm for Airbnb among its users, a kind
of evangelism, a sense that they are taking an enlightened path and even helping to
change the world” (Strong, n.d.).
The limits of the symbolic-interactionist perspective are related to the framing of
collaborative phenomena as a consumer culture trend, opportunistically harnessed
by venture capitalists. It equates the collaborative economy with a certain cluster of
global platforms, connecting, driven and benefited by people with high cultural,
digital and networking capital. It is capable of identifying contemporary narrative
representations of the self or of analysing the situated value of symbolic trans-
actions among members of consumer tribes, but it fails to provide a more holistic,
socially grounded and generalised explanation of communitarian movements. This
may be attributed to the fact that the symbolic-interactionist logic (similar to the
utilitarian view) takes its point of departure in individual behaviour to explain
larger social phenomena. We will now turn our attention to the communitarian
logic, pinpointing the norm of generosity and inclusion as a driver of human
coexistence.
68 S. Gyimóthy

2.4 The Communitarian Logic: Community as a Solidaristic

Cohesion

The advent of free market economies and consolidating capitalist systems by the
twentieth century has led to functionalist and meritocratic logic infusing all aspects
of personal and social life. The consequences of individual interests, economic
rationality and the spreading of utilitarianism greatly concerned modern sociolo-
gists. In particular, Emile Durkheim and his nephew, Marcel Mauss attempted to
reinvoke social commitment (charity, solidarity and community care) to maintain
social cohesion and long-term peaceful coexistence. In his seminal work The Gift,
Mauss (1990 [1925]) conceptualised gift-exchanges as the social glue in society
(Sleeboom-Faulkner, 2014), hence, defining the constitutive logic of communities
along the pursuit of solidarity, reciprocity and congeniality.
The gift as a special form of moral exchange has been extensively discussed
within anthropology and sociology (Mauss, 1990; Otnes & Beltramini, 1996;
Sahlins, 1972). As already noted above, Marcel Mauss maintained that gift is
central to maintain long-term social relationships “marked by the balance between
generosity and obligation, self-interest and solidarity” (Sleeboom-Faulkner, 2014,
p. 324), and as such, brings benefits to a larger group rather than between two
individuals. Opposed to market exchanges, gift-giving is not a simple dyadic affair,
with an ulterior motive of maximising benefits for the individual. Theories on gift-
giving describe reciprocal relationships between giver and receiver, which are
conditioned by mutual trust, intimacy or other types of proximities (e.g. kinship).
Mauss’ work is echoed in both early and recent analyses of moral economies
as an emergent alternative to contemporary Western societal structures. For
instance, Scott (1976) described the communitarian interests underlying peasant
communities in Southeast Asia and contrasted them to capitalist societies thriving
on self-interest. Later, proponents of post-capitalist social movements (Gibson-
Graham, 2006), the moral economy (Bauman, 2003; Germann Molz, 2013; Gold,
2004) and the hybrid economy (Rifkin, 2015) envisioned new societal dynamics
based on cooperation and generosity, involving a new type of generalised
exchange, also referred as “mutuality” by Arnould and Rose (2015). The constitu-
tive logic of communities in the communitarian perspective is pro-social, altruistic
behaviour, where giving and caring is a moral imperative to maintain and reproduce
a shared social vision (e.g. sustainability, social security and support). Market
exchange and dyadic transactions are replaced by the distributive logic of collab-
orative commons, characterised by joint ownership, cooperative appropriation of
resources and access-based consumption. Within collaborative commons, the
sustainable limits to resource extraction are agreed upon by the community and
surplus is reinvested or re-circulated among members.
The communitarian perspective suggests that patterns of social cohesion and
kinship in small groups are also valid on a larger scale, and transferable to urban
neighbourhoods or global virtual communities. However, a larger geographic scope
will affect how members are related to each other, modifying the density, intensity
Networked Cultures in the Collaborative Economy 69

and proximity of personal relationships. It has been argued that social distance will
have an influence on how we return a favour, so that people in closer relationships
are more likely to act unselfishly than in remote ones (Sahlins, 1972). Conse-
quently, the concept of reciprocity should be nuanced on three distinct levels.
Generalised reciprocity or mutuality, understood as an altruistic act without expec-
tations of direct return is typically observable among closely related individuals
(ibid.). In contrast, relationships between strangers and distant individuals tend to
be more opportunistic, where individuals benefit at the expense of others. Finally,
balanced reciprocity denotes a direct exchange between equivalents. It can be
argued that commercial collaborative economy models in tourism are designed to
facilitate balanced reciprocity rather than generalised reciprocity. Platforms explic-
itly define the terms of transaction and exchange between the host and the guest, but
there are no procedures for re-circulating the gains of individual transactions within
the broader host community.

3 Towards a Hybrid Understanding of Networked

Cultures

Networked cultures and communities are often highlighted as the backbone of the
collaborative economy, engaging in new social practices transcending the bound-
aries of public and private spheres. In order to address this complexity, four
perspectives were introduced above, each providing a distinct conceptualisation
of communitarian ethos, dynamics and resource circulation. As single analytical
approaches, their polarised interpretations may be partially inadequate to fully
understand the collaborative economy, where social dynamics are equally
characterised by substantivist, utilitarian, symbolic and communitarian logics.
Economic sociologists (Granovetter, 1985; Polányi, 1968) were early to point out
that all economic activities, including exchange are embedded in a non-economic
context, such as cultural values, social relationships and moral concerns. This
complicates the theorisation of resource circulation, which conceptually distin-
guishes between gift-giving, market exchange and sharing. The hybrid character
of collaborative economy blurs such distinctions; the emerging forms of “sharing”
and “pseudo-sharing” (Belk, 2014) cannot be understood independently of gift-
giving and market exchanges.
In order to address the social embeddedness of collaborative economic phenom-
ena, we must develop frameworks that are sensitive to capture overlapping motives
behind resource pooling mechanisms (Fig. 1). These may entail pragmatic reasons
(convenience and resource scarcity) suggested by the substantive-ecological
perspective; symbolic statements related to identity construction (distinction and
belonging) as well as communitarian imperatives (altruism and reciprocity), where
giving is an act of shared sociality. Networked cultures in the collaborative
economy governed simultaneously by these six motives, solicit analytical
70 S. Gyimóthy

RESOURCE
SCARCITY

CONVENIENCE RECIPROCITY
(TIME, COST) (SOCIAL GLUE)

POOLING OF
RESSOURCES
BECAUSE...

BELONGING AND ALTRUISM

IDENTIFICATION (MORAL
CONCERN)

DISTINCTION
(TO STICK OUT)

Fig. 1 Hybrid motives of joint use of resources

frameworks from previously incompatible domains. These are: (1) models of

economic systems (circuit, regime, networks and ties, transactions, relationships);
(2) cultural and moral perspectives on human coexistence (negotiation, lifestyle,
stewardship, pro-social behaviour, collaborative symbiosis) and; (3) ideas of
efficiency and enhanced value creation (zero marginal costs, full interconnected-
ness, direct exchange, optimised capacity use, recirculation of idle resources). To
qualify emergent social and communitarian practices in the collaborative economy,
future studies must look into the intersections of these domains. Such an approach
can problematise how utilitarian, eco-ethical and solidaristic ideals are balanced in
market-community relationships on different geographical levels, and how are they
negotiated and institutionalised in emergent disruptive business models.

4 Conclusion: The Red Herring of Sharing

The collaborative economy has been labeled as a disruptive force that will change
the world (Walsh, 2011). The four perspectives introduced in this chapter offer an
explanation for the rapid global diffusion and appeal of tourism and travel related
collaborative businesses. Airbnb and other platforms harness the communitarian
ideals of sustainable, eco-ethical and solidaristic co-existence, and emphasise
Networked Cultures in the Collaborative Economy 71

personal bonding and social cohesion instead monetised market exchanges. In this
fuzzy context, the term “sharing” is a red herring (a misnomer) that has been
misappropriated to occupy a market position by tapping into consumers’ need for
caring, connection and communitarian values. Epitomised by neologisms such as
“sharing economy”, “sharing platforms”, “sharewares” and so on, the term of
sharing has been re-imagined and reinvigorated across different domains, denoting
widely different social practices, some of which having actually very little to do
with sharing.
Let us therefore revisit the notion of sharing and review its conceptualisation in
the study of communities and networked cultures. Social anthropologists have long
acknowledged the structuring role of sharing in social relationships and in societies
at large. Since the rise of the social web, it has gained renewed interest by sociol-
ogists (Belk, 2007, 2014), linguists (John, 2013) and social anthropologists (Arnould
& Rose, 2015). They all agree that the contemporary use of the term is fraught with
ambiguity and complexity. In a recent etymological essay, John (2013) differenti-
ates between no less than five contemporary meanings of sharing, including, among
others; acts of distribution (e.g. sharing a box of chocolate), acts of communication
(sharing experiences) and acts of participation. Jenny Kennedy (2015) explores the
conceptual boundaries of sharing in relation to other social theories of exchange.
Based on a synthesis of various streams of literature she suggests that there exist
three distinct ontological perspectives on sharing (economic, distributive and social)
when describing the practices of networked communities practice. Accordingly,
sharing is simultaneously used to denote an economy driven by social capital (i.e. the
sharing economy/collaborative economy), a mode of online resource distribution
(i.e. sharing platforms) and a site of social intensification (symbolic exchanges and
bonding among community members).
The return of authentic relationships with private hosts has a particular allure in
contemporary tourism (Russo & Richards, 2016), where local cultures are
commoditised, packaged and distributed by multinational tour operators. The
disruptive impact of new tourism collaborative platforms can also be attributed to
a skillful manipulation of the communitarian discourse, promoting sharing and
belonging, while disguising the capitalist fundament of their business model
(Slee, 2015). They position themselves in opposition to the incumbent industry
(travel intermediaries and corporate hospitality chains), who are framed as uncaring
opportunistic players that contribute to, rather than alleviate, socio-economic
inequality across the world (Millard, 2016). As Strong (n.d.) notes: “The sharing
economy has cleverly made established brands dangerously out of touch. If they do
attempt to criticise the business model then they can appear like dinosaurs out of
step with the hip new economy”.
Sharing is positioned as a “morally correct act”, transporting its rhetoric and
positive associations to companies facilitating peer transactions against a fee. In the
book, “What is yours is mine” Slee (2015) demonstrates how the ideals of
community, generosity and participation are hijacked and twisted to scaffold
extractive business models, for instance, that of Airbnb. Hosts are recruited through
the company’s founding myth of some poor guys renting out their air beds to
72 S. Gyimóthy

supplement their income, while prospective guests are seduced by the illusion that
their peer purchase will benefit locals. With slogans such as Belong anywhere or
Live like a local; tourists are invited to take on the role of reflexive citizens and
contribute to build strong communities and good neighbourhoods. In reality,
Airbnb is a hyper capitalist venture, which does not redistribute the benefits from
idle property rental among community members. Despite allegations of contribut-
ing to housing pressures and gentrification, the company is reluctant to take civic
responsibility to deal with local problems arising from illegal rental and tax evasion
in European cities hit by a tourism boom (Dredge, Gyimóthy, Birkbak, Jensen, &
Madsen, 2016).
The collaborative economy in tourism is more than a circular marketplace
allowing peers to trade physical commodities and private hospitality. It also
reconfigures conventional actor constellations and respective roles previously
assigned to local hosts, local governments, transient visitors and footloose global
enterprises. Armed with professional lobbyists advocating for the cult of sharing,
innovation and peer-to-peer trust, the new commercial platforms have been
successful in persuading local decision makers to legalise them on favourable
terms (Slee, 2015; 2016). They claim that their algorithmically enhanced business
models are more effective to regulate their service providers, and the free market
will ensure quality control more effectively than public administrations would
do. As a result, analytical portrayals of the sharing economy tend to equal it with
hyper-capitalist, extractive business models, and disregard communitarian models.
Nonetheless, there is a vast number of small-scale initiatives (tool libraries,
dinnersharing, toy and garment swaps) that are conceived around genuine sharing,
serving the needs of a community rather than maximising revenue.
This chapter has explored the roots and dominance of the communitarian
discourse in the collaborative economy, pointing out that present sharing phenom-
ena are driven by multiple competing logics. In order to move beyond
oversimplified and romanticised notions of collaboration, solidarity, sustainability
and social responsibility, we need to break apart the sharing economy discourse and
be more critical to the claims of its cult brands. Strong (n.d.) offers a pragmatic
approach to distinguish between extractive and communitarian endeavors. This
includes exploring the propagated cult philosophy and identifying potential incon-
sistencies between strategic communication and actual deeds. Special attention is
required to monitor the organisations’ ethical practices regarding worker’s rights,
health and safety, payment of taxes and recirculation of benefits.

References

Airbnb. (2015). Community compact. Retrieved from https://www.airbnbaction.com/wp-content/

uploads/2015/11/Airbnb-Community-Compact.pdf
Arnould, E. J., & Rose, A. S. (2015). Mutuality: Critique and substitute for Belk’s “sharing”.
Marketing Theory, 1–25.
Networked Cultures in the Collaborative Economy 73

Arnould, E. J., & Thompson, C. J. (2005). Consumer Culture Theory (CCT): Twenty years of
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 868–882.
Atkin, D. (2004). The culting of brands: Turn your customers into true believers. New York:
Portfolio (Penguin Group).
Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Bauman, Z. (2003). Liquid love: On the frailty of human bonds. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Belk, R. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Studies, 15, 139–168.
Belk, R. (2007). Why not share rather than own? The Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, 611(1), 126–140.
Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 477–500.
Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online.
Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595–1600.
Benkler, Y. (2004). Sharing nicely: On shareable goods and the emergence of sharing as a
modality of economic production. The Yale Law Journal, 114, 237–358.
Botsman, R. (2010). The case for collaborative consumption. TED-talk, transcript. Retrieved from
https://www.ted.com/talks/rachel_botsman_the_case_for_collaborative_consumption/transcript
Botsman, R. (2014). Sharing is not just for startups. Harvard Business Review, 92(3), 23–26.
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2011). What’s mine is yours: How collaborative consumption is
changing the way we live. London: Collins.
Cova, B., Kozinets, R. V., & Shankar, A. (2007). Tribes, Inc.: The new world of tribalism. In
B. Cova, R. V. Kozinets, & A. Shankar (Eds.), Consumer tribes. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Dredge, D., & Gyimóthy, S. (2015). Collaborative economy and tourism: Critical perspectives,
questionable claims and silenced voices. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(3), 286–302.
doi:10.1080/02508281.2015.1086076.
Dredge, D., Gyimóthy, S., Birkbak, A., Jensen, T. E., & Madsen, A. K. (2016). The impact of
regulatory approaches targeting collaborative economy in the tourism accommodation sector:
Barcelona, Berlin, Amsterdam and Paris (Impulse Paper No. 9). Brussels: European
Commission.
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1992). Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. Journal of
Human Evolution, 22, 469–482.
Eatwith. (2014). EatWith Coreen in San Francisco. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v¼KaAcYjWUZPk
Felson, M., & Spaeth, J. L. (1978). Community structure and collaborative consumption: A routine
activity approach. American Behavioral Scientist, 21(4), 614–624. doi:10.1177/
000276427802100411.
Gansky, L. (2010). The mesh: Why the future of business is sharing. New York: Penguin Books.
Germann Molz, J. (2013). Social networking technologies and the moral economy of alternative
tourism: The case of couchsurfing.org. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 210–230.
Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2006). A postcapitalist politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Gold, L. (2004). The sharing economy: Solidarity networks transforming globalization. Burlington,
VT: Ashgate.
Gonçalves, B., Perra, N., & Vespignani, A. (2011). Modeling users’ activity on twitter networks:
Validation of Dunbar’s number. PLoS ONE, 6(8), e22656. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022656.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. The
American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 487.
Hawley, A. (1950). Human ecology: A theory of community structure. New York: Ronald Press.
John, N. A. (2013). The social logics of sharing. The Communication Review, 16(3), 113–131.
Kennedy, J. (2015). Conceptual boundaries of sharing. Information Communication and Society,
19(4), 461–474.
Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy. New York:
Penguin.
74 S. Gyimóthy

M.A.U.S.S. (1996). L’Obligation de Donner: la De’couverte Sociologique Capitale de Marcel

Mauss. Paris: La Découverte/M.A.U.S.S.
Maffesoli, M. (1996). The time of the tribes. London: Sage.
Mauss, M. (1990). The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. London:
Routledge.
Millard, D. (2016). The sharing economy is not your friend. Retrieved from http://www.vice.com/
read/the-case-against-airbnb-and-uber
Otnes, C., & Beltramini, R. F. (1996). Gift giving: A research anthology. Bowling Green: Popular
Press.
Polányi, K. (1968). The economy as instituted process. In E. LeClair & H. Schneider (Eds.),
Economic anthropology (pp. 126–145). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Rifkin, J. (2000). The age of access: The new culture of hypercapitalism, where all of life is a paid-
for experience. New York: Putman.
Rifkin, J. (2015). The zero marginal cost society: The internet of things, the collaborative
commons, and the eclipse of capitalism. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Russo, A. P., & Richards, G. (2016). Reinventing the local in tourism producing, consuming and
negotiating place. Bristol: Channel View Publications.
Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone age economics. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.
Scott, J. C. (1976). The moral economy of the peasant. New Heaven: Yale University Press.
Slee, T. (2015). What’s yours is mine: Against the sharing economy. New York: OR Book.
Slee, T. (2016). What is yours is mine: The greed behind the new sharing economy. Retrieved from
http://www.afr.com/leadership/entrepreneur/whats-yours-is-mine-the-greed-behind-the-new-
sharing-economy-20160525-gp3yfo#ixzz4K30OflpR
Sleeboom-Faulkner, M. (2014). The twenty-first-century gift and the cocirculation of things.
Anthropological Forum: A Journal of Social Anthropology and Comparative Sociology, 24
(4), 323–337.
Smith, A. (1904/1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (5th ed.).
London: Methuen. Retrieved from http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN13.html#B.IV.
Ch. 2.
Sparks, K. (2015). The sharing economy: The production, consumption, and regulation of
community in the digital economy. Thesis, Swarthmore College.
Strong, C. (n.d.). Airbnb and Hotels: What to do about the sharing economy? Retrieved from
https://www.wired.com/insights/2014/11/hotels-sharing-economy/
Tanz, J. (2014). How Airbnb and lyft finally got Americans to trust each other. Retrieved from
https://www.wired.com/2014/04/trust-in-the-share-economy/
Telfer, E. (2000). The philosophy of hospitableness. In C. Lashley & A. Morrison (Eds.), In search
of hospitality: Theoretical debates and perspectives. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Walsh, B. (2011). 10 ideas that will change the world. Time. Retrieved from http://content.time.
com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2059521_2059717_2059710,00.html
Zelizer, V. A. (2010). Economic lives: How culture shapes the economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Policy and Regulatory Challenges
in the Tourism Collaborative Economy

Dianne Dredge

Abstract The choice of policy approach and regulatory framework in dealing with
the collaborative economy rests on two fundamental factors—that government
decisions should be based on good sound knowledge and that this knowledge
should be above politics. In the newly emerging and rapidly growing collaborative
economy, these conditions are difficult to meet. The dynamic restructuring of
power relations, new stakeholders and information asymmetries can obscure what
is really going on. Some authors offer valuable meso-level explorations of policy
and regulatory issues in different sub-sectors of the collaborative economy. How-
ever, these solutions are often based on assumptions about government sovereignty
and power relations that do not necessarily apply in the slippery global world of
platform capitalism. This chapter seeks to undertake a critical exploration of the
factors and values that permeate and circulate in policy discussions about the
collaborative economy at a macro-level. The rendering of the socio-political land-
scape as complex, dynamic and value-laden dictates that policy approaches and
regulatory solutions are subjective and influenced by prevailing ideology, available
knowledge and the path dependencies created from historical events and
approaches. These influences have a crucial role to play in the identification of
alternative regulatory solutions, the evaluation of these alternatives, and the adop-
tion of preferred approaches.

Keywords Collaborative economy • Sharing economy • Regulation • Policy •

Governance

1 Introduction

In addressing policy and regulation in the collaborative economy, it is first impor-

tant to distinguish between two very broad interpretations of the collaborative
economy that may attract very different policy and regulatory responses from

D. Dredge (*)
Department of Culture and Global Studies, Aalborg University, A.C. Meyers Vænge 15,
Copenhagen 2450, Denmark
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 75

D. Dredge, S. Gyimóthy (eds.), Collaborative Economy and Tourism,
Tourism on the Verge, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-51799-5_6
76 D. Dredge

governments. Both draw upon the rhetoric of collaboration, sharing, community,

sustainability and trust, but they are quite distinct in terms of their underpinning
values and the nature of government responses that may be appropriate. The first
interpretation reflects traditional notions of sharing; this collaborative economy has
been around for millennia and is deeply embedded in, for example, indigenous
cultural practices such as potlash, and in the gift and favour economies (Mauss,
1925; Rehn, 2014). In contemporary western societies, this sharing has been
associated with visions of communitarianism and cooperativism that seek to restore
small-scale personal exchange as a means of taking back communities from the
individualism and consumerism that characterises twentieth century capitalism
(Gibson-Graham, Cameron, & Healy, 2013; Slee, 2016). Translated into the digital
world, Scholz (2016) argues for platform cooperativism a movement made up of
co-owned digital platforms where democracy, mutuality and communitarian ideals
invigorate genuine sharing and solidarity.
The second interpretation has also appropriated the terms ‘sharing economy’ and
‘collaborative economy’ but shares little in common with communitarian values. It
is a disruptive, digitally-mediated version of the collaborative economy known as
platform capitalism. This second version of the collaborative economy, also known
as the peer-to-peer, sharing, gig or platform economy, also calls upon a rhetoric of
sustainability, trust and openness, and is becoming a major change agent in many
sectors of the economy including tourism (Botsman & Rogers, 2011; Stokes,
Clarence, & Rinne, 2014). PWC (2015) estimated that the five main sharing
sectors—peer to peer lending, online staffing, peer-to-peer accommodation, car
sharing and music and video streaming—generate $15 billion in global revenues
but could be generating up to $335 billion worldwide by 2025. But this version of
the collaborative economy, which is underpinned by venture capital and
characterised by profit motivations, and has produced in a few short years a large
number of billionaires, is not based on the above traditional notions of sharing,
gifting or mutuality (Slee, 2016). For governments, the massive growth of this
digitally-mediated collaborative economy has presented a range of policy and
regulatory problems.
This chapter focuses on the policy and regulatory challenges associated with this
second interpretation of the collaborative economy. The digitally mediated collab-
orative economy is multiplying at lightening speed where almost anything can be
shared or accessed via mobile technologies. As producers and consumers connect
virtually in this liquid mobile world, the geographies of markets and regulation and
the sovereignty of nation states to manage their domestic economies and to raise
taxes have almost become redundant (OECD, 2013). As a result of this digital
collaborative economy, it has become possible to customise the mass production of
accommodation, food experiences, transport and personal services by accessing
both the idling resources and the labour of an increasing band of micro-
entrepreneurs. In the process, existing tourism business models and traditional
supply chains are coming under increasing pressure to adapt and transform. Tradi-
tional domestic taxation regimes, labour laws, health and safety regulations are just
some of the existing regulatory protections that can be evaded by this fluid digital
Policy and Regulatory Challenges in the Tourism Collaborative Economy 77

collaborative economy and that create an uneven, and often onerous, playing field
for incumbent industry actors (Scholz, 2016).
The landscape of power and regulation with respect to policy-making has also
changed. The global expansion and capital value of platforms such as Airbnb,
Wimdu, Flipkey, Lyft and Uber for example, have given rise to new, mobile and
very powerful platform capitalists with extraordinary power to manage, manipulate
or even disregard policy and regulatory discourses (Monbiot, 2015). In addition to
these platforms, a range of new policy actors is also emerging that defy traditional
stakeholder classifications. Peers (www.peers.org) is one such organization, which
is a membership organization representing an extensive coalition of collaborative
economy platforms, and it was also behind a political movement to galvanise
Airbnb hosts to vote against attempts to tighten regulation of short-term accommo-
dation rental in San Francisco (Fast Company, 2013; Slee, 2016). Freelancers
(www.freelancersunion.org) is another type of organization that acts as a kind of
union for independent workers many of whom work in the collaborative economy.
To the uninitiated, it is difficult to distinguish between the two organisations, yet
their motives and the interests they prioritise are vastly different.
The aim of this chapter is to explore the challenges faced by governments in
dealing with policy and regulation in this digitally mediated tourism collaborative
economy. Some authors have offered valuable meso-level explorations of policy
and regulatory issues dealing with collaborative economy accommodation
(e.g. Guttentag, 2013; Miller, 2015) and transport (e.g. Ha, 2013; Meelen &
Frenken, 2015). The contribution of this chapter is to add to this rich emergent
landscape of knowledge, by providing a meta-discussion and conceptual foundation
that assists in understanding the particular tensions, contradictions and values
underpinning the challenges faced by governments.

2 In Whose Interests? The Policy Dilemma

Policy and regulation are important tasks undertaken by government: they create
the conditions for societies to function in an orderly manner; they protect rights,
attribute legal responsibility and, importantly, they directly and indirectly shape the
social limits, expectations and desires that influence how individuals operate in
society. The development of appropriate policy and regulation rests on two funda-
mental precepts—that government decisions should be based on good sound
knowledge and that this knowledge should ‘rise above politics’ (Fischer, Torgerson,
Durnová, & Orsini, 2015, p. 1). During the latter part of the twentieth century
however, modern rational scientific approaches to policy-making have crumbled,
and its become increasingly apparent that technical policy knowledge in not
neutral. Critical policy analysts call for increased attention to the way in which
knowledge is framed, policy discourses are socially engineered, and the values
underpinning decision-making influence outcomes that benefit certain groups and
78 D. Dredge

individuals (Considine, 1994; Fischer, 2003). This critical perspective provides the
lens to understand what is going on in the tourism collaborative economy and the
policy and regulatory challenges that are emerging.
The collaborative economy is mooted as a disruptive innovation that embodies a
more efficient and sustainable use of existing resources and assets and a move away
from an industrial growth paradigm. Proponents of this digital collaborative econ-
omy invoke a moral mission to make the world more sustainable, more accessible
and more connected by accessing idling resources (e.g. rooms, beds, goods, space)
and the expertise of a growing body of freelance workers (Botsman, 2014; Stokes
et al., 2014):
It’s about empowering people to make meaningful connections, connections that are
enabling us to rediscover a humanness that we’ve lost somewhere along the way, by
engaging in marketplaces like Airbnb, like Kickstarter, like Etsy, that are built in personal
relationships versus empty transaction (Botsman cited in Slee, 2016, p. 20).

But in spite of this language of altruism and caring, the digital collaborative
economy is largely made up of for-profit commercial entities and the funding of
the sector is mostly derived from profit-seeking venture capital (Slee, 2016). The
role of this venture capital is to advance economic innovation by supporting a
robust network of activities aimed at financing, selecting, collectively learning,
embedding and signalling innovations (Ferrary & Granovetter, 2009). Together
these activities systematically ‘select the most promising projects of the region,
signal the best start-ups to the business community, accumulate and spread entre-
preneurial knowledge in the cluster and embed the interdependent agents of the
network’ (Ferrary & Granovetter, 2009, p. 354). The power of these networks to
promote and empower certain economic development discourses and social move-
ments, and to apply pressure on policymakers and elected officials, has resulted in
the accumulation of asymetric knowledge, the emergence of monopoly power and a
diffusion of political power away from the state (Stiglitz, 1999; Strange, 1996). As a
result, it is important to critically evaluate the policy discourses around the collab-
orative economy, and to excavate the origin and values of the knowledge that is
being reproduced and for what purpose. In other words, the dilemma lies in
understanding the difference between what we are told is a good or appropriate
policy direction and whose interests and agendas are embedded in this framing of
the issues.
The moral value of the digital collaborative economy is corroborated and
reproduced in a dense network of Silicon Valley entities that co-produce knowl-
edge to support and embed these interpretations in policy discourses and practices.
For instance, Airbnb has commissioned research using another Silicon Valley
start-up, CleanTech, to support the notion that its users are more environmentally
aware and their practices more sustainable than the traditional hotel sector (Airbnb,
2014). In another example, Fast Company1 (2013) draws attention to how Airbnb’s

1
Fast Company itself is owned by Mansueto Ventures. According to its own website the company
focuses on innovation in technology, etho-nomics (ethical economics), leadership, and design.
Policy and Regulatory Challenges in the Tourism Collaborative Economy 79

political interests are advanced in invisible ways by, for example, calling upon a
network of for-profit and not-for profit companies or creating its own entities.
Douglas Atkin, Airbnb’s Global Head of Community, co-founded the
abovementioned membership based organization Peers, which is aimed at ‘making
the sharing economy work for the people who power it’ (see Fig. 1). The website
offers links to independent workers’ insurance; it suggests places to find work by
linking to platforms such as Airbnb, VRBO, Homestay, Instacart, Lyft and so on
(see Fig. 2); and it offers advice on tax, personal safety nets and writing letters to
policy makers in support of the ‘modern (collaborative economy) workforce’
(Peers, 2016). However, Fast Company draws attention to the fact that that the
majority of members listed on Peers webpage are for-profit platform companies
(Fast Company, 2013; Peers, 2016). One of Peer’s tasks was to galvanise hosts into
a voting block to resist Proposition F, an attempt by the municipality to tighten

Fig. 1 Screenshot of Peers (http://www.peers.org/about/)

80 D. Dredge

Fig. 2 Screenshot of Peers (http://www.peers.org/find-work/)

short term accommodation regulations in San Francisco (Fast Company, 2013;

O’Donnovan, 2015; Slee, 2016). Using Peers, Airbnb reportedly spent US$8
million on this campaign and organised more than 400 volunteers in a door
knock event (Somerville, 2015).
Policy and Regulatory Challenges in the Tourism Collaborative Economy 81

Arguments that the collaborative economy assists in the formation of stronger,

more authentic social connections feed into a carefully crafted policy position that
the collaborative economy is a positive and much-needed innovation and therefore
deserving of a ‘light-touch regulatory approach’. Airbnb’s own carefully crafted
Community Compact manifesto (Airbnb, 2015) positions itself as wanting to work
in partnership with city administrations and will co-operate by providing informa-
tion (i.e., basic highly standardised reports) and may even collect local taxes where
appropriate, in return for this light regulatory touch.
These examples illustrate a complex multi-pronged approach that collaborative
economy platforms use to engage in policy discourses in order to pursue their
interests. The emergence of these new stakeholder coalitions such as Peers, illus-
trates that traditional categories of stakeholders do not apply and that coalitions
further obscure traditional interest structures. When asked about whose interests
were being represented, a social movements consultant working to progress
Airbnb’s interests in New York replied:
We no longer live in a binary space of business versus the grassroots. Businesses can be part
of social change, just like nonprofits. This space between social benefit and economic
benefit is where the sharing economy is growing fast (Foster cited in Fast Company, 2013).

Fast Company (2013) further clarifies:

Foster says that the agenda of Peers is wide open and will be defined by its membership. If
the actions taken so far benefit companies like Airbnb, they also benefit its hosts, who earn
an average of $5,000 a year. That’s the nature of the sharing economy. “Erica and Brian in
Grand Rapids don’t see themselves as defending corporate Airbnb,” she says. “It’s their
room in their house and their income that they’re fighting for.”

The above discussion illustrates the complex multi-value, multi-interest policy

setting that governments are required to negotiate in responding to the collaborative
economy. But there are some key tensions residing within this policy landscape: On
one hand governments have a commitment to economic growth, innovation and
competitiveness and this appears to go hand-in-hand with claims that the collabo-
rative economy can secure more sustainable and less resource consumptive ways of
living. On the other hand, there are a range of consequences and impacts emerging
from the tourism collaborative economy, the full extent of which are not yet known.
Not only is governments’ information poor, but the slippery global nature of the
digital collaborative economy means that governments have less and less power to
address these impacts through policy and regulation. Collaborative economy plat-
forms exploit this paradox by generating information and engineering the policy
discourse towards its own ends. Governments’ ideological commitment to neolib-
eralism and to the framing of tourism within an industry policy approach has also
created path dependent logics that constrain creative policy solutions that can
interfere with the march of hard line neoliberalism. These path dependent
logics—tourism industrial policy and neoliberalism—are explored in the following
sections.
82 D. Dredge

3 Cracks in the System? Tourism and Industrial Policy

The modern capitalist system has become an increasingly complex system of

production and consumption shaped by the dogma of industrial policy that seeks
to enhance competitiveness, facilitate efficient production by lowering costs and
reduce barriers to growth (Stiglitz, 1999; Walton, 1987; Warwick, 2013). Histori-
cally, drawing upon readings of liberalism and Adam Smith’s notion of the invisible
hand, there has been a presumption that markets would correct their own failures. In
this view, the private sector operating out of self-interest would protect the circum-
stances influencing its own production, and would therefore take steps to avoid any
negative consequences that would affect growth. Elected representatives, believing
in this ability of the free market to regulate itself, systematically removed barriers to
economic growth. It also became fashionable to attribute economic success to
liberalisation, privatisation and the free hand of deregulation rather than pursue
structural reform (Stiglitz, Lin, & Monga, 2013; Wade, 2012). As a result, and
particularly since the 1970s, governments in many countries have actively sought to
reduce regulation, arguing that interventionist policies were undesirable and
impeded perfect market function. However, markets have been conclusively
shown to be imperfect, market failures persist, information for markets to operate
has been asymmetric, and governments have not treated industry sectors equally
(Stiglitz et al., 2013; The Guardian, 2002). The result has been the creation of a very
uneven playing field where (often hidden) public subsidies and administrative
measures have created distortions and public policies have favoured some indus-
tries over others.
In tourism, and despite growing evidence of market imperfections including
tourism’s contribution to climate change, natural resource and community
impacts, there has been a persistent belief in neoliberal non-interventionist
approaches to tourism policy. In most countries, tourism has been treated as an
export industry,2 as a regional development tool, and as a strategy for economic
diversification and employment generation (Bramwell & Lane, 2010). Developing
economies have also been subject to this ideology as a result of coercive pressures
from international funding agencies. As a result, tourism has been cast as an
industry, an employment generator, a source of foreign exchange earnings and has
been dominated by market stimulation policies. Efforts to address market failures,
structural inequities and asymmetric information have been de-emphasised. More-
over, tourism has generally been afforded less policy emphasis compared to other
industry sectors such as car manufacturing (which has received significant subsi-
dies in many countries), and mining and natural resources. With a high proportion
of SMEs and the fragmentation of the sector, targeting policy initiatives is also

2
We note that tourism is characterised by partial industrialisation and, while it does not follow
traditional models of industrial production and consumption, governments have often adopted
industrial policy approaches to manage it.
Policy and Regulatory Challenges in the Tourism Collaborative Economy 83

complicated and may have contributed to lacklustre policy development in tour-

ism (Dredge & Jenkins, 2012; Halkier, 2010).
This preference for an industry policy approach affects government-stakeholder
relations. The industry policy approach entails close consultation with private
sector interests and policies and actions that support and facilitate key industry
interests: economic growth and competitiveness. This process facilitates flows of
information between government and business; it produces a shared understanding
between government and industry of the (growth) values to be pursued, and in the
process public resources are directed towards assisting industry ends. Large multi-
national corporations often enjoy considerable power in this process as a result of
their market presence and the jobs they create, which in turn affords greater access
to policy makers and support for their interests (Dredge & Jenkins, 2012).
Not surprisingly, government policies have tended to fall into three broad
categories designed to address the concerns of predominantly corporate stake-
holders. Policies address such things as initiatives to increase tourism demand
(e.g. remove barriers to growth, open up idling assets such as waterfronts and
national parks); initiatives to improve productivity (e.g. maintain minimum
wages and labour protections); initiatives to attract investment (e.g. reduce envi-
ronmental regulation and red tape); and policies to address certain market failures
(e.g. to support governance arrangements that enhance industry co-ordination).
This industrial policy approach has given rise to a kind of mutual intensification
of interests between governments and incumbent industry interests, and it high-
lights the inadequacy of democratic systems of government to engage the broader
interests of civil society (Dean, 2014).
Here, the issue of regulatory capture is particularly pertinent. Regulatory capture
occurs when government regulators come to advance the interests of the industry
entities being regulated (e.g. hotels and taxis). For example, regulations can become
so complex that regulators need the help of the industry, who have the relevant
market knowledge, to regulate. The dense relational ties that develop between
incumbent industry actors and regulators can result in a build up of power and
knowledge in cartels that keep others from entering the market (Koopman, Mitch-
ell, & Thierer, 2014). The collaborative economy challenges these established
relations because peer-to-peer transactions can bypass regulatory requirements
and have significant detrimental effects on incumbent business models as shown
in the taxi industry (Koopman et al., 2014; Monbiot, 2015; Parliament of NSW,
2015).
The rise of the collaborative economy has disrupted this traditional alignment
of stakeholder interests and flows of power. Traditionally large tourism operators
have enjoyed access to policy makers and elected representatives, and small and
medium sized enterprises, which make up the majority of the tourism industry,
have had less access and have been less able to advocate their interests in policy-
making processes. The entrance of platform companies are disrupting the mar-
ketplace, challenging the sustainability of traditional business models and supply
84 D. Dredge

chains, and the landscape of power relations. As discussed above, hosts earning
$5000 per year are aligning with platform companies worth billions; incumbent
stakeholders are subject to onerous policy and regulation that, while was once
thought to protect them, are now impeding innovation and adaptation; and
governments are faced with mounting pressure to do something about the conse-
quences of a digital economy that is global and mobile enough to avoid domestic
regulation. On one hand, governments would like to encourage this disruption-
unlocking innovation. On the other hand, incumbent industry interests (who have
kept governments in power) are demanding action to regulate the collaborative
economy. Here, we now turn to examine the policy and regulatory challenges of
the collaborative economy.

4 Regulatory Challenges

The literature identifies a large, overlapping and complex set of policy and regula-
tory challenges related to the tourism collaborative economy. Table 1 summarises
these issues. This table is not a comprehensive list of all challenges, but rather it
captures the breadth of issues that have been raised across various jurisdictions and
policy contexts. Delving into the details of different sectors within the collaborative
economy (e.g. accommodation, transport, personal services and so on) will likely
reveal further and specific challenges but is outside the current task. The literature
drawn upon in the development of Table 1 is global in nature, suggesting that many
of the challenges that are emerging are shared across international contexts and
jurisdictions.
In the opening section of this chapter it was noted that the choice of policy and
regulation rests on two fundamental factors—that government decisions should be
based on good sound knowledge and that this knowledge should ‘rise above
politics’ (Fischer et al., 2015, p. 1). We also noted that knowledge about the tourism
collaborative economy is not value neutral but is underpinned by established
values, beliefs and expectations about the role of government and acceptable levels
of intervention. In the second section of this chapter, the political nature of tourism
collaborative economy policy-making was discussed and it emerged that there are
power and knowledge asymmetries at play and there are stakeholder relations that
defy traditional classifications and management approaches. This rendering of the
socio-political landscape as complex, dynamic and value-laden dictates that policy
approaches and regulatory solutions are subjective and influenced by prevailing
ideology, available knowledge and the path dependencies created from historical
choices (Henning, Stam, & Wenting, 2013). These influences have a crucial role to
play on the identification of alternative regulatory solutions, the evaluation of these
alternatives, and the adoption of preferred approaches. We now turn to explore
approaches to regulating the tourism collaborative economy.
Policy and Regulatory Challenges in the Tourism Collaborative Economy 85

Table 1 Some policy challenges in the tourism collaborative economy

Type of policy challenge References
Ideological and practical concerns
Free riding on collective resources. Sharing and exchange through Koopman et al. (2014)
collaborative platforms can encourage free-riding of resources and
services provided by public authorities (e.g. tourism marketing
and promotion, recreation and leisure services).
Flexibility vs. Certainty. Evolutionary, require balancing flexibil- Johal and Zon (2015)
ity to innovate against creating the certainty needed for generating
business confidence, investment attraction, etc.
Rights vs. freedoms. Government responses must balance what is Monbiot (2015) and
good for society versus what is merely profit-driven and good for Goudin (2016)
the individual’s or company’s private interest.
Distribution of benefits (who wins and looses). Governments need Juul (2015) and Goudin
to understand who are the winners and losers, and what can be (2016)
done to minimise the negative effects on marginalised groups/
actors.
Policy mobilities. There is a propensity to adopt and adapt policy Juul (2015) and Dredge
measures in one jurisdiction to another. However, innovation is and Gyimóthy (2015)
context dependent. What is innovative and brings net positive
benefits in one setting may not be the same in another setting.
Information. There is no transparency of data or information to Scholz (2016) and Cannon
inform evidence-based policy approaches. It is unknown whether and Chung (2015)
the collaborative economy brings new economic value and
what type.
Responsibility. There is little consensus on who is responsible for Cannon and Chung (2015)
the negative externalities emerging from the collaborative econ-
omy. Global companies operate outside domestic laws making it
difficult to attribute any responsibility to them.
Power and governance. Power shifts from public towards private Hartl, Hofmann, and
sector are exacerbated in the collaborative economy. Establishing Kirchler (2015) and OECD
good governance arrangements and collaboration in the collabo- (2016)
rative economy represents new challenges.
Economic implications
Relationship between regulation and innovation. Regulatory Ranchordás (2015) and
responses may impede or promote innovation. Understanding the Autoritat Catalana del la
effects of potential regulatory approaches on innovation in the Competencia (2014)
collaborative economy is required.
Relationship between regulation and competition. Regulatory Koopman et al. (2014) and
responses need to take into account the effects of the collaborative Johal and Zon (2015)
economy on competition between actors within the ‘new collab-
orative economy’, and between incumbent industry and the new
collaborative economy actors. The risk of collaborative economy
monopolies is a concern noted in several jurisdictions.
Impact on incumbent industry actors. Established regulatory Koopman et al. (2014) and
regimes can give rise to regulatory capture by powerful incum- Johal and Zon (2015)
bents. Regulators may come to see the world as the incumbent
actors do, and rely on their knowledge, making ‘new’ thinking
difficult.
(continued)
86 D. Dredge

Table 1 (continued)
Type of policy challenge References
Taxation
Tax base erosion. Collaborative platforms are usually global OECD (2013) and Parlia-
companies and their organisation and operation are organised to ment of NSW (2015)
exploit and optimise tax arrangements. Collaborative economy
platforms are contributing to tax base erosion and profit shifting
raising issues of fairness.
Tax collection. Digital transactions on global platforms make it Koopman et al. (2014) and
difficult for governments to collect taxes. Collaborative tax Goudin (2016)
arrangements where platforms collect tax herald a further shift in
control away from government and the privatisation of public
functions such as tax collection.
Land use planning
Licensing. Local land use planning laws generally define owners’ Starr (2015) and Kassam
rights with respect to renting/sharing their house/apartment/room. (2015)
Different jurisdictions are making laws and taking very different
approaches to addressing impacts creating and create uneven
playing fields.
Nuisance. Local authorities have a responsibility to address nui- Koopman et al. (2014) and
sance effects (e.g. noise, overcrowding and illegal activities Starr (2015)
(e.g. pop-up brothels and drug labs).
Community impacts. Unregulated sharing activities at mass scale Starr (2015)
can impact on local communities.
Labour
Minimum wage. Labour has been subsumed into production. Col- Scholz (2016), Cannon and
laborative economy workers don’t often make minimum wage, Chung (2015) and BIBA
income security or have basic worker protections. A decline in (2015)
labour conditions could result.
Workplace health and safety. Traditional workplace health and BIBA (2014)
safety regulation and enforcement is not practical in the collabo-
rative economy. Lack of knowledge, awareness of temporary
workforces exacerbate the problem of maintain hard-won protec-
tions by the labour movement.
Legal aspects—rights, risks and liabilities
Impact of regulation on individual rights. Many sharing practices BIBA (2014) and Monbiot
have not traditionally required regulation and its been considered a (2015)
personal right, choice and practice to ‘share’ a room or couch or
home. Regulations may need to challenge existing rights and
freedoms.
Business models and entities. Business models and practices US Federal Trade Com-
adopted by small and micro-entrepreneurs can be blurred with mission (2015)
personal finances and practices making it difficult to identify pro-
ducers and enforce compliance with policies and regulations.
Consumer protections. Given the global context of platform Koopman et al. (2014),
companies and the emergence of new peer-to-peer providers that Parliament of NSW (2015)
lack knowledge of consumer laws, consumers need to be protected and BIBA (2014)
more than ever.
Policy and Regulatory Challenges in the Tourism Collaborative Economy 87

5 Approaches to Regulation

Regulatory approaches are concrete forms of intervention that are implemented

either by public authorities alone or in partnership with other stakeholders
(e.g. private sector interests, NGOs). Howlett and Ramesh (1995) point out that
there are as many regulatory approaches as there are policy issues, a situation that
has emerged because regulatory solutions mutate in response to local political
discourses and geo-institutional contexts. Other researchers have attempted to
build taxonomies of regulatory approaches based on attributes such as the level of
government involvement; levels of public resourcing; and levels of government
control (Bemelmans-Videc, Rist, & Vedung, 2010; Dredge & Jenkins, 2007).
While these taxonomies are useful in understanding the broad landscape of regu-
latory responses that might be available by mixing levels of intervention, resources
and control, they still do not account for the dynamic ‘moving map’ of ideas and
values that underpins regulation (Brenner, Peck and Theodore, 2010).
In an attempt to better understand the widespread regulatory transformations
taking place since the 1980s, Brenner et al. (2010) take a macro evolutionary
approach. They draw attention to the fact that approaches to regulation have been
underpinned by neoliberalism and that it is essential to understand its evolution in
order to better appreciate how regulatory structures and practices have been pro-
duced and reproduced (Dean, 2014; Peck & Theodore, 2010). In their view,
neoliberalism is a broad, dynamic and inconsistent thought project based on various
value-driven ideologies (e.g. globalisation, marketisation, commoditisation,
growth, limited government intervention, etc.). The interpretation of this neoliberal
thought project takes place within geo-institutional contexts. As a result,
approaches to regulation are often experimental, variegated forms of policy transfer
drawn from other jurisdictions and locally contextualised.
So what does this mean for the regulation of the collaborative economy? The
collaborative economy itself has been framed as a response to neoliberal impera-
tives where the marketisation and commodification of peoples’ lives and their
assets are extensions of a market-based economy (Slee, 2016). Transnational policy
transfer has attempted to create a homogenised policy space in which global
platform capitalist can play, but the influences of local politics and path dependen-
cies have created a variegated regulatory space. The success of the collaborative
economy relies on digital connectedness that allows producers and consumers
to trade effectively and efficiently while bypassing cumbersome regulations. Col-
laborative economy platforms might acknowledge that some regulation might be
necessary to address negative externalities, however heavy intervention undermines
the very conditions on which the collaborative economy depends.
But there are contradictions in this position. Earlier sections of this chapter
demonstrate that market failures are already emerging, and the intensity and impact
of these may indeed undermine the socio-political conditions needed for the collab-
orative economy’s success. These in-built contradictions suggest that regulatory
approaches to the tourism collaborative economy require careful consideration. The
88 D. Dredge

aims of regulation need to be considered in context and unthinking adoption of

regulatory frameworks drawn from elsewhere should be avoided. Inter-
jurisdictional policy transfer can homogenise the regulatory space, but such solu-
tions are embedded with the neoliberal values of other politico-institutional contexts
and may ‘lead to unpredictable, unintended, and intensely variegated outcomes’
(Peck cited in Brenner et al., 2010, p. 335).
In exploring the political landscape, the path dependencies created by previous
industrial policy approaches and the influence of neoliberal ideologies, the above
discussion has explored the policy and regulatory challenges associated with the
tourism collaborative economy. So where does this interrogation of regulatory
challenges leave us in dealing with the tourism collaborative economy? What
insights can we draw from the above discussion and what opportunities do we
have to shape policy and regulation?

6 Discussion

Earlier in this paper we highlighted a widely held maxim that government deci-
sions about appropriate policy and regulatory approaches should be based on good
sound knowledge and that this knowledge should ‘rise above politics’ (Fischer
et al., 2015, p. 1). In considering the range of possible policy and regulatory
approaches, it is important to consider a number of factors. First, it is important
to reflect on how knowledge inputs are framed and enter into policy discourses.
Second, it is essential to question what values and ideologies may be taken for
granted in, for example, industry policy or neoliberal ideologies that are (often
unthinkingly) translated from one context to another. Third, it is wise to reflect on
the particular socio-political and geo-institutional characteristics that make a local
policy discourse unique. Fourth, critically reflecting on how policy discourses are
socially engineered by various stakeholders can reveal information and power
asymmetries, silent voices and hidden issues. It is in the spirit of remaining open
and reflexive to these power and informational influences that we flesh out below a
broad policy and regulatory landscape.
In returning to the two types of collaborative economy that were identified in
the introduction to this chapter—platform capitalism and platform cooperative—
Fig. 3 sets out a continuum of policy and regulatory choices and uses these as
anchors at each end. This Figure is not intended to present a normative vision of
two opposing approaches, but instead tries to illustrate that there are different
value positions and choices ranging from a zombie-like adherence to neoliberal
values (e.g. marketisation, commoditisation, growth, etc.) to a socially-oriented
communitarian approach. This is the ‘moving map’ of ideas and values that
underpin the choice of policy approaches and regulatory frameworks (Brenner
et al., 2010), where shifts may occur over time from one to the other side of the
continuum depending on local contextualised discourses. The value of this
conceptualisation is to release us from an oppressive all-encompassing market-driven
Policy and Regulatory Challenges in the Tourism Collaborative Economy 89

Social communitarian
Market approaches
approaches
Collaborative economy
Platform capitalism Platform cooperativism
model

Privatization of value extracted What happens to the value

Re-invest back to the commons
from sharing produced

Supports worker solidarity by

Labour subsumed into production
combating wage theft, exploitation,
of the good or service (and most Labour
erosion of established worker
likely undervalued)
benefits, etc.

Returns proportioned between

Returns to workers, asset owners,
shareholders and asset owners, Stakeholders
producers
producers

Unlocking innovation potential Social policy focused on regulatory

and ecologies of small/micro Focus of policy frameworks that support cooperative
entrepreneurship platforms that promote fairness

Regulation supports collaborative

No or limited regulation of
Focus of regulation economy workers, working conditions
collaborative economy activities
and rights

Mobility of policy ideas and

Ecosystems of local collaborative
approaches that facilitate the
business ecosystems that may link on
extension of global platforms (and Global-local nexus
a global scale through shared value
possibly enhance monopoly
systems
power of platforms)

Fig. 3 Continuum of policy and regulatory approaches

version of neoliberalism, and to demonstrate that there is a broader set of choices

available in how to deal with the tourism collaborative economy. In some socio-
political and geo-jurisdictional contexts, a style of policy and regulation for the
collaborative economy that is more socially oriented may be more acceptable. In
other words, and building on the notion that neoliberalism is not an internally
consistent and cohesive theory but exists along a number of dimensions outlined in
Fig. 3, then it becomes possible to interfere with these logics to find policy and
regulatory solutions that do not simply reinforce “hard” neoliberal approaches.

7 Conclusions

The aim of this chapter was to explore the challenges faced by governments in
dealing with policy and regulation in the digitally mediated tourism collaborative
economy. While some authors have undertaken meso-level explorations of policy
and regulatory issues dealing with collaborative economy accommodation, this
chapter has provided a conceptual foundation that assists in understanding the
policy choices available. In fleshing out these broader influences, the paper has
explored the political landscape, the path dependencies created by previous
90 D. Dredge

industrial policy approaches and the influence of neoliberal ideologies on policy

and regulation.
In addressing these aspects, we have drawn attention to the inherent contradic-
tions and tensions that governments face in regulating the collaborative economy.
On one hand governments have a desire to promote innovation and to unlock new
economic ecologies that support economic growth. To do this a “light regulatory
approach” is sought by proponents. On the other hand, an unfettered collaborative
economy can lead to a range of market failures that can destabilise long established
industrial modes of production and consumption; it can contribute to tax base
erosion; it can induce poverty by allowing workers to fall below the living wage;
and it can erode labour protections, health and safety standards. The pace of growth
in the collaborative economy demands that governments address the concerns of
and impacts upon incumbent actors, new players, communities, workers, and
emergent stakeholder groups.
The chapter has demonstrated that not only is it becoming clear that traditional
industry policy approaches are inadequate in dealing with the range of emerging
policy and regulatory issues, but the complexity of the tourism collaborative
economy policy space and the interdependency and complexity of policy problems
calls for new approaches. These new approaches require an ecological ontology—
i.e. an awareness of the interrelatedness of different policy issues and a move away
from a binary division that pits industrial policy against social policy. They also call
for an appreciation of the moving map of values that underpin the neoliberal
discourses that influence our choice of policy and regulatory approaches. Only
when we become aware of these influences can we start to appreciate the choices
available and the opportunities to reflexively engage in tourism policy discourses
about the collaborative economy.

References

Airbnb. (2014). Airbnb claims homesharing more sustainable than going to a green hotel.
Accessed November 28, 2015, from https://www.airbnb.dk/press/news/new-study-reveals-a-
greener-way-to-travel-airbnb-community-shows-environmental-benefits-of-home-sharing-eu
Airbnb. (2015). The Airbnb community compact. Accessed May 5, 2016, from https://www.
airbnbaction.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Airbnb-Community-Compact.pdf
Autoritat Catalana del la Competencia. (2014). Peer-to-peer transactions and competition. Bar-
celona. Accessed May 21, 2016, from http://acco.gencat.cat/web/.content/80_acco/documents/
arxius/actuacions/ES_7_2014_TRANSACTIONS_BETWEEN_EQUALS_AND_COMPETI
TION_ENG.pdf
Bemelmans-Videc, M. L., Rist, R., & Vedung, E. O. (2010). Carrots, sticks and sermons: Policy
instruments and their evaluation. New Brunswick: Transaction.
BIBA. (2014). A BIBA guide to the sharing economy. London. Accessed May 21, 2016, from
https://view.publitas.com/biba/a-biba-guide-to-the-sharing-economy/page/1
BIBA. (2015). A BIBA Brokers’ guide to case law legal update. Accessed May 21, 2016, from
https://view.publitas.com/biba/a-biba-brokers-guide-to-case-law-legal-update/page/1
Policy and Regulatory Challenges in the Tourism Collaborative Economy 91

Botsman, R. (2014). Collaborative economy services: Changing the way we travel. Accessed May
9, 2015, from http://www.collaborativeconsumption.com/2014/06/25/collaborative-economy-
services-changing-the-way-we-travel/
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2011). What’s mine is yours: How collaborative consumption is
changing the way we live. New York: Collins.
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2010). Editorial: Sustainable tourism and the evolving roles of
government planning. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(1), 1–5.
Brenner, N., Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2010). After neoliberalization? Globalizations, 7(3),
327–345.
Cannon, B., & Chung, H. (2015). A framework for designing co-regulation models well-adapted to
technology-facilitated sharing economies. Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law
Journal, 31(1), 23–96.
Considine, M. (1994). Public policy: A critical approach. Melbourne: Macmillan.
Dean, M. (2014). Rethinking neoliberalism. Journal of Sociology, 50(2), 150–163. http://doi.org/
10.1177/1440783312442256
Dredge, D., & Gyimóthy, S. (2015). The collaborative economy and tourism: Critical perspectives,
questionable claims and silenced voices. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(3), 286–302.
doi:10.1080/02508281.2015.1086076.
Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (2007). Policy instruments, implementation and evaluation. In Tourism
planning and policy. Brisbane: Wiley.
Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (2012). Australian national tourism policy: Influences of reflexive and
political modernization. Tourism Planning and Development, 9(3), 231–251.
Fast Company. (2013). Is peers the sharing economy’s future or just a great silicon valley PR
stunt? Accessed April 4, 2016, from http://www.fastcompany.com/3022974/tech-forecast/is-
peers-the-sharing-economys-future-or-just-a-great-silicon-valley-pr-stunt
Ferrary, M., & Granovetter, M. (2009). The role of venture capital firms in Silicon Valley’s
complex innovation network. Economy and Society, 38(2), 326–359. doi:10.1080/
03085140902786827.
Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fischer, F., Torgerson, D., Durnová, A., & Orsini, M. (2015). Chapter 1: Introduction to critical
policy studies. Handbook of critical policy studies (pp. 2–24). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Gibson-Graham, J. K., Cameron, J., & Healy, S. (2013). Take back the economy: An ethical guide
for transforming communities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Goudin, P. (2016). The cost of non-Europe in the sharing economy: Economic, social and legal
challenges and opportunities. Brussels: European Parliamentary Research Service. http://www.
europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/558777/EPRS_STU(2016)558777_EN.pdf
Guttentag, D. (2013). Airbnb: Disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism accom-
modation sector. Current Issues in Tourism, 18(12), 1192–1217. doi:10.1080/13683500.2013.
827159.
Ha, A. (2013). California regulator passes first ridesharing rules: A big win for Lyft, SideCar and
Uber. Accessed April 26, 2015, from http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/19/cpuc-ridesharing-
regulations/
Halkier, H. (2010). EU and tourism development: Bark or bite? Scandinavian Journal of Hospi-
tality and Tourism, 10(2), 92–106. doi:10.1080/15022250903561952.
Hartl, B., Hofmann, E., & Kirchler, E. (2015). Do we need rules for “what’s mine is yours”?
Governance in collaborative consumption communities. Journal of Business Research, 1–8.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.11.011.
Henning, M., Stam, E., & Wenting, R. (2013). Path dependence research in regional economic
development: Cacophony or knowledge accumulation? Regional Studies, 47(8), 1348–1362.
Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (1995). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems.
Toronto: Oxford University Press.
92 D. Dredge

Johal, S., & Zon, H. (2015). Policymaking for the sharing economy: Beyond whack-a-mole.
Toronto: Mowat Center. https://mowatcentre.ca/wp-content/uploads/publications/106_
policymaking_for_the_sharing_economy.pdf
Juul, M. (2015). The sharing economy and tourism: Tourist accommodation. Brussels. http://www.
europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2015/568345/EPRS_BRI(2015)568345_EN.pdf
Kassam, A. (2015). Airbnb fined €30,000 for illegal tourist lets in Barcelona. The Guardian.
Accessed July 7, 2015, from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/07/airbnb-
fined-illegal-tourist-lets-barcelona-catalonia
Koopman, C., Mitchell, M., & Thierer, A. (2014). The sharing economy and consumer protection
regulation: The case for policy change. Arlington: Mercatus Center.
Mauss, M. (1925). The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. London: Cohen
and West.
Meelen, T., & Frenken, K. (2015). Stop saying uber is part of the sharing economy. Fast Company.
Accessed May 17, 2016, from http://www.fastcoexist.com/3040863/stop-saying-uber-is-part-
of-the-sharing-economy
Miller, S. R. (2015). First principles for regulating the sharing economy. SSRN Electronic Journal,
54. http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2568016
Monbiot, G. (2015). Uber and the lawlessness of ‘sharing economy’ corporates. Accessed May
5, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/28/uber-lawlessness-shar
ing-economy-corporates-airbnb-google
O’Donnovan, C. (2015). Airbnb is building an army. BuzzFeed News. Accessed May 5, 2016, from
http://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodonovan/airbnb-is-building-a-political-army#.fdXojrO5E
OECD. (2013). Action plan on base erosion and profit shifting. Paris: Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development.
OECD. (2016). OECD tourism trends and policies 2016. OECD tourism trends and policies 2016.
Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Parliament of NSW. (2015). Uber and Airbnb: The legal and policy debate in NSW. Sydney:
Parliament of NSW.
Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2010). Mobilizing policy: Models, methods, and mutations. Geoforum,
41(2), 169–174. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.01.002.
Peers. (2016). Making the sharing economy work for the people who empower it. Accessed April
4, 2016, from http://www.peers.org/about/
PWC. (2015). The sharing economy—Sizing the revenue opportunity. Accessed May 5, 2016,
from http://www.pwc.co.uk/issues/megatrends/collisions/sharingeconomy/the-sharing-econ
omy-sizing-the-revenue-opportunity.html
Ranchordás, S. (2015). Does sharing mean caring? Regulating innovation in the sharing economy.
Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 16(1), 1–63.
Rehn, A. (2014). Gifts, gifting and gift economies: On challenging capitalism with blood, plunder
and necklaces. In M. Parker, G. Cheney, V. Fournier, & C. Land (Eds.), The Routledge
companion to alternative organization (pp. 195–209). London: Routledge.
Scholz, T. (2016). Platform cooperativism: Challenging the corporate sharing economy.
New York: Rosaluxemburg Stiftung. Accessed May 21, 2016, from http://www.rosalux-nyc.
org/wp-content/files_mf/scholz_platformcoop_5.9.2016.pdf
Slee, T. (2016). What’s yours in mine: Against the sharing economy. New York: OR Books.
Somerville, H. (2015). Airbnb wages $8 million campaign to defeat San Francisco measure.
Reuters. Accessed April 5, 2016, from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbnb-election-
sanfrancisco-idUSKCN0SQ2CJ20151101?feedType¼RSS&feedName¼businessNews
Starr, A. (2015). Amendments relating to short-term rentals. San Fransisco: San Fransisco City
Planning Commission. Accessed May 5, 2016, from http://commissions.sfplanning.org/
cpcpackets/2014-001033PCA.pdf
Stiglitz, J. (1999). Public policy for a knowledge economy. Accessed May 5, 2016, from http://
cyberinet04.inet-tr.org.tr/akgul/BT-BE/knowledge-economy.pdf
Policy and Regulatory Challenges in the Tourism Collaborative Economy 93

Stiglitz, J., Lin, J. Y., & Monga, C. (2013). The rejuvenation of industrial policy. Accessed April
2, 2016, from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/16845/
WPS6628.pdf?sequence¼1&isAllowed¼y
Stokes, K., Clarence, E., & Rinne, A. (2014). Making sense of the UK collaborative economy.
Accessed May 5, 2015, from http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/making-sense-uk-collabo
rative-economy
Strange, S. (1996). The retreat of the state: The diffusion of power in the world economy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The Guardian. (2002). Joseph Stiglitz: There is no invisible hand. Accessed May 10, 2015, from
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/dec/20/highereducation.uk1
US Federal Trade Commission. (2015, June 9). The “sharing” economy: Issues facing platforms,
participants, and regulators. New York: US Federal Trade Commission.
Wade, R. H. (2012). Return of industrial policy? International Review of Applied Economics, 26
(2), 223–239. doi:10.1080/02692171.2011.640312.
Walton, J. (1987). Theory and research on industrialization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13,
89–108.
Warwick, K. (2013). Beyond industrial policy: Emerging issues and new trends (OECD Science,
Technology and Industry Policy Papers No. 2). OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/5k4869clw0xp-en
 Part II
Disruptions, Innovations and
Transformations
Regulating Innovation in the Collaborative
Economy: An Examination of Airbnb’s Early
Legal Issues

Daniel Guttentag

Abstract Airbnb, a service through which ordinary people rent out their spaces to
tourists, has become one of the most prominent companies in the collaborative
economy. Hundreds of thousands of tourists sleep in Airbnb accommodations every
night, yet a large number of these accommodations are actually illegal according to
many jurisdictions’ regulations on short-term rentals. This situation has made
regulatory conflict an omnipresent issue for the company. Such regulatory tensions
actually define the early years of many major innovations because the innovations
are not perfectly compatible with existing regulatory frameworks. Moreover,
Airbnb is a disruptive innovation within the collaborative economy, and operating
within a tightly regulated industry, which made regulatory conflicts virtually
inevitable for the company. Airbnb’s rapid growth has forced policymakers to
urgently rethink their applicable regulations by assessing the primary issues and
impacts, both positive and negative, surrounding Airbnb—tourism, taxes, consumer
protection, and local residents. In response, destinations have taken different
approaches to regulating Airbnb, centred on renting restrictions, permits, enforce-
ment, and taxes. As the regulatory landscape continues to evolve, more and more
destinations will look to overcome the challenges associated with legalising, reg-
ulating, and taxing Airbnb.

Keywords Airbnb • Collaborative economy • Innovation • Regulation • Short-term

rentals

1 Introduction

Often considered a poster child of the collaborative economy, Airbnb (www.airbnb.

com) is an online service through which ordinary people rent out their spaces as
tourist accommodation. Airbnb’s popularity has grown exponentially in recent

D. Guttentag (*)
Hospitality and Tourism Management, College of Charleston, Charleston, SC, USA
Ted Rogers School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria
Street, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 97

D. Dredge, S. Gyimóthy (eds.), Collaborative Economy and Tourism,
Tourism on the Verge, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-51799-5_7
98 D. Guttentag

years, transforming the service from a niche product into a mainstream one.
Nevertheless, a large portion of Airbnb accommodations are actually illegal
because they contravene local short-term rental laws, and the company has conse-
quently become embroiled in myriad regulatory battles across the globe. This
chapter illustrates that such regulatory issues plague many major innovations,
both inside and outside of the collaborative economy, because the innovations
often do not fit within existing regulatory structures. The chapter subsequently
explores the key issues for and against Airbnb that policymakers must consider as
they seek an appropriate regulatory response. The chapter next examines the
various approaches different jurisdictions are taking towards regulating Airbnb,
as related to renting restrictions, permits, enforcement, and taxes. Finally, the
chapter explores several challenges that will impact future Airbnb regulatory
discussions, and how the regulatory environment surrounding Airbnb will likely
evolve.

2 Airbnb and Its Legal Status

Airbnb describes itself as ‘a trusted community marketplace for people to list,

discover, and book unique accommodations around the world’ (Airbnb, 2016a).
As is characteristic of the collaborative economy, Airbnb has leveraged new
internet and mobile technologies to greatly reduce previous trust and communica-
tion barriers, and has thereby modernised and popularised the age-old hospitality
practice of ordinary people renting out residences to tourists. Airbnb is not the only
company occupying this ‘peer-to-peer short-term rental’ sector (others include
VRBO, Wimdu, and Onefinestay), but Airbnb is indisputably the most prominent.
As with many other of these peer-to-peer short-term rental companies, Airbnb is
much more than a simple ‘matchmaker’ platform like craigslist, as Airbnb is
involved in numerous aspects of the rental process; for example, Airbnb handles
the payments (earning its revenue by charging a commission), promotes security
via a host/guest review system and various identity verification measures, offers
hosts reimbursement for property damage, and even provides hosts access to free
photographers.
Airbnb accommodations range from very modest to luxurious, and usually
consist of an entire residence (house or apartment) or a private room in a residence
where the host is also present. The level of professionalism ranges considerably,
from hosts who periodically list their homes when away on vacation to
professionally-managed full-time rental properties. As is typical of the collaborative
economy, Airbnb guests are attracted by a combination of cost savings, practical
benefits (e.g., household amenities), and an experiential facet based on the oppor-
tunity for authentic and unique local experiences and interactions (Guttentag, 2015;
Tussyadiah, 2015). Since its inception in 2008, Airbnb’s growth has been so swift
that any numbers stated here will quickly be outdated, but by the summer of 2015
Airbnb’s Early Legal Issues 99

well over 500,000 guests were using Airbnb every night (Tsotsis, 2015), and by early
2016 the company boasted over two million listings worldwide (Airbnb, 2016a).
Despite this popularity, Airbnb is actually illegal in many jurisdictions due to
zoning ordinances and other laws restricting unlicensed short-term rentals. Such
issues have followed Airbnb across the globe, from Barcelona (Pellicer, 2014) to
Berlin (Vasagar, 2014), from Malta (Cooke, 2013) to Myanmar (Pasick, 2013),
from New York (Whitehouse, 2015) to New Orleans (Sayre, 2014), and from
Tasmania (Beniuk, 2015) to Tel Aviv (Elis, 2015). Often, unlicensed rentals of
under 30 days are prohibited, as is the case in Denver (Nowicki, 2014), Los Angeles
(Morris, 2015), New Orleans (where the minimum increases to 60 days in the
popular French Quarter) (Sayre, 2014), New York City (which permits such rentals
only if the owner is also present) (Whitehouse, 2015), and Vancouver (Gallagher,
2014). Moreover, some jurisdictions have more specific limitations on short-term
rentals, such as regarding areas where they can be located, their ratio within the
community, the number of times they can be rented annually, or the number of
allowable guests (Gottlieb, 2013). In addition to frequently being illegal, Airbnb
also generally does not collect and remit the accommodation taxes that traditional
forms of accommodation often charge.
Such issues were mostly trivial not long ago, but now that Airbnb and the
broader peer-to-peer short-term rental sector have quickly become so immense,
government bodies (mostly municipal) around the world are grappling with the
question of how to respond. Airbnb’s plan clearly was to establish itself as firmly as
possible before confronting its regulatory concerns, and simply wait for
policymakers to catch up (Yglesias, 2012a). This philosophy and the motives
behind it were encapsulated nicely by the co-founder of Lyft, a ride-hailing
company in the collaborative economy: ‘If we took the approach of, “Hey, let’s
wait and see what the government does to create a path that is very, very clear for
this new industry” ... then we wouldn’t be operating anywhere’ (Dubner, 2014).

3 Innovation vs. Regulation

Major innovations, by their very nature, often challenge regulatory structures by

introducing novel products, services, and business models for which the most
pertinent regulations—devised only for what previously existed—do not ade-
quately apply. For example, today there are major regulatory debates surrounding
innovations like food trucks, driverless cars, and drones. Airbnb has unsurprisingly
argued that the regulations prohibiting its rentals are outdated and have not adapted
to reflect modern technologies (e.g., Pedler, 2016), and there is some truth to this
claim. As an amusing example, the Ontario Innkeepers Act still devotes significant
space to describing when a hotel owner can place a lien on or sell a guest’s horse
(Johal & Zon, 2015). In addition to often lagging behind innovation, regulations can
also unquestionably hinder innovative activities and will more generally limit
personal freedoms (Chase, 2015). Nonetheless, regulations are (at least in theory)
100 D. Guttentag

intended to foster the overall public good (Chase, 2015; Koopman, Mitchell, &
Thierer, 2014) and few would question their overall importance. For instance,
Airbnb surely would desire regulatory protection against the (hypothetical) emer-
gence of a rival service named Aerobnb. However, finding an ideal level of
regulation is challenging, as policymakers must consider a variety goals including
ensuring consumer protection, guaranteeing intellectual property, and fostering
competition.
Innovations may also prompt regulatory action based on rent-seeking behaviour,
as competitors encourage regulation and enforcement to protect their market
position and hinder the innovation. Such manoeuvring is perhaps inevitable
because innovations can pose an existential threat to incumbent products and
businesses. Joseph Schumpeter, an influential Austrian-born economist who is
widely recognised as the father of innovation studies, termed this process ‘creative
destruction,’ and describes it as an intrinsic feature of capitalism (Schumpeter,
1942/2008). As he summarises, ‘The competition from the new [innovation]...
strikes not at the margins of the profits and the outputs of the existing firms but at
their foundations and their very lives’ (p. 84). Clearly fearing newfound competi-
tion from Airbnb, numerous hotel organisations and hotel workers unions, includ-
ing the American Hotel & Lodging Association (O’Neill, 2014), the British
Hospitality Association (Meyer, 2015), the French hotel union UMIH (Jenne,
2015), and the Australian Hotels Association (Ironside, 2015), have publically
criticised Airbnb and advocated stricter regulations and enforcement. Such appeals
parallel those made by restaurant associations against food trucks (e.g., Carman,
2013) and by taxi commissions against ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft
(e.g., Greenfield, 2012).
Uber and Lyft, like Airbnb, form part of the collaborative economy, many
aspects of which make it ripe for regulatory tensions. Firstly, collaborative econ-
omy innovations are based on rapidly advancing internet and mobile technologies,
making it difficult for policymakers to keep pace. Secondly, several of the most
popular collaborative economy services exist within highly regulated industries,
such as Airbnb (short-term accommodation), Uber (transportation), and Prosper
(finance). Thirdly, as Airbnb’s CEO has highlighted, the collaborative economy has
precipitated the emergence of micro-entrepreneurs who are challenging the distinc-
tion between businesses and people (Kessler, 2014). This blurring of traditional
boundaries raises difficult questions regarding consumer protection (e.g., Should
Airbnb accommodations meet the same safety standards as hotels?), where taxation
and other liabilities lie (e.g., Is Airbnb liable if a guest is injured in an Airbnb
accommodation?), and the employment status of collaborative economy workers
(e.g., Should Uber drivers receive employee benefits?).
Moreover, Airbnb represents a specific type of innovation, known as a ‘disruptive
innovation’ (Guttentag, 2015). This term is often overused to describe any novel
product that ‘disrupts’ a market in a more colloquial sense (Yglesias, 2013). How-
ever, it really refers to a product whose appeal derives not from improved perfor-
mance, as one may expect, but it rather underperforms in comparison with prevailing
products’ key attribute(s) while introducing an alternative package of benefits
Airbnb’s Early Legal Issues 101

generally centred on being cheaper, simpler, smaller, or more convenient. In other

words, disruptive innovations are inferior ‘good enough’ products (Christensen,
1997; Christensen & Raynor, 2003). This notion seems to apply directly to Airbnb,
which appears to underperform in comparison with traditional accommodations’
key performance attributes (e.g., cleanliness, security, and quality assurance), but
provides an alternative value proposition centred on its relatively low cost, practical
benefits, and experiential authenticity (Guttentag, 2015). Because disruptive inno-
vations are customarily simpler than existing products, they often will not meet
existing standards within tightly regulated industries, which has led to regulatory
clashes in industries including healthcare (Christensen, Grossman, & Hwang, 2009;
Curtis & Schulman, 2006) and legal services (Campbell, 2012). In some cases, strict
regulations may even prevent the emergence of disruptive innovations, as these
inferior products, though ‘good enough’ for consumers, are not ‘good enough’ to
meet established regulatory standards (Curtis & Schulman, 2006). Airbnb provides
an excellent example of this issue, as Airbnb accommodations often will not meet
the safety standards imposed on hotels and other traditional accommodations, and
Airbnb emerged by simply ignoring the existing regulatory regime that would have
otherwise suffocated it.

4 The Policymaker’s Perspective: Airbnb’s Issues

and Impacts

Being a disruptive innovation within both the collaborative economy and a highly
regulated industry, Airbnb’s regulatory problems were virtually inevitable. As
policymakers are forced to reassess their jurisdictions’ relevant regulations in
response to Airbnb’s rise, they must consider a broad range of issues and impacts,
both for and against Airbnb.

4.1 Tourism: Visitors, Traditional Accommodations

and DMOs

Airbnb’s most direct impacts are on the tourism sector. From a visitor perspective,
Airbnb is essentially an unqualified benefit, as it has introduced new accommoda-
tions that differ from most existing options by being cheaper and providing a more
authentic local experience. Even visitors who stay elsewhere may enjoy lower
prices due to the new competition Airbnb offers. Nonetheless, tourism is a business,
so from a destination perspective a central question is the potential economic
impacts of Airbnb, as economic benefits could help compensate for other draw-
backs. Unfortunately, the economic benefits of Airbnb are largely unknown. Airbnb
has sponsored economic impact studies in various major cities, touting tens of
102 D. Guttentag

millions of dollars in economic activity (Airbnb, 2016b), but such studies are
inherently biased (Crompton, 2006). Airbnb indisputably is lodging huge numbers
of money-spending tourists, but this money may have been spent in a destination
anyways, as Airbnb guests may simply use it as a substitute for traditional accom-
modations. Airbnb therefore may even allow visitors to spend less money overall by
spending less on accommodation, although Airbnb contends the majority of its
guests spend their accommodation savings elsewhere in a destination (e.g., Airbnb,
2015a, 2015b). Airbnb also touts its economic impacts by boasting that its guests
tend to stay longer and spend more money than hotel guests (Airbnb, 2016b).
However, it is possible that these behaviours are not actually influenced by Airbnb,
and may simply result from Airbnb accommodations being particularly appealing
for travellers on relatively long trips.
Nevertheless, regulations should not simply be fashioned to squeeze as much
money as possible from tourists, and Airbnb certainly may strengthen the tourism
economy in other ways. Airbnb accommodations tend to be spread throughout
residential neighbourhoods rather than concentrated in a tourism core, so Airbnb
may help to disperse tourist spending (Porges, 2013; Smerd, 2014). Airbnb also
may reduce leakage from the local economy, as money is paid to local hosts (minus
Airbnb’s commission) rather than corporate hotels headquartered elsewhere. Addi-
tionally, Airbnb provides ‘invisible infrastructure’ (Capps, 2014) that can help
support major events or seasonal tourist influx without the need for traditional
accommodations that may not be sustainable. For example, Airbnb is the official
‘alternative accommodation’ sponsor of the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de
Janeiro, helping to ease the city’s bed shortage (Associated Press, 2015). In addition
to such economic benefits, Airbnb stays are purportedly more environmentally-
friendly than hotel stays (Snyder, 2014), and the Airbnb host-guest interaction may
promote intercultural understanding.
The question of whether Airbnb guests are regularly using Airbnb as a substitute
for traditional accommodations has particularly salient implications for the regula-
tory debate. Airbnb has repeatedly denied that it competes directly with hotels,
arguing that it draws a different type of tourist (e.g., Conley, 2014; Titcomb, 2014;
Trenholm, 2015). Moreover, hotels in the U.S. have recently enjoyed exceptional
performance despite Airbnb’s emergence (Griswold, 2015b; Solomon, 2014), and
some hoteliers and industry analysts claim Airbnb is too small and distinct from
hotels to have a major impact (e.g., Grant, 2013; Karmin, 2015; Marcin, 2014).
Nonetheless, while Airbnb’s clientele may not perfectly resemble that of hotels,
many of the hundreds of thousands of guests using Airbnb every night undeniably
would have otherwise stayed in existing accommodations (hotels, hostels, bed-and-
breakfasts, etc.). Furthermore, very early on Airbnb did in fact present itself as a
hotel alternative (Airbnb, 2016c), and Airbnb is increasingly pushing into the hotel
market by targeting business travellers (Newcomer, 2015). In addition, analyses of
hotel metrics in Texas (Zervas, Proserpio, & Byers, 2015b), San Francisco (Swig,
2014), and New York City (Vivion, 2015) have concluded Airbnb is hurting hotel
occupancy rates and prices, particularly in lower-priced hotels without a strong
business clientele.
Airbnb’s Early Legal Issues 103

As was previously noted, the perceived threat of Airbnb has begun to mobilise
the traditional accommodation sector, which has called for tighter regulations and
stricter enforcement against Airbnb. The common refrain from these incumbents is
that they desire a ‘level playing field’ in which Airbnb pays its taxes and is held to
similar regulatory standards (e.g., Carney, 2015; Deese, 2015; Kenney, 2015a).
Moreover, if Airbnb is hurting hotels then there could be a negative impact on hotel
employment, which some policymakers may wish to protect (Dubner, 2014). This
employment issue is partly offset by the money hosts earn and the ecosystem of
businesses that have sprung up to serve Airbnb (Shankman, 2014), but collaborative
economy jobs have been criticised for being precarious and offering no benefits
(e.g., Keen, 2015). Also, Airbnb may have a particularly significant impact on
non-hotel accommodations like bed-and-breakfasts (e.g., Kenney, 2015b) and
hostels.
Hotels’ opposition to Airbnb creates an awkward situation for local destination
marketing organisations (DMOs) tasked with destination promotion, as DMOs are
largely funded by hotels (via accommodation taxes) and hotels often feature
prominently on DMO boards of directors (Sheehan & Ritchie, 2005). Therefore,
even if a DMO feels Airbnb benefits a destination (e.g., by facilitating event
hosting, fostering a destination’s image as hip and trendy, engaging local residents
with the local tourism sector, or simply providing a desirable accommodation
alternative), the DMO may avoid publicly supporting Airbnb. San Francisco’s
DMO recently became the first to forge an official partnership with Airbnb
(Sciacca, 2015) and Philadelphia followed shortly after (Hilario, 2015), whereas
Baltimore’s DMO has taken the opposite stance and sought stricter short-term
rental restrictions (Munshaw, 2015). However, for the most part DMOs seem to
have avoided Airbnb debates and allowed their two main stakeholders—hotels and
municipal governments (Sheehan, Ritchie, & Hudson, 2007)—to confront the
issue.

4.2 Taxes

In jurisdictions where Airbnb remains illegal and unregulated, it also is generally

untaxed. Therefore, policymakers have an economic incentive to legalise, regulate,
and tax Airbnb. In major destinations like San Francisco, the tax revenue from
Airbnb can reach many millions of dollars (Green, 2015a). Moreover, taxing
Airbnb eliminates the ‘free rider’ problem in which Airbnb and its hosts benefit
from destination promotion without contributing to it via an accommodation tax.
Several years ago, Airbnb resisted accommodation taxes, arguing that accom-
modation tax laws needed to be updated for innovative services like Airbnb (Coté,
2012) and Airbnb hosts should individually be responsible for collecting and
remitting the taxes (Levy & Goldman, 2012). However, as Airbnb’s regulatory
battles heated up, particularly in New York City, Airbnb wisely accepted its tax
obligations and began using the promise of tax dollars as a bargaining chip for
104 D. Guttentag

regulatory acceptance (Hantman, 2014b; Wohlsen, 2013). For example, Airbnb

recently sent a letter to all 213 New York State Legislators lamenting the millions
of dollars in tax revenue that Airbnb could contribute if the laws were revised (Kerr,
2015). Amusingly, when Airbnb changed its stance on taxes, its hotel industry
opponents in New York City, who had previously criticised Airbnb for not paying
its taxes, were forced to similarly reverse course and began to oppose Airbnb
taxation, worried that tax payments would grant Airbnb more formal legitimacy
(Griswold, 2015a; Hantman, 2014c).

4.3 Consumer Protection

Beyond the tax question, when hotels demand a level playing field with Airbnb or
when policymakers question its merit, they often reference consumer safety con-
cerns including security, health, and fire safety (e.g., King, 2015; Sreenivasan,
2015; Valencia, 2014). Such concerns are understandable, and in fact one Airbnb
guest has died after falling from a broken rope swing (Stone, 2015), another died
from carbon monoxide poisoning (with several accompanying guests hospitalised)
(Hill, 2015), two separate sexual assaults have reportedly been committed against
Airbnb guests (Joshi, 2014; Lieber, 2015b), one guest was bitten by a host’s
Rottweiler (Lieber, 2015a), and another found a hidden camera in her rental
(Brandom, 2015). However, while Airbnb can do more to prevent such tragedies,
it must be acknowledged that given the massive number of Airbnb users it is almost
unavoidable that some crimes and injuries would occur, and such incidents obvi-
ously occur in hotels as well (e.g., Hussain, 2015; Leland, 2015; MacBride &
Flores, 2015). Also, the vast majority of Airbnb crimes actually seem to be property
crimes perpetrated against hosts rather than guests (e.g., Nerman, 2015; Sernoffsky,
2015), and many Airbnb accommodations are in buildings that already abide by
various safety standards.
Airbnb promotes security via identity verification measures and a review system,
the latter of which is a defining security feature in many collaborative economy
enterprises. Such systems serve the dual purpose of allowing two parties to learn
more about one another before agreeing to a transaction, and creating an incentive
for both parties to conduct themselves acceptably (Jøsang, Ismail, & Boyd, 2007).
Several authors have posited that these self-regulatory reputation-based feedback
mechanisms are more effective than traditional government regulatory regimes, and
the latter are therefore mostly anachronistic and inefficient (Cohen & Sundararajan,
2015; Grossman, 2015; Koopman et al., 2014; Sundararajan, 2012, 2014).
Grossman (2015), for example, envisions a new regulatory paradigm centered on
accountability rather than permission, as information accessibility replaces the need
for traditional licensing, and companies share data with regulators to help prevent
and respond to problems. Koopman et al. (2014) similarly argue that information
accessibility has minimised the need for traditional regulations, which should be
relaxed for both incumbent businesses and new entrants, and Sundararajan (2014)
Airbnb’s Early Legal Issues 105

and Cohen and Sundararajan (2015) advocate almost wholly self-regulatory agen-
cies with limited government oversight.
There is no question that regulatory agencies should exploit the copious real-
time data now generated by consumers, which presents some obvious advantages
over the information that can be gathered by a licensed inspector. However, one
must be careful about overstating the collaborative economy’s ability to use
reputational feedback mechanisms for self-regulation. Advocating reliance on
review mechanisms for consumer protection would seemingly suggest TripAdvisor
is sufficient to regulate hotels, which is a notion that Sundararajan (2012) actually
presents, but one with which most people would quickly disagree. The problem
with relying on user reviews as a regulatory mechanism is that review systems like
Airbnb’s can exhibit numerous weaknesses. To begin, Airbnb reviews predictably
focus on issues like cleanliness, location, and host friendliness, rather than issues
like fire safety, the presence of carbon monoxide detectors, or the host’s criminal
record, which are the sort of issues most likely to be considered by government
regulations. Additionally, several aspects of the Airbnb review system may artifi-
cially inflate the positivity of reviews: firstly, guests may not wish to post a negative
review because it could signal pickiness that would lead future potential hosts to
reject reservation requests (Mulshine, 2015); secondly, a guest must complete a
stay in order to leave a review, and therefore cannot review a place that was so
terrible the guest left early (Paris, 2015); thirdly, guests may be disinclined to
criticise an individual person (i.e., the Airbnb host) despite having no issue
criticising a faceless hotel property (Ho, 2015); and fourthly, until a recent policy
change that postdates many existing reviews, Airbnb published hosts’ and guests’
reviews immediately, so each were discouraged from criticism out of fear of a
retaliatory negative review (Rubin, 2014). Given such issues, it is unsurprising that
research has found Airbnb reviews to be extremely positive, as compared with
accommodation reviews on other websites (Dı́az Armas, Gutiérrez Ta~no, & Garcı́a
Rodrı́guez, 2015; Zervas, Proserpio, & Byers, 2015a). In fact, Zervas et al. (2015a)
looked at 600,000 Airbnb listings and found 95% enjoyed a 4.5 or 5 star rating, and
virtually none had fewer than 3.5 stars. Consequently, rather than providing a
substitute for traditional regulations, review systems are better suited to simply
complement and bolster traditional regulatory practices, like in New York City
where health authorities have used Yelp to help detect outbreaks of foodborne
illness (Knox, 2014).

4.3.1 Hosts and Residents

Short-term renting permits Airbnb hosts to leverage what is likely their largest asset
to generate additional income, which may help to cover mortgage payments and
avert foreclosures (Gottlieb, 2013). In fact, Airbnb often boasts that a large per-
centage of its hosts use their earnings to help cover mortgage or rent payments and
other basic expenses (Airbnb, 2016b). Restricting such economic activity requires a
strong justification, and interestingly few have considered whether short-term rental
106 D. Guttentag

regulations constitute violations of individual property rights, although a recent

lawsuit in Tennessee makes this very claim (Garrison, 2015c). Jefferson-Jones
(2015) provides the most focused analysis on this question, connecting it to the
long history of boarding houses in the U.S. and arguing that short-term rental
restrictions do, in fact, represent an unconstitutional ‘taking’ of private property
(i.e., ‘inverse condemnation’) without just compensation.
Nevertheless, Jefferson-Jones (2015) glosses over some serious concerns with
Airbnb accommodations. Whereas Airbnb may provide a net benefit for both the
host and guest, it produces a negative externality in terms of its impacts on the
host’s neighbours, which is notably absent from most other collaborative economy
services (e.g., ride-hailing). This concern is a basic reason for zoning laws—much
like many people would not want their neighbours hosting weekly garage sales, or
opening a mechanic business in their driveway, or running a beauty salon from their
living room, it is understandable for people to not want to live across the hall from
what is essentially a hotel room. Tourist guests, who may behave more hedonisti-
cally when on vacation (Carr, 2002) and have no long-term vested interest in the
community, may prove disruptive for nearby residents. For instance, unknown
transient guests may raise safety concerns or disturb neighbouring residents by
noisily coming and going late at night or partying loudly (e.g., Leland, 2012; Lu,
2015; Shute, 2014). As one Airbnb critic scribbled on an Airbnb subway ad in
New York City, ‘The dumbest person in your building is passing out a set of keys to
your front door!’ (Pressler, 2014). Additionally, in neighbourhoods where Airbnb
accommodations are abundant—like New York City’s East Village (Fermino,
2015) or Paris’s Marais (French, Schechner & Verbergt, 2015)—they can more
generally harm the fabric of the community by filling purportedly residential areas
with throngs of tourists. Consequently, while Airbnb is beloved by many, it has also
led to conflicts between neighbours (e.g., CBC News, 2015; Coltrain, 2015) and
triggered both informal and organised protests from some community activists
(e.g. Curth, 2015; Dzieza, 2015; Langfield, 2014). In effect, Airbnb has produced
a sort of ‘NIMBYism1’ in which Airbnb is popular in theory, but many people do
not want it near them. In fact, an online poll found that when asked if people should
be permitted to rent their rooms to strangers, 26% of respondents answered it should
be freely allowed and only 12% answered it should be completely banned, yet when
asked if their neighbours should be permitted to rent their rooms to strangers only
17% said it should be freely allowed and 20% stated it should be completely banned
(Ali, 2015).
Airbnb also may harm local property markets by reducing housing stock and in
turn precipitating an increase in housing prices. Such issues primarily result from
residences being used as permanent short-term rentals with absentee hosts, yet there
are even reports of landlords evicting tenants in order to convert long-term housing
into more lucrative short-term rentals (e.g., Aron, 2015). Nonetheless, it is unclear

1
‘Not in my backyard’.
Airbnb’s Early Legal Issues 107

to what extent Airbnb truly reduces housing stock. Airbnb claims to make housing
more affordable by providing hosts with supplemental income to help cover high
rents or mortgages (Hantman, 2014a), and therefore has recently positioned itself as
a champion of middle class economic stability (Said, 2015c). The company also
portrays its hosts as ordinary people renting spare rooms (Chesky, 2013) and notes
that roughly 80–90% of its hosts rent their primary residences (Airbnb, 2016b).
However, this number obscures the much larger proportion of Airbnb inventory
owned by hosts operating full-time rentals as a more professional enterprise, as has
been illustrated in various independent analyses based on data extracted from the
Airbnb website. For example, Slee (2014) looked at 14 of the world’s largest cities
and found an average of 38% of Airbnb accommodations were managed by hosts
with multiple listings. Similarly, at the time of writing, data for 32 major worldwide
cities extracted from Airbnb and presented on the website insideairbnb.com indi-
cated an average of 64% of the cities’ Airbnb listings were for entire homes/
apartments, 37% were managed by hosts with multiple listings, and 83% were
available for renting at least 90 days per year. Examining the consequences of such
patterns, reports by Airbnb-commissioned consultants, government analysts, and a
pro-labor advocacy group have reached contradictory conclusions regarding
Airbnb’s impact on housing, with some finding Airbnb has minimal impact and
others concluding that Airbnb is removing substantial levels of housing stock
(Green, 2015b; Kusisto, 2015; Rosen, 2013; Samaan, 2015). It is also nearly
impossible to tease out the impact of Airbnb from other important variables like
job growth or demographic trends (Rosen, 2013), and Airbnb may be receiving
blame better directed at other issues like restrictions on housing development or
real estate investing by absentee foreign owners (Badger, 2014; Cutler, K.-M.,
2014; Yglesias, 2012b).

5 Existing Regulatory Approaches

Airbnb’s regulatory battles have developed into high-stakes and highly contentious
affairs, characterised by heated legislative meetings (e.g., Karni, 2015; Mesh,
2014), high-priced lobbying (e.g., O’Brien, 2015; Thomas, 2015), campaign-style
advertising (e.g., Mosendz & Smith, 2014), special interest groups (e.g., Hawkins,
2014; Tam, 2013), and citizen protests (e.g., Dzieza, 2015; Swan, 2014). These
battles have resulted in destinations taking vastly different approaches to Airbnb.
Some destinations have strongly opposed the service, such as New York City,
where enforcement against illegal Airbnb accommodations has increased
(Fickenscher, 2015), the State Attorney General subpoenaed Airbnb’s data and
released a critical report on the company’s operations (Schneiderman, 2014), a state
legislator sponsored a bill that would fine hosts for merely posting an Airbnb listing
(Lovett, 2015), and another state legislator secretly recorded her own undercover
Airbnb sting operation (Golding, 2015). Likewise, Berlin recently passed a law
banning unregistered short-term rentals (Vasagar, 2014); Barcelona recently began
108 D. Guttentag

experimenting with new punishments for unlicensed short-term rental owners

(Quijones, 2015) and fined Airbnb for marketing unlicensed listings (AFP, 2015);
and Santa Monica, California recently passed new laws prohibiting short-term
rentals in which the host is not present, and established a proactive enforcement
department (Lepore, 2015). Nonetheless, during the past few years an increasing
number of destinations have made moves towards legalising, regulating, and taxing
Airbnb, such as Amsterdam (Weber, 2013b), London (Shankman, 2015), Nashville
(Garrison, 2015a), Paris (France 24, 2015), Philadelphia (Lattanzio, 2015), Portland
(Law, 2014a), Sacramento (Ortiz, 2015), San Francisco (Musil, 2014), and San
Jose, California (Rosenberg, 2014). Developments are occurring so quickly that
there is little reason to discuss any particular city in significant detail; rather, it is
more useful to examine the key facets of the regulatory regimes that are being
contemplated by nearly all destinations and will continue to define the Airbnb
regulatory framework well into the future.

5.1 Renting Restrictions: Quotas and More

Much of the new short-term rental legislation focuses on capping the number of
nights an entire home can be rented out annually. This focus addresses the concern
that a plethora of casual hosts conceal a smaller number of commercial multi-unit
operators who receive a large portion of Airbnb’s bookings and remove housing
stock (Cutler, 2015). For example, Amsterdam now permits renting an entire home
for up to 60 days per year (Zabludovsky, 2014); London permits up to 90 days
(Shankman, 2015); Paris permits up to four months (Schechner & Verbergt, 2015);
Philadelphia permits up to 90 days unlicensed or 180 days with a license (Lattanzio,
2015); Portland requires homeowners to reside on-site at least nine months per year
(Law, 2014a); San Francisco permits up to 90 days per year, while also only
allowing one rental per host (Brustein, 2014); and San Jose permits up to
180 days per year (Rosenberg, 2014). Taking a much tougher stance on short-
term renting, New York City (Whitehouse, 2015), Catalonia (Zillman, 2015), and
Santa Monica (Lepore, 2015) allow short-term rentals only if the host is present
during the stay, with Catalonia also limiting such rentals to four months annually.
Some destinations are also enacting laws relating to more detailed aspects of
short-term renting. For instance, Amsterdam limits rentals to four guests simulta-
neously (Zabludovsky, 2014); Nashville mandates the number of guests can be no
more than twice the number of sleeping rooms (Garrison, 2015a); Portland permits
hosts to rent up to two bedrooms (Law, 2014a); and Carlsbad, California restricts
rentals to coastal neighbourhoods (Seaside Courier, 2015). Moreover, several cities
have taken the stance that the government should not subsidise properties that are
used to earn short-term rental profits; for example, Amsterdam prohibits short-term
rentals in rent-controlled properties (Dutch News, 2015), a New York City judge
Airbnb’s Early Legal Issues 109

evicted a tenant for renting his rent-stabilised apartment on Airbnb (Plautz, 2015a),
and Boston ordered the owner of an affordable housing unit to stop renting it on
Airbnb (Rocheleau, 2015).

5.2 Permits and Safety

In order to promote consumer safety and community wellbeing, many destinations

have enacted licensing systems and/or other safety requirements. For instance,
Grand Rapids, Michigan requires hosts obtain a $287 rental license (Sidorowicz,
2014), Louisville requires hosts pay a $250 annual licensing fee and comply with
health and safety requirements, although the license requirement is waived for hosts
who rent out no more than twice per year (Roldan, 2015a); Roanoke, Virginia has
created a new ‘homestay’ permit for short-term renting (Chittum, 2015); Philadel-
phia requires a rental license for hosts renting out their homes for over 90 days
annually (Lattanzio, 2015); Portland requires hosts obtain a $178 permit (that
involves a basic safety inspection), acquire a business license, and inform their
neighbours and neighbourhood association of their rental intentions (Njus, 2014);
and San Francisco requires hosts register in-person at City Hall and pay a $50 fee
(Weinberger, 2015). However, initial compliance with licensing regulations has
been limited—after roughly one month in Grand Rapids only four of approximately
70 listings were properly licensed (Sidorowicz, 2014); after about six months in
Portland only about 10% of its roughly 1600 rentals were properly licensed (Peltier,
2015); and after nearly 1 year in San Francisco only about one-fifth of the city’s
more than 6000 rentals had applied for a registration (CBS, 2015).

5.3 Rule Enforcement

Enforcement may be needed to pressure hosts into complying with licensing

requirements and other regulations, but destinations have struggled considerably
to institute enforcement measures that are both appropriate and practical. When
initially confronted with the rise of short-term rentals, several destinations took an
initially tough stance that was later tempered. Some, including Sydney (McKenny,
2014), Perth (Hennessy, 2015), Tasmania (Beniuk, 2015), and the Canary Islands
(Perthen, 2012), threatened hosts with excessively large fines of up to hundreds of
thousands of dollars, yet it does not appear the violators have ever actually been
forced to pay these amounts. Likewise, city officials in both Boulder, Colorado
(Kuta, 2015) and Louisville (Lopez, 2015) sent numerous hosts cease-and-desist
letters, but in both cases such actions were dropped in favour of re-examining the
old short-term rental laws. In fact, reports from numerous destinations—including
Amsterdam (Weber, 2013a), Malibu (Stevens & Groves, 2014), and San Diego
110 D. Guttentag

(Halverstadt, 2015)—of imminent crackdowns against Airbnb actually preceded

more formal regulatory discussions.
Nonetheless, even new regulations have proved extremely difficult to enforce, as
illustrated by the non-compliance with licensing requirements. For instance, a
Louisville Assistant County Attorney described short-term rental enforcement as
‘a nightmare’ that has strained staff resources (Roldan, 2015b), the Amsterdam City
council claimed its 22 full-time inspectors were not enough to cope with the city’s
short-term rental complaints (Dutch News, 2014), and San Francisco’s short-term
rental laws were deemed unenforceable by the department originally tasked with
enforcing them (Matier & Ross, 2015b). In response, several locations have signif-
icantly expanded their enforcement bodies—San Francisco has created a six-person
Office of Short Term Rental Administration (Kokalitcheva, 2015); Santa Monica
created a new three-person enforcement department (Lepore, 2015); Quebec has
planned to increase its number of inspectors (Presse Canadienne, 2015); and
New York City, dealing with a significant rise in complaints (Gartland, 2015),
has doubled the budget and more than doubled the staff of its enforcement depart-
ment (Fickenscher, 2015). Enforcement is challenging because it is often difficult to
definitively prove regulatory violations, even though rentals are publicly listed on
the Airbnb website. For example, it can take significant time and effort to prove an
Airbnb host is not living in a rental property, or that the property is exceeding an
annual night quota. Enforcement has traditionally focused on investigating com-
plaints, but numerous places, including New York City (Fickenscher, 2015), Paris
(Schechner & Verbergt, 2015), Berlin (Nezik, 2015), and Santa Monica (Lepore,
2015) have transitioned to a more proactive approach in which violators are
actively sought out using short-term rental websites.
Some jurisdictions have also considered requiring Airbnb to cooperate with
enforcement efforts, either through sharing data or incorporating restrictions into
the website. For example, in 2014 Portland’s Revenue Division Director proposed
requiring Airbnb to provide names and addresses for all local hosts in order to
ensure licensing compliance, but the requirement was never established (Law,
2014b). Somewhat similarly, a California law proposed in early 2015 would require
Airbnb to provide information on addresses being used for short-term rentals, the
nights rented, and the revenue earned (Rosenhall, 2015). Airbnb predictably has
resisted such efforts intensely, citing privacy concerns and the burden associated
with compliance (e.g., Mason, 2015; Schaal, 2013). Nevertheless, in November
2015 Airbnb somewhat softened its tone by pledging to be ‘transparent with our
data and information’ as part of a broader ‘Airbnb Community Compact’ (Airbnb,
2015c; Chesky, 2015). The following month Airbnb released anonymous
New York City data and promised to make similar releases elsewhere (Isaac,
2015), including San Francisco (Nevius, 2015). Nonetheless, some policymakers
criticised the endeavor, arguing that anonymous data was not actionable in terms of
aiding enforcement of the existing regulations (Kulwin, 2015). Even without data
sharing, there is also the potential for Airbnb to incorporate restrictions directly into
its booking engine. For example, San Francisco legislation proposed in early 2015
Airbnb’s Early Legal Issues 111

would have prohibited Airbnb from listing units not in good standing (Cutler,
2015), and the proposed California law mentioned above would require Airbnb to
prohibit bookings in jurisdictions where short-term rentals are banned (Mason,
2015). Additionally, Portland demanded Airbnb begin posting host license numbers
on the website, threatening a fine of $500 for each host violation, but Airbnb refused
to comply and the city did not follow through with the fines (Walters, 2015).

5.4 Taxes

As was previously discussed, Airbnb initially resisted calls to collect and remit
taxes, but as its regulatory battles intensified the company changed its attitude and
began using taxes to gain acceptance and legitimacy. Indeed, taxation agreements
have often closely coincided with moves to legalise Airbnb, such as in Amsterdam
(Lomas, 2014); Nashville (Garrison, 2015a); Philadelphia (Lattanzio, 2015);
Portland (Law, 2014a); San Jose (Rosenberg, 2014); and San Francisco (Musil,
2014), where Airbnb also agreed to pay back-taxes for several prior years (Matier &
Ross, 2015a). It is therefore reasonable to assume that regulatory acceptance will
soon come in destinations where Airbnb had recently begun collecting taxes at the
time of writing, including Florida (Perry, 2015); Illinois (Ecker, 2015); Malibu
(Sawicki, 2015); North Carolina (Knopf, 2015); San Diego (Horn, 2015);
Washington, D.C. (Badger, 2015); and Washington state (Plautz, 2015b). These
taxation agreements virtually all involve Airbnb collecting and remitting standard
accommodation taxes, which means Airbnb and its hosts now contribute towards
destination marketing and can no longer be criticized as ‘free riders.’ Taking
taxation a step further, Tucson, Arizona recently raised the property tax rate for
short-term rental hosts by reclassifying their properties from residential to com-
mercial (McNamara, 2015), which is a development traditional bed-and-breakfasts
have previously fought in some destinations (Stankus, 2012). Also, due to the
housing concerns that Airbnb raises, Nashville has earmarked some of its short-
term rental tax revenue for an affordable housing fund (Garrison, 2015b), and in
early 2016 the mayor of Chicago proposed a 2% surcharge on vacation rentals that
would be similarly dedicated towards affordable housing (Spielman, 2016).

6 The Challenging Future of Airbnb Regulation

Because Airbnb has grown so rapidly, policymakers have been forced to tackle this
innovation urgently and with little warning. Many cities undoubtedly wish to
quickly establish a workable regulatory framework, and presumably Airbnb is
similarly eager to be legalised and regulated, as there is widespread speculation
that the company will go public in the relatively near future, and major regulatory
112 D. Guttentag

question marks would complicate an initial public offering (Logan & Alpert Reyes,
2015). The clear trend regarding Airbnb’s regulatory landscape is one of increased
legalisation, regulation, and taxation. In 2014, the U.S. Conference of Mayors even
adopted a resolution in support of ‘shareable cities’ in which services like Airbnb
are legalised with appropriate regulatory controls (Cutler, J., 2014). As Airbnb’s
current hockey stick growth curve eventually levels off, and the company is further
brought into the regulatory fold, Airbnb will be seen less as a maverick service and
more of a traditional one. This increased acceptance will likely lead to open
competition with hotels, representation on DMO boards, and increased partnerships
with other tourism firms (airlines, meeting organizers, etc.). It has become quite
apparent that Airbnb has a long-term place in the tourism accommodation market,
and it is sensible that policymakers are mostly focusing on using regulation to
mitigate negative impacts rather than prohibit the service. To date, however,
destinations have struggled to craft suitable regulatory controls that overcome the
many challenges posed by Airbnb.
One major complication is that the public holds very mixed opinions toward
Airbnb. For example, in November 2015 San Francisco voters rejected a proposed
tightening of restrictions on short-term rentals, but the vote was relatively close
(55–45%) even though the Airbnb-funded winning ‘No’ side spent over 15 times as
much money campaigning as did the opposition (Said, 2015b). Around the same
time, Boulder, Colorado residents voted at a similarly close margin (57.5–42.5%) to
accept an ordinance that permitted and taxed short-term rentals (Burness, 2015).
Also, a 2015 survey found that the proportion of prospective renters in New York
City who were more likely to lease in an Airbnb-friendly building nearly doubled
from 10% to 19% within the previous year, yet a slightly larger percentage (20%,
down from 25%) still indicated they would be less likely to lease in such a building
(Clarke, 2015). Moreover, as was described previously, when asked in an online
poll if ‘people’ should be allowed to rent their rooms to strangers the response was
generally positive, but when asked about ‘neighbours’ more respondents felt the
activity should be banned than allowed. Finally, in a 2014 poll in New York City,
56% of respondents agreed that residents should be permitted to rent rooms in their
homes to strangers, while 36% felt the practice should be banned (Fischer, 2014;
Parry, 2014). In other words, Airbnb is a highly divisive issue and, quite simply,
large numbers of people will be displeased with any potential regulatory frame-
work. Nevertheless, the public seems more amenable than not towards allowing and
regulating short-term rentals, thus generally paving the way for their continued
acceptance, both via legislation and residential policies (e.g., condominium
bylaws).
However, shaping a workable short-term rental regulatory framework remains
very challenging in large part because Airbnb listings are extremely varied. A spare
bedroom that is rented out occasionally and a full property that is rented out year-
round are highly distinct, making it very difficult to discuss Airbnb as a whole. As a
result, two people can perceive Airbnb on very different terms, with neither being
completely right or wrong. Such complications certainly impacted the results from
two of the surveys just described, as the question prompts merely asked about
Airbnb’s Early Legal Issues 113

renting ‘rooms’ and avoided mention of entire residences (Fischer, 2014). In fact,
some of Airbnb’s peer-to-peer short-term rental competitors, like VRBO, only
involve renting full residences. Also, as was stated earlier, many Airbnb listings
are owned by more professionally-oriented multi-unit operators, and these hosts
unsurprisingly account for a disproportionate share of Airbnb revenue. For exam-
ple, Slee’s (2014) analysis of 14 of the world’s largest cities found that on average
only about 15% of hosts managed multiple listings, but this cohort represented 38%
of the total inventory and was estimated to receive about 45% of all bookings.
Likewise, a study (sponsored by the American Hotel & Lodging Association)
analysing 12 major U.S. markets found hosts operating three or more listings
represented just 7% of the hosts but generated 25% of the revenue (O’Neill &
Ouyang, 2016), and New York City data released by Airbnb showed that hosts with
three or more listings represented just 2% of all hosts but received 24% of all
revenue (Popper, 2015). In other words, a large percentage of Airbnb’s business
derives from permanent operations that often violate local laws, such as annual
night quotas, even in places where Airbnb has been legalised (e.g., Brustein, 2014).
Though Airbnb would obviously loathe losing this portion of its business, this issue
arguably represents many regulators’ biggest concern about short-term rentals, and
it likely must be sorted out to some degree prior to an Airbnb initial public offering.
Permanent vacation rentals certainly deserve their place in destinations, but it is
natural for regulations to distinguish full-time vacation rentals with absentee hosts
from other short-term rental properties. Not surprisingly, some destinations, includ-
ing Nashville (Nashville.gov, 2016); Austin, Texas (AustinTexas.gov, 2016); and
Raleigh, North Carolina (Specht, 2015) have enacted or are considering multi-
tiered regulatory systems that differentiate between rentals that are and are not
owner-occupied principal residences. Even for permanent rentals, Airbnb will
likely prompt a general easing of regulations that may ultimately affect other
forms of tourism accommodation. Koopman et al. (2014), for example, argue that
rather than applying old regulations to new innovations, ‘The better alternative is to
level the playing field by “deregulating down” to put everyone on equal footing, not
by “regulating up” to achieve parity’ (p. 19). In particular, bed-and-breakfasts may
have their often fairly onerous regulations (Staley, 2007) eased significantly, quite
likely to the point that bed-and-breakfasts are not even legislatively distinguished
from other peer-to-peer short-term rentals. Hotels will always receive greater
regulatory oversight than smaller accommodations, but even they may enjoy an
easing of regulations.
Regardless of how their new regulatory frameworks are crafted, as destinations
increasingly revise their laws to legalise short-term rentals, they will become less
hesitant to prosecute violators, as has occurred in San Francisco (Barmann, 2015).
Likewise, destinations will undoubtedly bolster their ability to field and respond to
complaints, and more and more destinations will seek out violators proactively.
Such actions will further push Airbnb to better comply with local ordinances.
However, the question remains to what degree Airbnb will cooperate directly
with local governments, particularly with regards to multi-unit operators. To date,
Airbnb has resisted such cooperation, combining open defiance with an appeal for
114 D. Guttentag

self-regulation. In late 2015 Airbnb’s CEO claimed, ‘We succeeded not because of
[the professional hosts] but in spite of them,’ (Said, 2015a), and the company’s
previously mentioned Community Compact pledged that in cities with long-term
housing shortages the company would ensure ‘hosts agree to a policy of listing only
permanent homes on a short-term basis’ (Airbnb, 2015c). Indeed, when comparing
New York City Airbnb data subpoenaed by the New York State Attorney General
covering the period of January 2010 to June 2014 (Schneiderman, 2014) with data
later voluntarily released by Airbnb covering the period of November 2014 to
November 2015 (Popper, 2015), the percentage of hosts with at least three unique
listings had dropped from 6% to 2% and their share of the total revenue had dropped
from 37 to 24%. Also, Airbnb has removed listings from some of its professional
operators managing large numbers of properties in New York City (Newcomer,
2016; Walker, 2014), Los Angeles (Logan & Alpert Reyes, 2015), and Amsterdam
(Pieters, 2016). Nevertheless, one must appreciate the context of these gestures
before perceiving Airbnb as eager to fully cooperate with local regulatory bodies.
The New York State Attorney General originally had to subpoena Airbnb to receive
its data; full access to the voluntarily released data required an in-person appoint-
ment at Airbnb’s New York office (Griswold, 2015c); shortly before releasing both
the subpoenaed data and the voluntary data Airbnb manipulated its numbers by
removing thousands of illegal listings, and the company only acknowledged the
second purge after it was discovered by independent analysts (Cox & Slee, 2016;
Kerr, 2014; Newcomer, 2016); many of the listings removed in the second purge
were soon re-listed by their hosts (Clark, 2016; Cox & Slee, 2016); and bulk
removals of professional hosts have only occurred in a few places and only
following intense pressure and scrutiny (Kerr, 2014; Kidd, 2015; Logan & Alpert
Reyes, 2015).
In other words, it is naive to think Airbnb will readily begin removing illegal
accommodations that generate a sizeable portion of its revenue. Nonetheless, it also
seems likely that Airbnb will eventually cooperate more closely with local govern-
ments by sharing data that can be used to monitor both impacts and regulatory
violations, and by taking a more proactive stance in prohibiting listings that
egregiously violate local laws. Data sharing is critical to a regulatory system that
uses consumer-generated data (Grossman, 2015), and Airbnb undoubtedly under-
stands its need to cooperate more on this front in order to obtain the more
modernised regulatory frameworks it has encouraged. Also, while an intervention
forcing Airbnb to delist illegal properties would not be unprecedented—U.S. state
attorneys general previously pressured craigslist into eliminating its ‘adult services’
section (Associated Press, 2010)—it is much more probable that greater enforce-
ment against hosts and the threat of stricter regulations will prompt Airbnb to
become more proactive in its efforts to limit major violations (e.g., Said, 2016).
Indeed, Airbnb’s about-face on taxes and the recent softening of its tone on data
sharing demonstrate the company is willing to pragmatically shift positions in its
quest for greater legitimacy, so although Airbnb will clearly fight hard to defend its
turf from regulators, increased future pressure will likely lead to increased com-
promise. In the end, a world full of outraged policymakers, hosts incurring hefty
Airbnb’s Early Legal Issues 115

fines, and public referendums with questionable outcomes is not the ideal environ-
ment for Airbnb to thrive, and the company is certainly cognizant of this reality.

7 Conclusion

When considering the regulatory issues surrounding Airbnb, it is also important to

remember that Airbnb is a global company operating in diverse destinations with
different traditions and needs. Urban destinations with rent-controlled housing are
different from beach communities with a long-standing vacation rental tradition;
small destinations like Yellowknife, Canada, which is eager for more visitors
(Williams, 2015), are different from major destinations like the Canary Islands,
which is already so overrun with tourists that it is considering instituting visitor
caps (Hutchinson, 2015); and countries with a tradition of significant government
intervention are different from countries with a more neoliberal regulatory tradi-
tion. Consequently, there is not a one-size-fits-all regulatory framework for all
destinations, and policymakers must independently assess the issues surrounding
Airbnb in order to formulate the most sensible approach for their communities.
Nonetheless, destinations will often face many of the same questions regarding
Airbnb, such as how it impacts tourism, how the service should be taxed, how
guests’ and hosts’ safety can be assured, and how negative externalities can be
minimised. These issues have challenged policymakers, but such circumstances
often follow major innovations like Airbnb that shake up the status quo. The
regulatory challenges created by Airbnb clearly demonstrate how the emerging
collaborative economy has produced important and difficult questions about regu-
lation in the digital age. It is a fascinating future, and one which is still being
written.

References

AFP. (2015, December 22). Airbnb fined for offering lodgings without permits in Barcelona. The
Local. Accessed March 14, 2016, from http://www.thelocal.es/20151222/barcelona-city-hall-
fines-airbnb
Airbnb. (2015a). Overview of the Airbnb community in Austin, Texas. Airbnb. Accessed March 14, 2016,
from http://publicpolicy.airbnb.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AustinImpactReport1.pdf
Airbnb. (2015b). Overview of the Airbnb community in New Orleans, Louisiana. Airbnb.
Accessed March 14, 2016, from http://publicpolicy.airbnb.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/
NewOrleansImpactReport.pdf
Airbnb. (2015c). The Airbnb community compact. Airbnb. Accessed February 23, 2016, from http://
publicpolicy.airbnb.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Airbnb-Community-Compact.pdf
Airbnb. (2016a). About us. Airbnb. Accessed January 26, 2016, from https://www.airbnb.ca/about/
about-us
Airbnb. (2016b). Airbnb economic impact. Airbnb. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://blog.
airbnb.com/economic-impact-airbnb/
116 D. Guttentag

Airbnb. (2016c). Obama O’s: Hope in every bowl. Airbnb. Accessed January 26, 2016, from
https://www.airbnb.com/obamaos
Ali, R. (2015, February 5). Americans are generally OK with Airbnb unless their neighbors are
doing it. Skift. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://skift.com/2015/02/05/americans-are-
generally-ok-with-airbnb-unless-their-neighbors-are-doing-it/
Aron, H. (2015, August 19). Why Venice Beach is ground zero for the Airbnb backlash. LA Weekly.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.laweekly.com/news/why-venice-beach-is-
ground-zero-for-the-airbnb-backlash-5928207
Associated Press. (2010, September 4). Craigslist removes adult services section. MSNBC.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39005873/ns/technology_
and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/craigslist-removes-adult-services-section
Associated Press. (2015, March 28). Airbnb to sponsor 2016 Rio Olympics. ESPN. Accessed
January 26, 2016, from http://espn.go.com/blog/olympics/post/_/id/4527/airbnb-to-sponsor-
2016-rio-olympics
AustinTexas.gov. (2016). Rental types: Three types of short-term rentals. AustinTexas.gov.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from https://www.austintexas.gov/page/short-term-rental-types
Badger, E. (2014, May 20). Foreign investors are making housing more expensive. Should we tax
them for it? The Washington Post. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.
washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/20/foreign-home-buyers-are-making-hous
ing-more-expensive-should-cities-tax-them-for-it/
Badger, E. (2015, January 29). Airbnb is about to start collecting hotel taxes in more major cities,
including Washington. The Washington Post. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.
washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/29/airbnb-is-about-to-start-collecting-hotel-
taxes-in-more-major-cities-including-washington/
Barmann, J. (2015, December 14). City cracks down on Airbnb/VRBO law violators, issues
$400,000 in penalties. SFist. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://sfist.com/2015/12/14/
city_cracks_down_on_airbnbvrbo_law.php
Beniuk, D. (2015, July 26). Kentish Council swoops on Airbnb pensioner. News.com.au. Accessed
January 26, 2016, from http://www.news.com.au/national/tasmania/kentish-council-swoops-
on-airbnb-pensioner/story-fnn32rbc-1227456969278
Brandom, R. (2015, December 16). A woman is suing Airbnb over an alleged hidden camera. The
Verge. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/16/10318300/
airbnb-hidden-camera-lawsuit-california
Brustein, J. (2014, October 8). Airbnb gets off easy in San Francisco. Hosts? Not so much.
Bloomberg. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-
10-08/airbnb-gets-off-easy-in-san-francisco-dot-its-hosts-not-so-much
Burness, A. (2015, November 3). Boulder voters support tax on Airbnb, reject City Council pay
raise. Daily Camera. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.dailycamera.com/local-
election-news/ci_29067073/early-returns-voters-support-tax-airbnb-vrbo-reject
Campbell, R. W. (2012). Rethinking regulation and innovation in the U.S. legal services market.
New York University Journal of Law & Business, 9(1), 1–70.
Capps, K. (2014, September 29). The sharing economy could drive down the price of mega-events.
Citylab. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.citylab.com/tech/2014/09/the-sharing-
economy-could-drive-down-the-price-of-mega-events/380908/
Carman, T. (2013, June 5). Its status quo on food trucks after D.C. Council’s vote. The Washington
Post. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/going-out-
guide/wp/2013/06/05/its-status-quo-on-food-trucks-after-d-c-councils-vote/
Carney, T. P. (2015, April 17). Maine innkeepers call for ‘level playing field’ with Airbnb;
governor offers to deregulate everyone. The Washington Examiner. Accessed January
26, 2016, from http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/maine-innkeepers-call-for-level-
playing-field-with-airbnb-governor-offers-to-deregulate-everyone/article/2563215
Carr, N. (2002). The tourism–leisure behavioural continuum. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(4),
972–986.
Airbnb’s Early Legal Issues 117

CBC News. (2015, September 16). Airbnb causing condo conflict in Vancouver. CBC News.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/airbnb-
condo-vancouver-1.3231426
CBS. (2015, March 4). Most of SF’s Airbnb listings technically illegal as homeowners struggle
with rigorous new application process. CBS San Francisco. Accessed January 26, 2016, from
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/03/04/most-of-sfs-san-francisco-airbnb-listings-techni
cally-illegal-as-homeowners-struggle-with-rigorous-new-application-process/
Chase, R. (2015). Peers Inc: How people and platforms are inventing the collaborative economy
and reinventing capitalism. New York: Public Affairs.
Chesky, B. (2013, October 3). Who we are, what we stand for. The Airbnb Blog. Accessed January
26, 2016, from http://blog.airbnb.com/who-we-are/
Chesky, B. (2015, November 11). Our commitment to communities around the world. The Airbnb
Blog. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://blog.airbnb.com/our-commitment-to-communi
ties-around-the-world/
Chittum, M. (2015, July 6). Roanoke eases way for AirBnB rentals. The Roanoke Times. Accessed
January 26, 2016, from http://www.roanoke.com/news/local/roanoke/roanoke-eases-way-for-
airbnb-rentals/article_e8e7209c-b622-5727-b577-0090d8ca98d7.html
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to
fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). The innovator’s solution: Creating and sustaining
successful growth. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Christensen, C. M., Grossman, J. H., & Hwang, J. (2009). The innovator’s prescription: A
disruptive solution for health care. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Clark, P. (2016, February 25). Airbnb’s purged listings are already coming back. Bloomberg.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-25/
airbnb-s-purged-landlords-are-relisting-their-apartments
Clarke, K. (2015, August 18). An increasing number of NYC renters want to live in Airbnb-friendly
buildings: Survey. New York Daily News. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.
nydailynews.com/life-style/real-estate/nyc-renters-live-airbnb-friendly-buildings-article-1.2329388
Cohen, M., & Sundararajan, A. (2015). Self-regulation and innovation in the peer-to-peer sharing
economy. The University of Chicago Law Review Dialogue, 82, 116–133.
Coltrain, N. (2015, August 30). Vacation rentals pit neighbor against neighbor. The Coloradoan.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2015/08/30/vaca
tion-rentals/71337842/
Conley, C. (2014, August 29). Airbnb is an old idea with a new tech twist. Hotel News Now.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.hotelnewsnow.com/Article/14343/Airbnb-is-an-
old-idea-with-a-new-tech-twist
Cooke, P. (2013, October 13). Unlicensed room letting risks penalty of €23,000. Times of Malta.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20131013/local/
Unlicensed-room-letting-risks-penalty-of-23-000.490062
Coté, J. (2012, April 4). Airbnb, other sites owe city hotel tax, S.F. says. San Francisco Chronicle.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Airbnb-other-sites-
owe-city-hotel-tax-S-F-says-3457290.php
Cox, M., & Slee, T. (2016, February 10). How Airbnb’s data hid the facts in New York City.
Insideairbnb.com. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://insideairbnb.com/reports/how-
airbnbs-data-hid-the-facts-in-new-york-city.pdf
Crompton, J. L. (2006). Economic impact studies: Instruments for political shenanigans? Journal
of Travel Research, 45(1), 67–82.
Curth, K. (2015, May 28). Bywater neighbors fed up with airbnb rentals. Fox 8 WVUE. Accessed
January 26, 2016, from http://www.fox8live.com/story/29185366/bywater-neighbors-fed-up-
with-airbnb-rentals
Curtis, L. H., & Schulman, K. A. (2006). Overregulation of health care: Musings on disruptive
innovation theory. Law and Contemporary Problems, 69(4), 195–206.
118 D. Guttentag

Cutler, J. E. (2014, October 21). Cities grappling with challenges of how to tax, regulate short-term
rentals. Bloomberg BNA. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.bna.com/cities-grap
pling-challenges-n17179897258/
Cutler, K. M. (2014, November 2). So you want to fix the housing crisis. TechCrunch. Accessed
January 26, 2016, from http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/02/so-you-want-to-fix-the-housing-
crisis/
Cutler, K. M (2015, June 11). Airbnb and the problem of data. TechCrunch. Accessed January
26, 2016, from http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/11/airbnb-and-the-problem-of-data/
Deese, H. (2015, January 3). Airbnb, VRBO offer parallels to online music. The Daily News.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/2015/jan/3/
airbnb-vrbo-offer-parallels-to-online-music/
Dı́az Armas, R. J., Gutiérrez Ta~ no, D., & Garcı́a Rodrı́guez, F. J. (2015). Airbnb como nuevo
modelo de negocio disruptivo en la empresa turı́stica: Un análisis de su potencial competitivo a
partir de las opiniones de los usuarios. An
alisis Turístico, 12. Accessed January 26, 2016, from
http://congresoaecit.org/uploads/public/files/modules/congress/18/papers/29.pdf
Dubner, S. (2014, September 4). Regulate this! Full transcript. Freakonomics. Accessed January
26, 2016, from http://freakonomics.com/2014/09/04/regulate-this-full-transcript/
Dutch News. (2014, October 12). Amsterdam admits it can’t cope with Airbnb inspections.
DutchNews.nl. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/
2014/10/amsterdam_admits_it_cant_cope
Dutch News. (2015, February 3). Airbnb starts collecting Dutch tourist tax, but no one knows how
much. DutchNews.nl. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/
archives/2015/02/airbnb-starts-collecting-dutch-tourist-tax-but-no-one-knows-how-much/
Dzieza, J. (2015, January 21). Airbnb comes under fire in New York City. The Verge. Accessed
January 26, 2016, from http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/21/7865959/airbnb-under-fire-new-
york-city-city-council
Ecker, D. (2015, December 10). Airbnb to begin collecting full Illinois hotel tax. Crain’s Chicago
Business. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/
20151210/NEWS09/151219991/airbnb-to-begin-collecting-full-illinois-hotel-tax
Elis, N. (2015, June 14). Hoteliers demand Tel Aviv taxation on Airbnb room. The Jerusalem Post.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.jpost.com/Business-and-Innovation/Hoteliers-
demand-Tel-Aviv-taxation-on-Airbnb-room-406018
Fermino, J. (2015, July 29). Airbnb taking up 1 out of 5 vacant apartments in popular New York
City zip codes: study. New York Daily News. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.
nydailynews.com/news/politics/airbnb-takes-1-5-apartments-popular-nyc-zip-codes-article-1.
2307521
Fickenscher, L. (2015, July 16). City beefs up unit probing Airbnb abuses. The New York Post.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://nypost.com/2015/07/16/city-beefs-up-unit-probing-
airbnb-abuses/
Fischer, B. (2014, September 2). Q-Poll doesn’t quite say what Airbnb wants it to say. New York
Business Journal. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/
blog/techflash/2014/09/q-poll-doesnt-quite-say-what-airbnb-wants-it-to.html
France 24. (2015, February 26). Airbnb vows to comply with Paris lodgings tax. France 24.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.france24.com/en/20150226-paris-airbnb-cooper
ate-home-rental-hotels-chesky-france/
French, J., Schechner, S., & Verbergt, M. (2015, June 26). How Airbnb is taking over Paris. The
Wall Street Journal. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://graphics.wsj.com/how-airbnb-is-
taking-over-paris/
Gallagher, M. (2014, November 19). Airbnb causing condo conflict in Vancouver. CBC. Accessed
January 26, 2016, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/airbnb-causing-
condo-conflict-in-vancouver-1.2839010
Airbnb’s Early Legal Issues 119

Garrison, J. (2015a, February 24). Metro Council approves regulations for Airbnb in Nashville.
The Tennessean. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/
politics/2015/02/24/airbnb-nashville-regulations-metro-council/23976931/
Garrison, J. (2015b, April 7). Plan to boost housing fund with Airbnb tax revenue advances. The
Tennessean. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/
2015/04/07/plan-boost-housing-fund-airbnb-tax-revenue-advances/25443033/
Garrison, J. (2015c, December 3). Tennessee AG: Airbnb rentals subject to hotel, sales tax. The
Tennessean. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2015/
12/03/tennessee-ag-airbnb-rentals-subject-hotel-sales-tax/76739660/
Gartland, M. (2015, January 21). Neighbors’ complaints to 311 over Airbnb are on the rise. The
New York Post. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://nypost.com/2015/01/21/neighbors-
complaints-to-311-over-airbnb-are-on-the-rise/
Golding, B. (2015, January 12). NYC City Council schedules hearing over Airbnb safety concerns.
The New York Post. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://nypost.com/2015/01/12/nyc-city-
council-schedules-hearing-over-airbnb-safety-concerns/
Gottlieb, C. (2013). Residential short-term rentals: Should local governments regulate the ‘indus-
try’? Planning & Environmental Law, 65(2), 4–9.
Grant, M. (2013, March 27). Airbnb.com poses only a small threat to hotel industry. Euromonitor
International. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://blog.euromonitor.com/2013/03/
airbnbcom-poses-only-a-small-threat-to-hotel-industry.html
Green, E. (2015a, April 10). Airbnb, S.F. trade accusations on tax collection. The San Francisco
Chronicle. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Airbnb-
SF-double-dipping-on-taxes-SF-Airbnb-6190442.php
Green, E. (2015b, May 19). New reports differ on impact of Airbnb on S.F. The San Francisco
Chronicle. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/New-
reports-differ-on-impact-of-Airbnb-on-S-F-6271923.php
Greenfield, R. (2012, September 5). Uber runs up against big taxi in New York now. The Atlantic
Wire. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2012/09/
uber-runs-against-big-taxi-new-york-now/56529/
Griswold, A. (2015a, February 13). Why Airbnb desperately wants to pay hotel taxes. Slate.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2015/02/
airbnb_hotel_taxes_why_does_the_sharing_economy_startup_want_to_pay_them.single.html
Griswold, A. (2015b, July 6). Airbnb is thriving. Hotels are thriving. Slate. Accessed January
26, 2016, from http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2015/07/airbnb_disrupting_
hotels_it_hasn_t_happened_yet_and_both_are_thriving_what.single.html
Griswold, A. (2015c, December 15). Airbnb has a really convoluted process for being “transpar-
ent” with New York City. Quartz. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://qz.com/571165/
airbnb-is-sharing-more-data-but-in-a-really-convoluted-way/
Grossman, N. (2015). Regulation, the internet way: A data‐first model for establishing trust, safety,
and security. Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation. Retrieved from http://
datasmart.ash.harvard.edu/news/article/white-paper-regulation-the-internet-way-660
Guttentag, D. (2015). Airbnb: Disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism accom-
modation sector. Current Issues in Tourism, 18(12), 1192–1217.
Halverstadt, L. (2015, February 9). San Diego’s cracking down on Airbnb hosts. Voice of San
Diego. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/san-
diegos-cracking-down-on-airbnb-hosts/
Hantman, D. (2014a, February 13). Airbnb and housing. The Airbnb Public Policy Blog. Accessed
January 26, 2016, from http://publicpolicy.airbnb.com/airbnb-housing/
Hantman, D. (2014b, April 14). $21 million more for New York. The Airbnb Public Policy Blog.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://publicpolicy.airbnb.com/21-million-new-york/
Hantman, D. (2014c, April 17). New York hotel lobbyists flip-flop on taxes. The Airbnb Public
Policy Blog. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://publicpolicy.airbnb.com/new-york-hotel-
lobbyists-flip-flop/
120 D. Guttentag

Hawkins, A. J. (2014, December 4). NYC’s anti-Airbnb coalition heads west. Crain’s New York
Business. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20141204/
BLOGS04/141209910/nycs-anti-airbnb-coalition-heads-west
Hennessy, A. (2015, March 22). Perth property owners could face $200k fines for nightly rentals.
PerthNow. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/
perth-property-owners-could-face-200k-fines-for-nightly-rentals/story-fnhocxo3-1227272959129
Hilario, K. (2015, August 31). Visit Philadelphia wants Airbnb hosts to be tourism ‘ambassadors’.
Philadelphia Business Journal. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.bizjournals.com/
philadelphia/news/2015/08/31/visit-philadelphia-airbnb-hosts-tourism-hotel.html
Hill, K. (2015, November 9). After a woman was poisoned in an Airbnb, the company started
giving out prevention devices. Fusion. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://fusion.net/story/
229589/airbnb-death-safety-regulations/
Ho, E. (2015, May 18). Why you should think twice before trusting Airbnb reviews. Mashable.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://mashable.com/2015/05/18/airbnb-reviews/
Horn, J. (2015, July 1). Airbnb to collect San Diego tourist taxes. The San Diego Tribune.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/jul/01/
airbnb-taxes-tot-tourism-rentals-hotels/
Hussain, A. (2015, December 12). Boy’s drowning in RWS Hard Rock Hotel pool in June ruled a
misadventure. The Straits Times. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.straitstimes.
com/singapore/boys-drowning-in-rws-hard-rock-hotel-pool-in-june-ruled-a-misadventure
Hutchinson, J. (2015, July 1). ‘The Magaluf effect’: Canary Islands could impose limits on tourism as
increase in visitor numbers is ‘killing quality in Spain.’ The Daily Mail. Accessed January
26, 2016, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3162201/The-Magaluf-
effect-Canary-Islands-impose-limits-tourism-increase-visitor-numbers-killing-quality-Spain.html
Ironside, R. (2015, February 6). Rising angst over airbnb operations. News.com.au. Accessed
January 26, 2016, from http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/rising-angst-over-
airbnb-operations/story-e6frfq80-1227210877547
Isaac, M. (2015, December 1). Airbnb releases trove of New York City home-sharing data. The
New York Times. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/tech
nology/airbnb-releases-trove-of-new-york-city-home-sharing-data.html
Jefferson-Jones, J. (2015). Airbnb and the housing segment of the modern sharing economy: Are
short-term rental restrictions an unconstitutional taking? Hastings Constitutional Law Quar-
terly, 42(3), 557–576.
Jenne, A. (2015, August 17). Paris’s most prestigious luxury hotels are counting the cost of the Airbnb
revolution. The Independent. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.independent.co.uk/
news/world/europe/pariss-most-prestigious-luxury-hotels-are-counting-the-cost-of-the-airbnb-revo
lution-10459656.html
Johal, S., & Zon, N. (2015). Policymaking for the sharing economy: Beyond whack-a-mole.
Toronto, ON: Mowat Centre, University of Toronto. http://mowatcentre.ca/wpcontent/
uploads/publications/106_PolicymakingForTheSharingEconomy.pdf
Jøsang, A., Ismail, R., & Boyd, C. (2007). A survey of trust and reputation systems for online
service provision. Decision Support Systems, 43(2), 618–644.
Joshi, P. (2014, December 20). Spain: Man jailed for raping holidaymakers who rented his flat through
AirBnB. The International Business Times. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.ibtimes.
co.uk/spain-man-jailed-raping-holidaymakers-who-rented-his-flat-through-airbnb-1480434
Karmin, C. (2015, September 29). Airbnb crimps hotels’ power on pricing. The Wall Street
Journal. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/airbnb-crimps-hotels-
power-on-pricing-1443519181
Karni, A. (2015, January 20). City Council blasts Airbnb executives in contentious hearing. The
New York Daily News. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.nydailynews.com/new-
york/city-council-blasts-airbnb-executives-contentious-hearing-article-1.2086252
Airbnb’s Early Legal Issues 121

Keen, A. (2015, May 10). Can the sharing economy provide good jobs?—NO: It is a great deal for
the owners, but a bad one for workers. The Wall Street Journal. Accessed January 26, 2016,
from http://www.wsj.com/articles/can-the-sharing-economy-provide-good-jobs-1431288393
Kenney, A. (2015a, February 24). Key questions over Internet rentals, Airbnb emerge at Raleigh
meeting. The News & Observer. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.newsobserver.
com/news/local/counties/wake-county/raleigh-report-blog/article11309984.html
Kenney, A. (2015b, April 19). Raleigh’s last bed-and-breakfast to close, blaming Airbnb. The
News & Observer. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.newsobserver.com/news/
local/counties/wake-county/article18917151.html
Kerr, D. (2014, April 21). Airbnb wipes 2,000 NY listings before court hearing. CNET. Accessed
January 26, 2016, from http://www.cnet.com/news/airbnb-wipes-2000-ny-apartment-listings-
before-court-hearing/
Kerr, D. (2015, April 15). Airbnb: Let us pay hotel taxes in New York. CNET. Accessed January
26, 2016, from http://www.cnet.com/news/airbnb-let-us-pay-hotel-taxes-in-new-york/
Kessler, A. (2014, January 17). Brian Chesky: The ‘sharing economy’ and its enemies. The Wall
Street Journal. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/
SB10001424052702304049704579321001856708992
Kidd, G. (2015, October 28). Court upholds €24,000 fine on Amsterdam Airbnb landlord. NL
Times. Accessed 26 January 2016, from http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/10/28/court-upholds-
e24000-fine-on-amsterdam-airbnb-landlord/
King, D. (2015, June 7). Airbnb’s impact critiqued at N.Y. hotel conferences. Travel Weekly.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Hotel-News/
Airbnb-impact-critiqued-at-NY-hotel-conferences
Knopf, T. (2015, May 18). Airbnb to collect and pay taxes in North Carolina. The News &
Observer. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/
counties/wake-county/article21331905.html
Knox, R. (2014, May 22). How Yelp can help disease detectives track food poisoning. NPR.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/05/22/314933875/
how-yelp-can-help-disease-detectives-track-food-poisoning
Kokalitcheva, K. (2015, July 2). New San Francisco office will manage and investigate Airbnb
landlords. Fortune. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://fortune.com/2015/07/02/san-
francisco-airbnb-office-regulations/
Koopman, C., Mitchell, M., & Thierer, A. (2014). The sharing economy and consumer protection
regulation: The case for policy change. Arlington, VA: Mercatus Center, George Mason
University. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/
Koopman-Sharing-Economy.pdf
Kulwin, N. (2015, December 21). Airbnb releases anonymized NYC listing data; city councilors
call it ‘useless’. Re/code. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://recode.net/2015/12/01/
airbnb-releases-anonymized-nyc-listing-data-city-councilors-call-it-useless/
Kusisto, L. (2015, March 30). Airbnb pushes up apartment rents slightly, study says. The Wall
Street Journal. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2015/03/
30/airbnb-pushes-up-apartment-rents-slightly-study-says/
Kuta, S. (2015, January 1). Boulder rescinds cease-and-desist orders to homeowners offering Airbnb,
VRBO rentals. The Daily Camera. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.dailycamera.
com/news/boulder/ci_27307446/boulder-rescinds-cease-and-desist-orders-homeowners-offering
Langfield, A. (2014, September 12). Anti-Airbnb coalition aims to counter sharing campaign.
CNBC. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.cnbc.com/2014/09/12/anti-airbnb-coali
tion-aims-to-counter-sharing-campaign.html
Lattanzio, V. (2015, June 19). You’ll no longer be breaking the law by renting on Airbnb in
Philadelphia. NBC 10. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/
news/local/Youll-No-Longer-Be-Breaking-the-Law-by-Renting-on-Airbnb-308272641.html
122 D. Guttentag

Law, S. (2014a, July 30). City legalizes Airbnb, other short-term home rental services. The
Portland Tribune. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/
228670-92077-city-legalizes-airbnb-other-short-term-home-rental-services
Law, S. (2014b, December 18). Airbnb resists city efforts to regulate it. The Portland Tribune.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/244479-112102-
airbnb-resists-city-efforts-to-regulate-it
Leland, J. (2012, July 21). They can list, but they can’t hide. The New York Times. Accessed
January 26, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/nyregion/stuyvesant-town-
sleuths-keep-vigil-against-illegal-hoteliers-in-their-midst.html
Leland, E. (2015, February 9). Best Western lawsuit: Carbon monoxide deaths could have been
prevented. The Charlotte Observer. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.charlotte
observer.com/latest-news/article10425248.html
Lepore, K. (2015, May 18). How Santa Monica will enforce its Airbnb ban. 89.3 KPCC. Accessed
January 26, 2016, from http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/05/18/51728/how-santa-monica-will-
enforce-its-airbnb-ban/
Levy, A., & Goldman, H. (2012, September 27). Airbnb: To tax or not tax a rented bed.
BloombergBusinessweek. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.businessweek.com/
articles/2012-09-27/airbnb-to-tax-or-not-tax-a-rented-bed
Lieber, R. (2015a, April 10). Questions about Airbnb’s responsibility after attack by dog. The
New York Times. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/your-
money/questions-about-airbnbs-responsibility-after-vicious-attack-by-dog.html
Lieber, R. (2015b, August 14). Airbnb horror story points to need for precautions. The New York
Times. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/15/your-money/
airbnb-horror-story-points-to-need-for-precautions.html
Logan, T., & Alpert Reyes, E. (2015, April 3). Airbnb cuts ties with vacation-rental firms in Los
Angeles. The Los Angeles Times. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.latimes.com/
business/la-fi-airbnb-rift-20150404-story.html
Lomas, N. (2014, December 18). Airbnb to start collecting tourist tax in Amsterdam. TechCrunch.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://techcrunch.com/2014/12/18/airbnb-to-start-collecting-
tourist-tax-in-amsterdam/
Lopez, A. (2015, March 18). Louisville Council Committee doesn’t want citations issued to
AirBnB users for now. WFPL News. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://staging.wfpl.
org/louisville-council-committee-doesnt-want-citations-issued-to-airbnb-users-for-now/
Lovett, K. (2015, December 21). Exclusive: New York politicians work to ban Airbnb advertising,
stamp out illegal hotels. New York Daily News. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.
nydailynews.com/news/politics/politicians-work-ban-airbnb-ads-stamp-illegal-hotel-article-1.
2472396
Lu, V. (2015, March 18). Noisy Airbnb renters raise ire of Willowdale residents. Toronto Star.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.thestar.com/business/2015/03/18/noisy-airbnb-
renters-raise-ire-of-willowdale-residents.html
MacBride, M., & Flores, J. (2015, September 29). Man waits inside Ontario hotel room and sexually
assaults woman, police say. ABC7 Eyewitness News. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://
abc7.com/news/police-man-waits-inside-ie-hotel-room-sexually-assaults-woman/1009080/
Marcin, T. (2014, March 12). Airbnb appeals to the young but the traditional hotel empire is
striking back. Medill Reports Chicago. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://newsarchive.
medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id¼228878
Mason, M. (2015, April 21). Citing privacy concerns, Airbnb slams bill on short-term rentals. The
Los Angeles Times. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.latimes.com/local/political/
la-me-pc-airbnb-legislation-20150421-story.html
Matier, P., & Ross, A. (2015a, February 18). Airbnb pays tax bill of ‘tens of millions’ to S.F. The
San Francisco Chronicle. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/
matier-ross/article/M-R-Airbnb-pays-tens-of-millions-in-back-6087802.php
Airbnb’s Early Legal Issues 123

Matier, P., & Ross, A. (2015b, March 22). ‘No way of enforcing’ Airbnb law, S.F. planning memo
says. The San Francisco Chronicle. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.sfchronicle.
com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/No-way-of-enforcing-Airbnb-law-S-F-planning-6151592.php
McKenny, L. (2014, September 26). Councils threaten home owners with $1 million fine for renting
rooms. The Sydney Morning Herald. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/
councils-threaten-home-owners-with-1-million-fine-for-renting-rooms-20140926-10mchq.html
McNamara, P. (2015, August 22). Changes put bite on short-term landlords. Arizona Daily Star.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://tucson.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/changes-put-
bite-on-short-term-landlords/article_b3efb530-237f-5533-8cce-03a7dec4eb63.html
Mesh, A. (2014, December 22). City Commissioner Nick Fish berates Airbnb lobbyist. Willamette
Week. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-32614-video_
city_commissioner_nick_fish_berates_airbnb_lobbyist.html
Meyer, D. (2015, February 10). Hotel industry fumes as UK prepares to legalize Airbnb in London.
Gigaom. Accessed January 26, 2016, from https://gigaom.com/2015/02/10/hotel-industry-
fumes-as-uk-prepares-to-legalize-airbnb-in-london/
Morris, S. L. (2015, January 22). Airbnb is infuriating the neighbors. Is it time for new rules? LA
Weekly. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.laweekly.com/news/airbnb-is-infuriat
ing-the-neighbors-is-it-time-for-new-rules-5343663
Mosendz, P., & Smith IV, J. (2014, July 23). Hiding in plain sight: What Airbnb doesn’t want you to
know about their new lobbyists. The New York Observer. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://
observer.com/2014/07/hiding-in-plain-sight-what-airbnb-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-their-
new-lobbying-firm/
Mulshine, M. (2015, June). After a disappointing Airbnb stay, I realized there’s a major flaw in the
review system. Business Insider. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.businessinsider.
com/why-airbnb-reviews-are-a-problem-for-the-site-2015-6
Munshaw, J. (2015, October 28). Visit Baltimore wants Airbnb rentals to be subject to the city’s
hotel tax. Baltimore Business Journal. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.bizjournals.
com/baltimore/news/2015/10/28/visit-baltimore-wants-airbnb-rentals-to-be-subject.html
Musil, S. (2014, October 7). Controversial ‘Airbnb law’ approved by SF supervisors. CNET.
Accessed January 26, 2016. http://www.cnet.com/news/controversial-airbnb-proposal-wins-
ok-by-sf-supervisors/
Nashville.gov. (2016). Short term rental property. Nashville.gov. Accessed January 26, 2016,
from http://www.nashville.gov/Codes-Administration/Construction-and-Permits/Short-Term-
Rentals.aspx
Nerman, D. (2015, April 29). Airbnb nightmare renters leave Calgary home trashed. CBC News.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/airbnb-nightmare-
renters-leave-calgary-home-trashed-1.3053555
Nevius, C. W. (2015, November 6). Airbnb says it might be willing to share some data. San
Francisco Chronicle. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/
nevius/article/Airbnb-says-it-might-be-willing-to-share-some-data-6616169.php
Newcomer, E. (2015, July 20). Airbnb overhauls service for business travelers. Bloomberg.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-20/
airbnb-overhauls-service-for-business-travelers
Newcomer, E. (2016, February 24). Airbnb says it removed 1500 listings in New York before data
release. Bloomberg. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti
cles/2016-02-25/airbnb-says-it-removed-1-500-listings-in-new-york-before-data-release
Nezik, A. K. (2015, April 10). Tourism troubles: Berlin cracks down on vacation rentals. Der
Spiegel. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/berlin-
cracks-down-on-estimated-18-000-vacation-rentals-a-1026881.html
Njus, E. (2014, September 3). Portlanders aren’t rushing to legitimize their Airbnb short-term
rentals. The Oregonian. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.oregonlive.com/front-
porch/index.ssf/2014/09/no_rush_to_legalize_airbnb-sty.html
124 D. Guttentag

Nowicki, A. (2014, April 25). Denver homeowner wants city to alter policies on short-term rental, tiny
house. ABC 7 News Denver. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.thedenverchannel.com/
news/local-news/denver-homeowner-wants-city-to-alter-policies-on-short-term-rental-tiny-house
O’Brien, R. (2015, July 15). Hotel industry targets upstart Airbnb in statehouse battles. The Center
for Public Integrity. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/07/
15/17649/hotel-industry-targets-upstart-airbnb-statehouse-battles
O’Neill, S. (2014, April 30). American hotel association to fight Airbnb and short-term rentals.
Tnooz. Accessed 26 January 2016, from http://www.tnooz.com/article/american-hotel-associa
tion-launches-fightback-airbnb-short-term-rentals/
O’Neill, J. W. & Ouyang, Y. (2016). From air mattresses to unregulated business: An analysis of
the other side of Airbnb. Penn State. http://www.ahla.com/uploadedFiles/_Common/pdf/
PennState_AirBnbReport_.pdf
Ortiz, E. (2015, May 23). Sacramento seeks to accommodate, limit Airbnb rentals. The Sacra-
mento Bee. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/arti
cle21511164.html
Paris, N. (2015, July 22). Airbnb reviews are untrustworthy, user claims. The Telegraph. Accessed
January 26, 2016, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/11756199/Airbnb-
reviews-are-untrustworthy-user-claims.html
Parry, B. (2014, September 5). Queens backs Airbnb, independent poll finds. Times Ledger.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.timesledger.com/stories/2014/36/airbnbpoll_tl_
2014_09_05_q.html
Pasick, A. (2013, August 8). Myanmar’s hotels are full, but it’s banning homestays because of
unmannered foreigners. Quartz. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://qz.com/113211/
myanmars-hotels-are-full-but-its-banning-homestays-because-of-unmannered-foreigners/
Pedler, C. (2016, January 15). The rise of Airbnb has motel owners and Bendigo council
concerned. Bendigo Advertiser. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.
bendigoadvertiser.com.au/story/3664583/airbnb-tourism-and-regional-victoria/
Pellicer, L. (2014, July 16). Barcelona’s crackdown on Airbnb renters. El País. Accessed January
26, 2016, from http://elpais.com/elpais/2014/07/16/inenglish/1405501012_966041.html
Peltier, D. (2015, February 23). Airbnb faces big fines in Portland if hosts don’t get city permits.
Skift. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://skift.com/2015/02/23/airbnb-faces-big-fines-in-
portland-if-hosts-dont-get-city-permits/
Perry, M. (2015, November 18). Airbnb to start collecting Florida tourist taxes beginning Dec.
1. Florida Politics. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://floridapolitics.com/archives/
194890-airbnb-to-start-collecting-florida-tourist-taxes-beginning-december-1
Perthen A. (2012, June 30). Britons facing £15,000 fines in Canaries for letting homes and
breaking a law that’s not been enforced for years. The Daily Mail. Accessed January
26, 2016, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2166981/Britons-facing-15-000-
fines-Canaries-letting-homes-breaking-law-thats-enforced-years.html
Pieters, J. (2016, January 13). Airbnb drops Amsterdam properties for violating hotel laws. NL
Times. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.nltimes.nl/2016/01/13/airbnb-drops-
amsterdam-properties-for-violating-hotel-laws/
Plautz, J. (2015a, February 20). Judge evicts NYC tenant for listing rent-stabilized apartment on
Airbnb. Mashable. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://mashable.com/2015/02/20/airbnb-
nyc-eviction
Plautz, J. (2015b, October 1). Airbnb to start collecting taxes in Washington state. Mashable.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://mashable.com/2015/10/01/airbnb-washington-state/
#jtMY5gP1Qmqj
Popper, B. (2015, December 4). Airbnb’s worst problems are confirmed by its own data. The
Verge. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/4/9849242/airbnb-
data-new-york-affordable-housing-illegal-hotels
Airbnb’s Early Legal Issues 125

Porges, S. (2013, January 23). The Airbnb effect: Bringing life to quiet neighborhoods. Forbes.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/sethporges/2013/01/23/the-
airbnb-effect-bringing-life-to-quiet-neighborhoods/
Presse Canadienne. (2015, August 9). Quebec will be the first province in Canada to legalize and
regulate Airbnb. The Montreal Gazette. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://
montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/quebec-to-legalize-and-regulate-airbnb
Pressler, J. (2014, September 23). The dumbest person in your building is passing out keys to your
front door! New York Magazine. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://nymag.com/news/
features/airbnb-in-new-york-debate-2014-9/
Quijones, D. (2015, August 10). Airbnb and its hosts hung out to dry in Barcelona. Wolf Street.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://wolfstreet.com/2015/08/10/barcelonas-new-mayor-
declares-war-on-airbnb/
Rocheleau, M. (2015, August 24). City orders owner to stop renting affordable unit via Airbnb.
The Boston Globe. Accessed January 26, 2016, from https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/
08/24/city-orders-owner-stop-renting-affordable-unit-via-airbnb/5SsUXOJPKvMQLhKkjFk90M/
story.html
Roldan, R. (2015a, May 28). Airbnb ordinance heading for council study. The Courier-Journal.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2015/05/
28/airbnb-ordinance-heading-council-study/28120339/
Roldan, R. (2015b, August 2). Other cities warn of Airbnb regulation pitfalls. The Courier-
Journal. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.courier-journal.com/story/money/
2015/08/03/cities-warn-airbnb-regulation-pitfalls/30896135/
Rosen, K. (2013). Short-term rentals and impact on the apartment market. Berkley, CA: Rosen
Consulting Group. http://www.rosenconsulting.com/products/rentalreport.html
Rosenberg, M. (2014, December 8). San Jose set to legalize, tax Airbnb stays like hotel rooms. San
Jose Mercury News. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-
area-news/ci_27087863/san-jose-set-legalize-tax-airbnb-stays-like
Rosenhall, L. (2015, March 17). California lawmakers want to regulate home-sharing businesses
like Airbnb. The Sacramento Bee. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.sacbee.com/
news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article15202547.html
Rubin, B. F. (2014, July 10). Airbnb to reviewers: Tell us what you really think. CNET. Accessed
January 26, 2016, from http://www.cnet.com/news/airbnb-wants-you-to-be-honest/
Said, C. (2015a, October 1). Chesky: Airbnb helps urban middle class make ends meet. SFGate.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Chesky-Airbnb-
helps-urban-middle-class-make-ends-6543832.php
Said, C. (2015b, November 4). Prop. F: S.F. voters reject measure to restrict Airbnb rentals.
SFGate. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Prop-F-Mea
sure-to-restrict-Airbnb-rentals-6609176.php
Said, C. (2015c, November 10). Airbnb, Uber cast themselves as saviors of the middle class. San
Francisco Chronicle. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/
article/Airbnb-Uber-We-are-the-saviors-of-the-middle-6620729.php
Said, C. (2016, January 7). City implores Airbnb, other firms, to deactivate illegal listings. SFGate.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/City-implores-
Airbnb-other-firms-to-deactivate-6744061.php
Samaan, R. (2015). Airbnb, rising rent, and the housing crisis in Los Angeles. Los Angeles, CA:
Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy. http://www.laane.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/
AirBnB-Final.pdf
Sawicki, E. (2015, April 8). Airbnb to begin collecting taxes for city. The Malibu Times. Accessed
January 26, 2016, from http://www.malibutimes.com/news/article_df7955b0-de31-11e4-
be52-8bccab199937.html
Sayre, K. (2014, July 10). New Orleans City Council toughens ban on unlicensed short-term
vacation rentals. The Times-Picayun Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.nola.com/
business/index.ssf/2014/07/new_orleans_city_council_tough.html
126 D. Guttentag

Schaal, D. (2013, October 9). Airbnb files petition to block NY subpoena, cites burden to compile
data. Skift. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://skift.com/2013/10/09/airbnb-files-petition-
to-block-ny-subpoena-cites-substantial-burden-to-compile-the-data/
Schechner, S., & Verbergt, M. (2015, June 25). Paris confronts Airbnb’s rapid growth. The Wall
Street Journal. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/
SB12147335600370333763904581058032330315292
Schneiderman, E. T. (2014). Airbnb in the city. New York: Office of the New York State Attorney
General. http://www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/Airbnb%20report.pdf
Schumpeter, J. A. (2008). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. Toronto: Harper Perennial
Modern Thought (Original work published in 1942).
Sciacca, A. (2015, July 23). SFTravel forges first-ever pact with Airbnb amid San Francisco hotel
crunch. San Francisco Business Times. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.bizjournals.
com/sanfrancisco/blog/2015/07/sftravel-san-francisco-airbnb-hotels-shortage-deal.html
Seaside Courier. (2015, April 22). Carlsbad to regulate short-term vacation rentals. The Seaside
Courier. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.seasidecourier.com/business/carlsbad-to-
regulate-short-term-vacation-rentals/article_bc13bd52-e94b-11e4-81b9-7fedc054dea6.html
Sernoffsky, E. (2015, August 3). Suspect pilfers $35K in loot from Airbnb rental. San Francisco
Chronicle. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Suspect-pil
fers-35K-in-loot-from-Airbnb-rental-6421626.php
Shankman, S. (2014, November 18). The startup businesses built around the Airbnb ecosystem.
Skift. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://skift.com/2014/11/18/the-startup-businesses-
built-around-the-airbnb-ecosystem/
Shankman, S. (2015, March 27). The Queen of England signs Airbnb-friendly law for London
rentals. Skift. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://skift.com/2015/03/27/the-queen-of-
england-signs-airbnb-friendly-law-for-london-rentals/
Sheehan, L. R., & Ritchie, J. B. (2005). Destination stakeholders: Exploring identity and salience.
Annals of Tourism Research, 32(3), 711–734.
Sheehan, L., Ritchie, J. B., & Hudson, S. (2007). The destination promotion triad: Understanding
asymmetric stakeholder interdependencies among the city, hotels, and DMO. Journal of Travel
Research, 46(1), 64–74.
Shute, J. (2014, April 9). Sandbanks locals aren’t enjoying the loud party houses. The Telegraph.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/10755038/
Sandbanks-locals-arent-enjoying-the-loud-party-houses.html
Sidorowicz, J. (2014, November 13). Airbnb licensing to pick up speed in GR, city manager promises
enforcement. Fox 17 West Michigan. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://fox17online.com/
2014/11/13/airbnb-licensing-to-pick-up-speed-in-gr-city-manager-promises-enforcement/
Slee, T. (2014, March 26). The shape of Airbnb’s business. Whimsley. Accessed January 26, 2016,
from http://tomslee.net/2014/05/the-shape-of-airbnbs-business.html
Smerd, J. (2014, September 9). Bed-Stuy’s slice of Airbnb. Crain’s New York Business. Accessed
January 26, 2016, from http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140909/OPINION/
309079984/bed-stuys-slice-of-airbnb
Snyder, B. (2014, July 31). Exclusive: Airbnb says it’s saving our world with each rented room.
Fortune. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://fortune.com/2014/07/31/exclusive-airbnb-
says-its-saving-our-world-with-each-rented-room/
Solomon, J. (2014, July 14). No vacancy: Hotels are making a killing. CNN. Accessed January
26, 2016, from http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/14/investing/hotel-business-boom/
Specht, P. A. (2015, October 27). Raleigh one step closer to legalizing Airbnb. The News &
Observer. http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/wake-county/raleigh-report-
blog/article41612481.html
Spielman, F. (2016, January 12). Emanuel proposes regulatory crackdown on Airbnb. The Chicago
Sun Times. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/1247298/
hold-late-post-emanuel-proposes-regulatory-crackdown-air-bnb
Airbnb’s Early Legal Issues 127

Sreenivasan, H. (2015, August 1). Why is New York City cracking down on Airbnb? PBS
NewsHour. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/will-new-
york-city-shut-airbnb-2/
Staley, L. (2007). Why do governments hate bed and breakfasts? The Institute of Public Affairs
Review: A Quarterly Review of Politics and Public Affairs, 59(1), 33–35.
Stankus, J. (2012). How to open and operate a Bed & Breakfast business (9th ed.). Guilford, CT:
Globe Pequot Press.
Stevens, M., & Groves, M. (2014, May 27). Malibu to crack down on short-term rentals via
Airbnb, other websites. The Los Angeles Times. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.
latimes.com/local/la-me-malibu-renting-20140528-story.html
Stone, Z. (2015, November 8). Living and dying on Airbnb. Medium. Accessed January 26, 2016,
from https://medium.com/matter/living-and-dying-on-airbnb-6bff8d600c04#.poc1jxosx
Sundararajan, A. (2012, October 22). Why the government doesn’t need to regulate the sharing
economy. Wired. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.wired.com/2012/10/from-
airbnb-to-coursera-why-the-government-shouldnt-regulate-the-sharing-economy/
Sundararajan, A. (2014, March 3). Trusting the ‘sharing economy’ to regulate itself. The New York
Times. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/03/
trusting-the-sharing-economy-to-regulate-itself/
Swan, R. (2014, October 27). Protesters accuse Airbnb of desecrating San Francisco’s neighbor-
hoods. San Francisco Weekly. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.sfweekly.com/
thesnitch/2014/10/27/protesters-accuse-airbnb-of-killing-san-franciscos-neighborhoods
Swig, R. (2014, August 29). Alt-accommodation impact felt in San Francisco. Hotel News Now.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from www.hotelnewsnow.com/article/Pdf/14341/
Tam, D. (2013, July 31). Airbnb, Lyft partner with new share-economy advocacy group. CNET.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.cnet.com/news/airbnb-lyft-partner-with-new-
share-economy-advocacy-group/
Thomas, O. (2015, October 15). With its latest hire, Airbnb gives a clue on how it’s going to fight
rental laws. Business Insider. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.businessinsider.
com/airbnb-hires-yahoo-david-hantman-2012-10
Titcomb, J. (2014, January 28). Airbnb denies it is at war with hotel groups. The Telegraph.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/
retailandconsumer/leisure/10600282/A irbnb-denies-it-is-at-war-with-hotel-groups.html
Trenholm, R. (2015, March 3). Airbnb exec denies competition with hotels, says an Airbnb trip
‘changes you.’ CNET. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.cnet.com/news/airbnb-
exec-denies-competition-with-hotels-says-an-airbnb-trip-changes-you-somehow/
Tsotsis, A. (2015, May 27). Airbnb hopes to have almost a million stays a night by summer.
TechCrunch. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://techcrunch.com/2015/05/27/airbnb-
hopes-to-have-almost-a-million-stays-a-night-by-summer/
Tussyadiah, I. (2015). An exploratory study on drivers and deterrents of collaborative consump-
tion in travel. In I. Tussyadiah & A. Inversini (Eds.), Information & communication technol-
ogies in tourism 2015. Switzerland: Springer.
Valencia, J. (2014, December 11). Charlotte, Raleigh, Wilmington wrestle with B&B vs. Airbnb.
WUNC. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://wunc.org/post/charlotte-raleigh-wilmington-
wrestle-bb-vs-airbnb
Vasagar, J. (2014, April 30). Berlin housing law threatens sharing economy by restricting rents.
Financial Times. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1e8299a0-
d065-11e3-af2b-00144feabdc0.html
Vivion, N. (2015, February 11). Is Airbnb responsible for the softening in New York RevPAR?.
Tnooz. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.tnooz.com/article/airbnb-responsible-
softening-new-york-revpar
Walker, H. (2014, April 21). Airbnb removed thousands of ‘illegal’ listings after challenge from
New York’s top lawyer. Business Insider. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.
businessinsider.com/airbnb-purging-thousands-of-illegal-listings-2014-4
128 D. Guttentag

Walters, A. (2015, February 24). Portland’s deadline for Airbnb safety permits passes unheeded, but
city won’t issue fines. Willamette Week. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.wweek.
com/portland/blog-32871-portlands_deadline_for_airbnb_safety_permits_passes_unheeded_but_
city_wont_issue_fnes.html
Weber, H. (2013a, June 7). After a rough few months, Airbnb receives Amsterdam’s blessing. Will
other cities follow? The Next Web. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://thenextweb.com/eu/
2013/06/07/four-months-after-its-hunt-for-illegal-hotels-amsterdam-lightens-restrictions-on-
airbnb-rentals/
Weber, H. (2013b, February 2). Airbnb could be banned in Amsterdam: Local authorities are now
hunting for illegal hotels. The Next Web. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://thenextweb.
com/insider/2013/02/02/airbnb-may-be-banned-from-amsterdam-local-authorities-are-now-
hunting-for-illegal-hotels/
Weinberger, M. (2015, March 23). San Francisco complains it can’t enforce its own Airbnb law.
Business Insider. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.businessinsider.com/san-
francisco-calls-airbnb-regulations-unenforceable-2015-3
Whitehouse, K. (2015, January 20). Airbnb to face grilling by NYC City Council. USA Today.
Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/01/19/airbnb-
illegalhotels-nyc-renters/21999177/
Williams, O. (2015, February 9). Here’s why you might want to rent your home to NWT tourists.
My Yellowknife Now. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.myyellowknifenow.com/
2200/heres-might-want-rent-home-nwt-tourists/
Wohlsen, M. (2013, October 3). Airbnb: Our rooms should be taxed like hotels. Wired. Accessed
January 26, 2016, from http://www.wired.com/2013/10/airbnb-taxes/
Yglesias, M. (2012a, June 5). Legalize Airbnb! Slate. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.
slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/06/is_airbnb_illegal_why_hotels_are_so_upset_
about_you_renting_a_bedroom_to_a_stranger_.html
Yglesias, M. (2012b). The rent is too damn high: What to do about it, and why it matters more than
you think. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Yglesias, M. (2013, May 1). Stop “disrupting” everything: How a once-useful concept turned into a
meaningless buzzword. Slate. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.slate.com/articles/
business/moneybox/2013/05/disrupting_disruption_a_once_useful_concept_has_become_a_
lame_catchphrase.html
Zabludovsky, K. (2014, May 1). NYC is battling Airbnb, but the home-sharing firm got a green
light in Amsterdam. Newsweek. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.newsweek.com/
nyc-battling-airbnb-home-sharing-firm-got-green-light-amsterdam-249256
Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., & Byers, J. (2015a). A first look at online reputation on Airbnb, where
every stay is above average. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id¼2554500
Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., & Byers, J. (2015b). The rise of the sharing economy: Estimating the
impact of Airbnb on the hotel industry. http://people.bu.edu/zg/publications/airbnb.pdf
Zillman, C. (2015, July 16). Spain’s Catalonia region the latest to slap a tax on Airbnb rentals.
Fortune. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://fortune.com/2015/07/16/airbnb-taxes-spain-
catalonia/
Free Walking Tour Enterprises in Europe:
An Evolutionary Economic Approach

~o and F. Xavier Medina

Marı́a del Pilar Leal London

Abstract The emergence of the collaborative economy has promoted the rise of
numerous profit and non-profit businesses that are flourishing. Some of the business
features within this alternative tourism industry are devoted to the support of a
moral economy based on social responsibility, sustainable trade, fair labour prac-
tices, and social and environmental awareness. In this framework, new trends are
appearing within the tourism/travel/leisure industries all over the world. This
chapter outlines an exploratory approach to how firms within the collaborative
economy operate. The empirical focus is on the “free” or “pay-what-you-want”
tours in Europe, which appeal to the free exchange of local knowledge among
travellers. It analyses business models and behaviours based on the evolutionary
economics concepts of knowledge, innovation and path-dependency. Taking as the
main case studies Barcelona and Berlin, this approach allows us to understand the
collaborative market and how this affects the relationship between business and
tourists by examining the moral affordances, controversies and risks in the context
of collaborative economy practices.

Keywords Collaborative economy • Free-walking tours • Business behaviour •

Business models • Evolutionary economics

1 Introduction

Escaping the mass-produced uniform travel experience, the collaborative economy

is becoming an increasingly valuable source of new products and activities in travel
and tourism practices, and it has met consumer demand for more authentic and
unique tourism experiences. Nowadays, the collaborative economy is already part

M. del Pilar Leal Londo~no (*)

Ostelea School of Tourism & Hospitality, Barcelona & GRIT-EAE, Carrer d’Aragó, 28, 08015
Barcelona, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]
F.X. Medina
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya & GRIT-EAE, Carrer d’Aragó, 28, 08015 Barcelona, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 129

D. Dredge, S. Gyimóthy (eds.), Collaborative Economy and Tourism,
Tourism on the Verge, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-51799-5_8
130 M. del Pilar Leal Londo~
no and F.X. Medina

of our daily lives and is revolutionising the way we travel and live. The collabora-
tive economy is creating more options for people to travel in different ways. Rental
platforms like Airbnb or Uber are popularly recognised sharing practices, however,
there are other types of collaborative economy practices emerging that have yet to
be explored in the literature, such as free or “pay what you want” walking tours.
As Belk (2014) points out, there are two common points in these collaborative
practices: (1) their use of temporary access non-ownership models of utilising
consumer goods and services; and (2) their reliance on the Internet. Indeed, one
of the main drivers for the move towards the collaborative economy is technology,
which allows us to have access to a global market at the click of our fingertips. As
explored in this chapter, part of the success achieved by free walking tours in
European cities is using the Internet as a marketing tool that allows the spread
information all over the world.
Technology has a particularly important role to play, not only because the
Internet is crucial as an information source to tourists, but also because the Internet
has reshaped the tourist experience. As tourists become more mobile, so does the
way they travel. However, far from reducing paid walking tours in cities, technol-
ogy has prompted the rise of free walking tours or “pay what you want” tours, and is
producing even more variations on the guided tour business model. Not only are
traditional city walking tour companies tapping into this market, but small and
medium-sized tourism enterprises (SMEs) and organisations are also on the guided
walking tours scene, and new business models and marketing strategies are also
being created to feed the “sharing market”.
Generally designed in some form of “loop”, the walking tour enables partici-
pants to gain an appreciation of aspects of a landscape, both past and present, by
interpreting it through a system of signs. An interpretive walk provides not only an
opportunity to facilitate learning and to enhance appreciation of an urban land-
scape, but can also enhance visitors’ experience of that place (Markwell, Stevenson,
& Rowe, 2004). In this open framework, the concept of a free tour where there is no
set charge, and tourists show their appreciation by leaving a tip with their tour
guide, is becoming increasingly popular across Europe and beyond. An increase in
budget-conscious travel and the ease of word-of-mouth internet marketing is
helping drive the trend (Baker, 2013), and tourists themselves are contributing to
the expansion of free walking tours across the globe, by sharing their experiences
on social media.
This chapter is motivated by the desire to understand the behaviour of tourism
enterprises in the framework of the collaborative economy by exploring the
phenomenon of free walking tours using evolutionary economics (Dosi, 1988;
Nelson & Winter, 1982). This is an important issue in tourism because free walking
tours play an increasing role in the marketing, image and visibility of destinations,
especially in Europe, and in the debate between where sharing ends and commerce
begins (Belk, 2014, p. 7). In the context of the global financial crisis, processes of
peer-to-peer sharing of goods, services, transportation, among other things are
believed to transform and disrupt capitalist structures. This is associated with the
Free Walking Tour Enterprises in Europe: An Evolutionary Economic Approach 131

idea that society will change where people demand new business models of access
over traditional models of ownership (Owyang, Samuel, & Grennville, 2014).
The starting point for this chapter is the question raised by Koopman, Mitchell,
and Thierer (2014): To what degree is the sharing economy creating new markets
rather than simply supplanting older forms of transactions? In order to answer this
question, the chapter seeks to describe and explain the business models
characterising free walking tour enterprises and its moral affordances based on
evolutionary economic geography and its fundamental concepts of knowledge,
innovation and its principle of path dependency. Secondly, the chapter will criti-
cally discuss free walking tours and whether this phenomenon might fit into
collaborative economy practices, and whether it is or is not disrupting or
transforming tourism. Finally, the chapter explores future perspectives on free
walking tours in Europe in the context of the collaborative economy, and its
opportunities and challenges for future research and practice.
In the following section, we describe the basic principles of evolutionary
economics applied to free walking tour business models, paying particular attention
to business dynamics and how these dynamics have been developed. We then
explore the characteristics of free walking tours linked to collaborative economy
by using primary and secondary data to critically discuss the disruption or trans-
formation caused by this phenomenon on tourism practices. The chapter contributes
to a wider knowledge of the free walking tours phenomenon, particularly in Europe.
Finally, the chapter addresses some key theoretical and practical issues in the
understanding of tourism enterprise models in the context of the collaborative
economy. It does this by presenting a dual focus, not just on how ideas and concepts
from evolutionary economics can be brought to bear on sharing economic issues,
but also on the ambivalent attitudes by stakeholders who are living in a hybrid
economy where collaborative consumption and capitalist market structures are
continually overlapping.

2 Free Walking Tour Firms Within the Collaborative

Economy: An Evolutionary Economics Approach

According to the European Business Innovation Observatory Report (2013), in

recent years, a transition from ownership towards accessibility might be observed
across a wide variety of markets. In traditional markets, consumers buy products
and gain ownership. However, through accessibility-based systems, consumers are
increasingly paying for temporary access rights to a product or a service. As a
result, sharing platforms in the collaborative economy allow consumers to access
goods and services that were normally conducted by traditional businesses.
According with the European Business Innovation Observatory (2013), the most
widespread business model deployed by sharing economy companies features an
online marketplace through which demand for certain assets or services amongst
132 M. del Pilar Leal Londo~
no and F.X. Medina

peers is matched with the ownership of those assets and services by other peers.
In the tourism sector, innovation in firms has been driven by the Internet.
New business models linked to tourism, like Uber or Airbnb, which are well-
established manifestations of the collaborative economy, have reached customers
in disruptive ways (Stokes, Clarence, Anderson, & Rinne, 2014). Free walking tour
firms are commonly not included or analysed as a collaborative economy example,
although they might fit into the pillar of collaborative learning established by
Stokes et al. (2014) because they refer to learning experiences where people
share resources and knowledge.
In this chapter, we use the evolutionary perspective raised by the relational turn
in economic geography, which allows us to understand the dynamics, competitive
advantages, economic transformations and the growth of firms within the collabo-
rative economy. Evolutionary economics considers the economy as a dynamic,
irreversible and self-transformational system, which opens up a new space for
theoretical, ontological and epistemological exploration (Boschma & Martin,
2010, p. 5). The evolutionary approach also allows the analysis of the impact of
historical structures and processes on today’s firms and their decisions. Evolution-
ary concepts of change assume that economic and social processes are experienced-
based, cumulative and reflexive in nature (Bathelt & Glückler, 2003). From the
sociological approach applied to the economy, Granovetter (1985) argues that
economic activities are deeply embedded in the structures of social relations.
Therefore, firms cannot be analysed as independent entities, but must be viewed
within their respective socio-economic contexts.
Collaborative consumption is perhaps an evolution of the economy, it may be a
new economy, or it might be seen as a novelty within the existing economy. In fact,
novelty is one of the three basic requirements of economic evolution and refers to
the creative capacity of economic agents (individuals and firms) and the creative
functions of markets to drive economic evolution and adaptation (Metcalfe, Foster,
& Ramlogan, 2006). The framework of evolutionary economics innovation and
knowledge are essential in helping us to understand the creation and evolution of
the business models associated with free walking tours as a phenomenon within
collaborative consumption.
Firms absorb, explore and exploit local knowledge because they use different
routines, beliefs and habits, and their absorptive capacity is grounded on knowledge
bases (Denicolai, Zucchella, & Cioccarelli, 2010). Most free walking tour firms
claim to be local firms driven by local people. However, the impact of local firms in
and on their local environment depends on local agents, who, according to
Denicolai et al. (2010), differ in terms of their absorptive capacity and their
accumulation of knowledge and social assets.
Free walking tours might have an impact on destination image and attractiveness
because, as stated by Ap and Wong (2001), walking tours are very much respon-
sible for the overall impression and satisfaction of the tour services offered by
destinations. One of the main marketing channels for this type of firm is the
Internet, demonstrated through a common search in Internet browsers. The Internet
and this information technology offer consumers more information about products
Free Walking Tour Enterprises in Europe: An Evolutionary Economic Approach 133

and services, and it empowers consumers to come together and act on that infor-
mation (Koopman et al., 2014).
It has been observed that the number of walking tours in cities has increased over
the last decade. In Barcelona for example, the number of walking tours has grown
from 4253 in 2000 to 14,278 in 2014 according to the Barcelona Tourism Bureau
(2014). This fact might be explained by an increase in demand for free walking
tours as an innovative tourism product and a non-technological innovation. As
Souto (2015) argued, a non-technological innovation, such as a business model or
concept, is a way to demonstrate the innovation potential for service firms.
According to Stokes et al. (2014), in the collaborative economy there are four
business models that shape the way we participate (see Fig. 1). Some of the most
exciting and original participants in the collaborative economy according to the
authors, have gone beyond prominent delivery models (such as business–to–con-
sumer or B2C) in favour of less conventional or more peer–driven approaches.
However, in the case of free walking tours, the B2C model is the most prominent
delivery model, as will be discussed later on in this chapter.
Many of the new tours are set up by local tourism entrepreneurs associated
through a network, but also by traditional operators who are taking control on the
“sharing market”. This statement is supported in research by Stokes et al. (2014)
who found that not all organisations operating in the collaborative economy are

Business–to–Consumer (B2C)
The interaction between consumers and companies who own or directly
manage their inventory.

Business–to–Business (B2B)
The interaction between a business and other companies who
own or directly manage their inventory.

Peer–to–Peer (P2P)
The interaction between two or more people to trade or exchange a good or
service facilitated and supported by a company, organization or platform
that is not directly involved in the transaction.

Consumer–to–Business (C2B)
The interaction between consumers and a company where the company
benefits from and pays for the knowledge or assets of the consumer.

Fig. 1 Business models of the collaborative economy. Source: Author’s own based on Stokes
et al. (2014)
134 M. del Pilar Leal Londo~
no and F.X. Medina

new. Established corporations are also entering this space, often by aligning
themselves with collaborative businesses or adapting their models to incorporate
collaborative traits. This fact may reflect a path dependency in the capitalist market
economy where firms evolve and adapt to developments in the market place by
searching for new ways and mechanisms of distributing their products and services
and building market awareness.
As stated by Koopman et al. (2014), the dynamic competition mentioned above
encourages firms to discover new ways of doing business and new ways of creating
value for their customers. This may also explain the presence of traditional
operators offering free walking tours because of heightened business competition.
However, in the framework of the collaborative economy, the consumer is
empowered via product rating and review systems, thus allowing consumers to
influence business behaviour and competition.
The evolutionary economics approach allows us to introduce two questions that
will be addressed in this chapter. The first question has to do with how free walking
tour firms behave, and how they have developed an innovative business concept
known as free walking tours. Based on the previous work developed by Souto
(2015), in the tourism industry we distinguish two types of innovation: (a) business
concept innovation; and (b) business model innovations that apply knowledge to
meet customer needs. Both types of innovation are key for explaining how a
business strategy takes form and operates. Taking the case study of the free walking
tours, the second question follows the one raised by Dredge and Gyimóthy (2015,
p. 9) and asks “Is the collaborative economy just business-as-usual that appropriates
an alternative economies logic?”
On this basis, we consider free walking tours as business strategies developed by
firms and organisations in the rush to meet customer needs. Perhaps, free walking
tours are a B2C business model in which the buying of knowledge takes place. In
that sense, and according to the evolutionary economics perspective, firms are
agents that compete in a selective environment, and selection is the result of
different historical paths of accumulation of knowledge in firms (Giuliani, 2010).
Knowledge accumulation leads to business innovation, and sometimes the creation
of a knowledge network resulting from business interaction derived from the trade
of inputs, services or memberships (Giuliani, 2007). Moreover, firms do not
innovate in isolation; collaboration with other companies or institutions increases
innovation opportunities especially in the tourism sector (Souto, 2015).

3 Knowledge and Innovation in Walking Tours Firms

Within the Collaborative Economy

Knowledge never stands still but is constantly being created. It is this continual
process that drives economic evolution and renders capitalism restless and in
constant motion (Boschma & Martin, 2010). In the case of firms, and according
Free Walking Tour Enterprises in Europe: An Evolutionary Economic Approach 135

to Denicolai et al. (2010), in order to manage social assets, firms develop a specific
know-how stored in organisational routines, rituals and habits, and it is in the
storage and use of this knowledge that innovation can be unlocked. But innovation
is also related to the processes of knowledge creation, the development of new
technologies and the effects of technological change, especially from a spatial
perspective (Bathelt & Glückler, 2003). As argued by Bathelt and Glückler
(2003), successful innovations are usually associated with the creation of new
knowledge or the modification of existing knowledge. The process of generating
new technologies and knowledge is path-dependent in that it depends on the firms’
and actors’ past experiences and their capacities to modify existing knowledge or
create new knowledge.
In this conceptual framework, processes of knowledge creation are based on
previous experiences which lead to innovation inside firms. This fact might be
translated into innovative business strategies that transform and disrupt the rela-
tionship between business and customers. Nonaka (1991) argued that knowledge
can be explicit (know-that) which is relatively easily codified and transferred, and
tacit knowledge which is more difficult to formalise and, therefore, less easy to
interpret and transfer from one organisation to another. Tacit knowledge according
to Polanyi (1966) is learned through both individual reflection and collaborative
experience. Tacit knowledge might be observed within the United Europe free tours
organisation.
In evolutionary economics, firms are not uniform but are characterised by distinc-
tive capabilities. For example, a firm’s knowledge can play an important role in
innovation and can contribute to the firm’s self-constructed competitive advantage
(Cooke & Laurentis, 2010). Knowledge is the decisive asset of a firm, and knowledge
creation is the key mechanism through which firms produce and sustain competitive-
ness (Bathelt & Glückler, 2011). In tourism firms, knowledge is a critical determinant
in innovative capability (Martı́nez-Román Tamayo, Gamero, & Romero, 2015).
Previous work by Shaw and Williams (2009) on knowledge transfer and
management in tourism confirms knowledge as a competitive advantage for
tourism firms. The rise of free walking tours might be seen as an example of
businesses building competitive advantage as a response to different drivers of
change mentioned by Owyang et al. (2014) such as the financial crisis, new
customers and travellers looking for a connection with locals, alternative ways
to explore destinations, widespread use of technology, among others. In addition
to knowledge as a competitive advantage in firms, Shaw and Williams (2009)
stress the importance of knowledge in innovation. However, in order to influence
innovation processes, knowledge has to be captured, made explicit and properly
understood; it also needs to be interpreted, restored, adapted into specific inno-
vations and recorded (Hjalager, 2010). Based on Hjalager’s (2010) categories of
innovation, free walking tours show three potential types of innovation:
(1) Product or service innovations refer to changes directly observed by the
customer and regarded as new approaches to product conceptualisation,
136 M. del Pilar Leal Londo~
no and F.X. Medina

development and delivery. For example, product or service innovation might be

seen in traditional paid walking tour companies that incorporate free walking
tours into their product range. Alternatively, the reinvented, reshaped and
commoditised walking tours may contribute to the launching of new companies
and organisations targeting new market segments.
(2) Management innovations refer to, for example, new marketing concepts and
new relational configurations between providers and customers that enhance,
streamline and make more cost-effective market uptake. For example, man-
agement innovations inside free walking tour firms can be observed in the way
they market their products online. Along with the traditional website, free
walking tours base their performance on customer empowerment through
reputational feedback mechanisms, such as product rating and review systems,
that are posted on the main page of their websites.
(3) Institutional innovations refer to new collaborative or organisational structures
that enhance accessibility and/or reconfigure traditional supply chains. For
example, institutional innovation is reflected on the creation of the United
Europe free tours network as independent network that provides quality stan-
dards of free walking tours around Europe, although not all free walking tour
firms are part of this network.
Innovations in tourism enterprises respond to and are inspired by a range of
external and internal factors (Hjalager, 2010). Because firms have histories, path
dependencies and evolutionary trajectories, they develop adaptation and survival
skills, and in maintaining a relatively unchanging market location they can develop
a special capability of transforming themselves to fit new markets (Cooke &
Laurentis, 2010). The analysis of the relationship between capacity of innovation,
strategies of adaptation and economic performance in tourism firms is a research
gap that is yet to be explored (Hjalager, 2010; Martı́nez-Román et al., 2015).

4 Path Dependency of Walking Tour Firms Within

Collaborative Economy

Within evolutionary economics, the notion of path dependency holds that the
dynamics of economic development is contained within and explained by specific
contexts. For instance, history matters and small chance or random events lead to
path dependence and eventually become locked in through a self-reinforcing
process (David, 1994). From an evolutionary perspective, yesterday’s economic
decisions, actions and interactions enable and constrain the context of today’s
action (Bathelt & Glückler, 2011). In this context, the basic path dependence
model proposed by Martin and Sunley (2010) posits four stages of the development
of a technological, industrial or institutional trajectory: pre-formation, path
creation, path lock-in, and path dissolution. According to these authors, the model
Free Walking Tour Enterprises in Europe: An Evolutionary Economic Approach 137

has been mainly used to explain the evolution of a particular industry, technology or
institution either in a given location (region, city), or across locations.
In particular, path dependence has helped to explain why regional growth
disparities persist; why particular industries and technologies develop in certain
locations, but not in others; and to understand why some regional economies are
better able to adapt over time than others (Martin & Sunley, 2010). In the case of
tourism, path dependence has recently been used to explain the evolution of
destinations. In particular, it has been used to understand the emergence, rise and
decline of a tourism area and the path dependence and lock-in of dominant tourism
products and sectors (Ma & Hassink, 2013) or why destinations change over time
(Gill & Williams, 2011; Halkier & Therkelsen, 2013; Sanz-Iba~nez & Anton Clavé,
2014).
Ma and Hassink (2013) stress that the path dependence approach can be used to
explain the evolution of a particular tourism product, sector or institution either in a
given tourism destination or across destinations which can have both positive and
negative effects (Martin & Sunley, 2010). As Brouder and Eriksson argue (2013:
379), path dependence studies generally take a reflective, after-the-fact approach to
identify the presence of negative externalities that expose regions to some inevita-
ble future shock which in turn leads to a crisis in the regional economy. It can be
seen that most tourism studies have been focused on the path dependence of
destinations rather than firms. Alternatively, economic geographers have studied
firms’ and regions’ performance over time based on path dependence (Glückler,
2007; Martin & Sunley, 2006, 2010; Stam, 2010).
Within this context, the principle of path dependence applied to collaborative
economy might explain why free walking tour enterprises base their performance
on traditional business models developed in the capitalist market economy. These
free tour enterprises reflect business choices made in the past by emphasising
convenience, value and quality or distinctiveness of the services offered. As argued
by Owyang et al. (2014), “. . .for any business that has competed on price, conve-
nience or quality to drive traditional sales, it won’t be a huge leap to push those
buttons in order to drive sharing”.
Following Owyang et al. (2014), the collaborative economy demands nothing
short of business model transformation. In that sense, we argue that the collabora-
tive economy is a transformation of the traditional economy shaped by historical
structures that configure the current sharing market. Free walking tours exhibit a
transformation of traditional walking tour firms that might claim to be innovative.
This evolutionary approach suggests that successful routines survive over time, but
that the acquisition of successful routines is limited by the bounded rationality of
economic actors such as firms and individuals, since firms have a limited capacity to
embrace change (Brouder & Eriksson, 2013).
138 M. del Pilar Leal Londo~
no and F.X. Medina

5 Methodology

The current investigation of free walking tours in the collaborative economy is

based on a case study analysis of the free walking tours offered by firms in
Barcelona and Berlin. Based on the European Cities Benchmarking Report- ECM
(2014), these two cities were selected based on two criteria: (a) their tourism
performance; and (b) their attractiveness for establishing a business. These criteria
are support by the following factors:
(1) Both cities are on the list of the top performing tourism cities. Berlin, Rome,
and Barcelona maintained their ranks among the top five tourist cities with
decidedly strong year-on-year bed-night growth rates (ECM, 2014).
(2) Both cities are top destinations in Europe and are commonly named as
“alternative” due to their culture, art, architecture, and design among other
elements. In the case of Berlin, for example, the city is especially attractive to
entrepreneurs in the creative sector and the technology industry (Visit Berlin
Report, 2015).
(3) Berlin is the ninth best city in the world to open a start-up, according to the 2015
study “Start-up Ecosystem Ranking Report” developed by the firm Compass
in 2015.
(4) Arrivals and overnight stays in Berlin and Barcelona have grown significantly,
a development unmatched in other European cities (see Table 1).
(5) The economic and social impacts of tourism on the economies of these cities
are significant (ECM, 2014).
Primary data were collected through participant observation in Barcelona and
Berlin in four different free walking tours. Two tours were conducted with the same
firm that operates in Barcelona and Berlin. The other two tours took place with
different firms in each case study location. In addition, five informal unstructured
discussions were conducted with free tour guides. The information was
complemented with three interviews with individuals working in one of the biggest
free walking tour firms in Europe. Furthermore, in-field discussions with tourists
during the free walking tours in Barcelona and Berlin were carried out. The free
walking tour firms were chosen based on two qualifying criteria: (1) one of the
biggest firms which offered more free walking tours in different cities in Europe,

Table 1 Tourism data showing increases in tourism in Berlin and Barcelona

Berlin Barcelona
Number of visitors (2014) 12.0 million 7.9 million
Number of overnight stays (2014) 28.7 million 17.1 million
Increased of overnight stays (2014) 6.5% 5.6%
% Growth of tourism from 2005 to 2014 83.6% 39.2%
Source: Based on Visit Berlin and Barcelona Tourism websites, 2015
Free Walking Tour Enterprises in Europe: An Evolutionary Economic Approach 139

and (2) firms who belong to the United Europe Free Tours and claim to be
alternative free walking tour firms.
This primary data collection was complemented with an online survey e-mailed
to potential participants in May (2015) and included 28 closed and multi-response
questions. The survey was addressed to company managers of free walking tours in
Europe and was based on a list available online created by the tour operator ‘Free
Sofia Tour’ and on firms that advertised on the network website “United Europe
Free Tours”. The consolidated database included 75 operators. The purpose of the
survey was to develop a collective description of the free walking tour firms in
Europe and their links to collaborative economy.
The online survey was sent to 54 enterprises in the database that had an email
address. Two emails were undeliverable so it was assumed that 52 enterprises
received the e-mail with the online survey link. At the end of the survey period,
11 usable responses were received giving a 21% response rate. The questionnaire
collected information about the characteristics of the business, key characteristics
of the free walking tours offered, information about demand for free walking tours,
and marketing of tours.
The online survey was analysed using Excel. The country of respondents is
presented in Table 2 and shows that responses were concentrated in Eastern Europe,
represented by Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. This suggests a positive impact and
demonstrates interest in these countries for free walking tours as a way of marketing
their destination.
The low responses rate obtained might be explained by the lack of a contact
person’s name. This impersonal email could provoke mistrust and/or a lack of
responsibility for answering by the person who received the email. However, and
aware of the small and limited answer response rate, the main purpose of the
questionnaire was simply to obtain descriptive data that might complement the
information collected through interviews, field notes, photos and participant
observation, and was not intended for in-depth statistical analysis.
In addition, the information collected was supported by secondary data including
online information available to prospective tourists on their company websites
across Europe, academic papers, professional reports, newspapers and internal

Table 2 List of firms’ Country No. Surveys

responses to the online survey
Spain 2
by country
Poland 2
Holland 1
Romania 1
Bulgaria 1
Iceland 1
Portugal 1
Italy 1
Germany 1
Total 11
140 M. del Pilar Leal Londo~
no and F.X. Medina

consultant reports. With respect to the interviews and field notes collected from the
case study tours in Berlin and Barcelona, due to privacy and confidentiality
concerns, we refer to these firms as: firm A, B, C and D. Firms A and B operate
to Berlin and C and D to Barcelona.

6 An Analysis of Free Walking Tour Firms: Empirical

Findings

The theoretical sections of this chapter explore knowledge, innovation and path
dependence as the three main dimensions of analysis. In order to answer the first
question raised in this chapter, which relates to understanding the behaviour of
walking tour firms and the development of a new concept of walking tours named as
free walking tours, the following section will discuss the development of business
models around free walking tours in Europe.

6.1 Free Walking Tours Firm Features and Behaviour

One of the main features of walking tours firms that offer free walking tours is that
most of them are small enterprises, a fact that may be observed by the number of
employees. From the survey responses, 90% of the responding enterprises had less
than ten employees. For the European Commission classification, this type of firm
would be described as a micro-enterprise. Because the collaborative economy is in
its early stages of development, there is no data available about the type of firms
involved.
Thus, it might be said that although collaborative economy businesses range in
size from start-ups to big companies, free walking tour firms are small companies
with 72% describing themselves as independent tour operators and family-owned
businesses. Moreover, 27% of survey respondents considered the ownership of their
business to be a cooperative and 9% as a non-profit organisation.
Based on field observations and discussions with guides associated with Firms A
and C, not all free walking tour firms are small enterprises, family businesses, or a
non-profit organisations. Firm A is based in Berlin and England and is present in
15 European cities including Barcelona. According to one tour guide close to the
administration in Berlin, the number of fixed employees is approximately about
102 (15 in Berlin and 15 in England and an average of 4 per city) plus more than
250 tour guides. In the case of Berlin, the number of tour guides is around 17 staff:
six tour guides for walking tours in Spanish and 11 for tours in English.
Alternatively, firm B and D claim to be “local” in the Barcelona case and
“alternative” in the Berlin case. From an evolutionary approach, this might be
seen to be an adaptation of firms to a specific environment. In the case of Barcelona,
Free Walking Tour Enterprises in Europe: An Evolutionary Economic Approach 141

the claim of its products and services being local is due to the current political and
social situation regarding the rise of regionalism in Catalonia. On the other hand,
the claim of being “alternative” in its product and services in Berlin match with the
city’s image and the promotion conducted by the local administration (Visit Berlin
Website, 2015).
Thus, based on the findings of Benson-Rea, Roderick, and Herbert Sima (2013),
we may claim that within the collaborative economy there is a co-existence of
multiple business models with pluralistic strategies. One of the dominant business
models is the Business-to-Consumer (B2C) model, where there is direct interaction
between business and consumers. In this study 60% of respondents surveyed
purchased their guided tours without intermediaries illustrating the significance of
this B2C model.
A second business model identified was the Business–to-Business (B2B) model,
where there is an interaction between free walking tour firms and other businesses
in order to market their products or obtain discounts for their clients. In that context,
firms establish a win-to-win relationship. This was observed in 40% of firms
surveyed who market their guided tours in collaboration with other tourism enter-
prises or organisations. In addition, it was observed that free walking tour firms
usually develop joint ventures with other firms, for example, firm A and C have
cooperation agreements with cafes, hotels and other local tourism enterprises, and
they claim to have over 750 close partners in a almost 10 countries and over 1000
hostels. This may also be a management innovation (Hjalager, 2010).
A third business model identified was the Peer-to-Peer (P2P) where firms
exchange their services facilitated by a third party organisation, such as United
Free Tour Europe that is not directly involved in the transaction. However, this
platform can also be seen as a network for knowledge exchange and as an institu-
tional innovation (Hjalager, 2010). Although there is variety of business models
adopted by free walking tours firms, a commonality is the creation of trust among
B2C and B2B, which is also a characteristic of the collaborative economy (Stokes
et al., 2014).
Within evolutionary economics, trust is considered as a social asset for firms and
is usually an outcome of long path dependent processes, stemming from a series of
mutual interactions (Denicolai et al., 2010). As Denicolai et al. (2010) have argued,
the development of trust shapes the reputation of firms. This perspective is partic-
ularly cogent within the collaborative economy and free walking tours where trust
and reputation are created through online reviews made by customers. Reviews and
feedback raise a firm’s popularity and tour guides also help to improve this
reputational capital. This fact was observed after each walking tour when tour
guides asked tourists to leave an online comment about their experience.
142 M. del Pilar Leal Londo~
no and F.X. Medina

6.2 Free Tours as a Process of Knowledge and Innovation

Firms are differentiated regarding their capacity to use resources, assets and
relationships (Benson-Rea et al., 2013). As knowledge is considered a resource
contributing to a firm’s competitiveness (Bathelt & Glückler, 2011), firms can
understand, absorb and implement external knowledge only when it is close to
their own knowledge base (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Evolutionary theory predicts
that most firms innovate incrementally, exploiting the knowledge they have built up
in the past (Boschma & Martin, 2010). In the case of free walking tour firms,
innovation is often grounded in knowledge created and managed by traditional paid
walking tour firms. Nelson and Winter (1982) have described this as a “local search
process”. Firm A claims to have been the first firm in Europe to incorporate free
walking tours into its offer in 2004. Ten years later, there are over 50 firms offering
free walking tours around Europe which is perhaps largely due to a knowledge
transfer process.
In this research however, firms’ standardisation is hindering rather than enhanc-
ing an entrepreneurial and innovative spirit (Hjalager, 2010). In conceptual terms,
free walking tour firms have not been innovative, at least visibly, in two main
aspects:
(1) Route design: they are following a common geographical pattern as traditional
walking tour firms. The tour firms in this study explore just the city centre
touristic resources, with the exception of Firm C, which shows an “alternative
Berlin” that incorporates famous graffiti sites, local stories, and suburban
cultures (see Fig. 2).
(2) Time and schedule: free walking tours follow the normal tour length, which is
about two hours. Based on Boschma and Martin (2010), this pattern might be
explained by the firms’ need to reduce uncertainty and to conform to set
routines and market expectations. Because of their tacit and cumulative nature,
routines are not easy to change.
Despite the above observations, free walking tour firms might be considered
young firms or “newcomers” to the economy, which may indeed have an important
role to play in the evolution of economic systems (Stam, 2010). According to Stam
(2010), citing Schumpeter (1934), by creating new variations (products, processes,
business models) in the economy, such as free walking tours, these innovative new
firms compete with incumbent firms, which in turn forces the latter to improve or
change their production.
In the emergence of collaborative economy, firms have addressed consumer care
by offering innovations, more choices, more service differentiation, better prices,
and higher quality services (Koopman et al., 2014). Free walking tours are indeed
providing more service differentiation and better prices for tourists, since it was
observed that the majority of tourists participating in a free walking tour left a tip
for their guide. Tips go from a common €5 tip to €20 or more depending on the
Free Walking Tour Enterprises in Europe: An Evolutionary Economic Approach 143

Fig. 2 Tourist observing graffiti during an alternative free walking tour in Berlin. Source: Authors

nationality of tourists. According to tour guides, North Americans and Australians

are the most generous tippers. For a tour guide, this might be really lucrative since
groups commonly number between 8 and 25 people. Normally in high season a tour
guide could have 2 tours per day and work 5 days per week.
The development of free walking tours as a concept created by a traditional
walking tour enterprise might be explained using Penrose’s (1959) argument that
when firms diversify and grow, they tend to expand into related products. In a
dynamic economy, fitter routines become more dominant over time through
selection, enabling more efficient firms with fitter routines to expand their produc-
tion capacity and market share (Boschma & Martin, 2010). That is to say, new
knowledge combined and applied to the business brings new products to the
existing market. In this sense, free walking tours are a business concept innovation
(Souto, 2015) or product innovation (Hjalager, 2010). According to Souto (2015), a
business concept innovation is a mental model, a notion about the business that has
potential to completely change companies.
Business concept innovation positively influences business model innovation
and provides new trajectories outside the range of trajectories considered possible
in existing business concepts (Souto, 2015). Nevertheless, and following Souto
(2015), innovation allows a competitive advantage to be generated, acquired or
replicated by other firms until it is replaced by other innovations. This might
144 M. del Pilar Leal Londo~
no and F.X. Medina

explain the number of start-ups that are taking part in the free walking tours scene
not only in Europe, but also across the globe. However, entrepreneurship might be a
crucial factor in the evolutionary redirection of tourism products and increasing
competitiveness (Hjalager, 2010).
According to this research, 2010 was an average year for business start-ups. This
finding confirmed Stokes et al.’s (2014) findings that 64% of firms operating within
the collaborative economy were founded since 2010. Moreover, free walking tour
firms based their activity on technology for selling their tours. This is confirmed
since 45% of firms surveyed sell tours online. This finding emphasises the young,
tech-driven nature of the collaborative economy (Stokes et al., 2014).

6.3 The Path-Dependency of Free Walking Tours

Addressing the second question raised in this chapter, this section focuses on
whether free walking tours are an example of the collaborative economy or
business-as-usual that appropriates an alternative economies logic. In particular,
we will discuss free walking tours as a phenomenon based on the principle of path
dependence.
According to Martin and Sunley (2006), all events, circumstances and decisions
made in the past, even the most random and unintended, can have long-term
consequences. In tourism, path dependence studies have shown how the historical
legacy in a given region had an impact (either positively or negatively) on the
evolution of the tourism economy over time (Brouder, 2014). Because the dynam-
ics of evolutionary economic change are linked to the way in which political-
economic agents operate, the actions of those agents may only be understood
through their location in both historical and spatial dimensions.
Value creation in a walking tour is made through the information that is
transmitted and interpreted by the tour guides. Therefore, the core of a walking
tour is the act of guiding, what appears as “information” may thus be subtly
transformed into an interpretation of the visited site intended to influence tourists’
impressions and attitudes (Cohen, 1985). Guiding has been extensively discussed
by Cohen (1985), and is not a new phenomenon. However, as Cohen (1985) points
out, the process of transition from the original to the professional guide’s role is
closely related to two major sets of variables: the emergence and development of a
tourist system, and the often concomitant arrival of institutionalised types of
tourists on the tour.
As Cohen (1985) argued, tours have become routinised, advertised in travel
brochures and listed in guidebooks, and commercial catering facilities are
established or are co-opted at strategic locations along the routes. Furthermore,
tourists become more demanding towards the guides, asking for improved service,
more information and deeper interpretation of the sights. This leads to an
institutionalisation of guiding and the professionalisation of tour guides. In this
context, and following Cohen (1985), walking tours have been developed in the
Free Walking Tour Enterprises in Europe: An Evolutionary Economic Approach 145

context of mass tourism where professional guides have operated mainly in urban
areas, and usually working for large bureaucratised travel agencies and tour
operators.
Free walking tour firms offer professional tours. On free walking tour firms’
websites, for example, statements might read: “We provide travellers with profes-
sionally guided tours regardless of budget” (Free walking tour firm in Berlin); or
“We offer high quality services” (Free walking tour in Sofia); or “Our guides are
local professional guides” (Free walking tour firm in Barcelona). Thus, a
professionalisation and institutionalisation of free walking tours is observed that
reveals a build-up of the capitalist market structures often associated with mass
tourism.
Corroborating this observation, in order to achieve professionalisation of their
business activity, free walking tour firms develop a rigorous selection process for
their guiding team. This selection process is similar to processes conducted by big
enterprises around the world. Our fieldwork revealed that, once the guide has been
selected through interviews, they undergo preparation for about 2 months and their
performance is filmed so that they may conduct a tour in a language different to
their mother tongue. On the first walking tour of a tour guide in Barcelona, for
example, owners evaluated the guide’s performance in situ by taking notes that
helped them to improve their guiding services.
Free walking tours might claim to be the same as traditional tours. There are
three steps observed in free walking tours which are similar to purchased tours:
(1) introduction, which comprises a set of three sub-stages: (a) the reception of
tourists by local guides at a central meeting point. Normally, free walking tours
might be booked online, therefore, a confirmation of reservation is made by the
guide in charge (see Fig. 3); (b) a general explanation is made by the guide in
charge; and (c) the group is split into small groups with assignation to a specific tour
guide. The second step is the unfolding of the tour by the guide assigned to each
group. The third moment is the end of the tour. At this last moment, the guide asks
tourists to make a post about their tour, and the guide mentions the need for good
reviews in order to attract further business.
From the perspective of labour conditions, tour guides working with free walk-
ing tour firms and organisations are mainly free-lancers. According to our in-field
research, guides must give their firms or organisation a minimum amount of money
(a kind of a fee per person) which is calculated at between €2 and €5 per tourist.
This formula guarantees a fixed income for the firms. However, most of the firms
that offer free walking tours see their activity as sharing instead of selling. This
statement was reflected at the answers provided by the firms online surveyed. They
were asked if they considered free walking tours as “. . .a socio-economic model
based on the shared usage of some kind of commodities”, and 70% of respondents
agreed with this definition.
Paradoxically, free walking tours are the most successful tours within their tour
portfolio according to 70% of respondents. Free walking tours are also a way of
connecting with tourists and introducing them to a wider range of payment prod-
ucts. For example, during a free walking tour it is quite normal to promote or sell
146 M. del Pilar Leal Londo~
no and F.X. Medina

Fig. 3 Reception of tourists at the meeting point in Barcelona. Source: Authors

purchased tours. In fact, in a group tour followed in this research, seven people out
of 25 purchased paid tours. This fact leads to consumer satisfaction with the service
offered by free walking tours. Some of the informal talks with tourists illustrated
this observation:
“. . .I have done five free walking tours in Europe with the same firm because all the tour
guides are quite professional and there is no difference from a payment tour, in fact, free
walking tours are much better” (Female tourist from Colombia participating in a free
walking tour in Barcelona).

“. . . a good walking tour depends much on the guide, and the guides of free walking tours
are quite good, I have also done a paid tour with this firm and it was fun” (Male tourist
participating in a free walking tour in Berlin).

Although free walking tours may be seen as a collaborative economy phenomenon,

there are overlapping processes that mix traditional capitalism with an alternative
economy.

7 Discussion and Conclusions

This chapter explores free walking tours within the basic features of the collabora-
tive economy and draws theoretical and practical insights. The findings from the
case study provide some answers for the questions raised by Dredge and Gyimóthy
(2015) in the sense of an understanding how this new collaborative market and its
Free Walking Tour Enterprises in Europe: An Evolutionary Economic Approach 147

actors operate, and whether the collaborative economy is just business-as-usual or

appropriates an alternative economies logic.
In this chapter, we start from the micro level, focusing on the economic behaviour
of free walking tours firms, and how these firms behave within the collaborative
economy and how their business strategies and routines are shaped. This leads to
firm dynamics in the collaborative economic landscape: some firms are new on the
free walking tours market and some are established tourism firms that have increased
their market share in the walking tour sector. As we discussed, although firms
operating with free walking tours are new business and predominantly small-sized
enterprises, traditional and big companies are also looking for a space in this sharing
market.
Essletzbichler and Rigby (2010) argued that economic growth and change in the
economy might be understood as a simple aggregate of changes in the character-
istics of individual business units. Therefore, we might claim that the collaborative
economy is a change, but not a disruption within the economy due to aggregate
changes inside tourism firms. Tourism firms have adapted to the social and cultural
changes produced during the nineties, a turning point in the contemporary history of
economic geography (Amin & Thrift, 2000; Bathelt & Glückler, 2003; Yeoung,
2005). These changes have permeated the tourist sphere and been represented in
post-industrial practices, and are reflected in the production, distribution and
consumption of goods and services in all sectors.
The demand from consumers for an alternative production and supply system to
that of industrial production prompts the development of alternative goods and
services to those provided by the mass production system. These alternative
services are visible on the tourism industry in many ways. Post-industrialism, as a
context of action, has brought about a change in the way we perceive and conceive
tourism, orienting it towards the flexibility of the product offer and the meeting the
personalised needs of tourists who are increasingly seeking to create new experi-
ences. In this context, free walking tours are a manifestation of post-industrial
tourism and are creating a new economic relationships based on access to services
and products without structured payment, which is a trend driving part of the
collaborative economy (Stokes et al., 2014). Customers are able to test product
quality and not feel pushed to pay for it. Free walking tours are an affordable
product on the tourism market that, in some way, is redistributing the economic
value of tourism. However, it can also be claimed that this new product is delivered
through a traditional Business to Customer (B2C) model. In this sense, the collab-
orative economy is more than just disrupting tourism, it is transforming the
economic relationships among business and customers within tourism.
From the evolutionary approach, it is important to recognise that the actions of
individual agents such as firms occur within contexts that are shaped by broader
institutional structures that are themselves created and that evolve over time. Some
of these institutions are more durable than others, such as the capitalist modes of
production (Essletzbichler & Rigby, 2010). Free walking tours firms reproduce this
embedded capitalist mode of production. However, at the same time they are
helping customers to save money and this fits into the collaborative economy
148 M. del Pilar Leal Londo~
no and F.X. Medina

practices described by Stokes et al. (2014). Free walking tour firms can represent a
hybrid relationship, made up of capitalist and collaborative economy practices
because, as Brouder and Eriksson (2013) state, the economy is seen as an open
system subject to constant dynamic interactions with surrounding agents. Within a
post-industrial tourism system, which is more hybridised than the industrial one,
there are overlapping processes and practices in traditional supply chains
(i.e. structure of the guided tour system) which are breaking down. This case
study suggests a path dependence process where tourism firms in traditional
capitalist economy are also adopting features of the collaborative economy in
terms of firm behaviour and performance. The presence of overlapping processes
between the traditional capitalist economy and the collaborative economy
performed by the free walking tour firms in this study suggests an evolutionary
process resulting from business competition and a specific market environment.
The selection of the environment where firms operate is the result of resources
such as knowledge and information. Knowledge creation and accumulation leads to
innovation. Therefore, free walking tours might be seen as a business concept
innovation that attracts new customers. This new concept and its everyday practices
are transforming the tourism scene and have a significant impact on tourist
destinations. In this light, free walking tours represent not only concept innovation,
based on Hjalager’s (2010) classification of innovations, but they were also
identified as management and institutional innovations, which positions free
walking tours as part of a network that enables and improves firm performance.
On the other hand, free walking tours may be seen as a new marketing strategy—a
new business concept developed by firms and embedded in traditional market
structures—where one of the main goals is to attract tourists and introduce them to
traditional products. Free walking tours show a high level of customer satisfaction
and loyalty due to high quality standards of service. In this framework, we may claim
that free walking tour firms are path dependent because they are reproducing
capitalist market structures visible across five main dimensions: (a) the
professionalisation of free walking tours; (b) the staff selection process; (c) labour
conditions; (d) marketing strategies; and (e) customer loyalty. In addition, firms
operating within the collaborative economy rely on the development of trust, where
online reviews shape their reputational capital. Tour guides are the interface
between the host destination and visitors and their activity is crucial for shaping
the visitor experience.
The Berlin and Barcelona cases illustrate that free walking tours are a localised
phenomenon, produced mainly in cities where the impact of tourism is significant.
Local and non-local tourism firms identify free walking tours as a lucrative market
niche to enter. Therefore, firms that claim to be collaborative are rooted in tradi-
tional capitalist market structures, where the creation of economic value constitutes
an important driver for its operation, even though firms do not see themselves in this
way. In short, this empirical study of free walking tour firms has made many
observations and raised a variety of issues and concerns. We have argued for an
evolutionary economic lens to understand what is going on, and it has revealed
useful insights in the case of free walking tours. This study is, therefore, helpful in
Free Walking Tour Enterprises in Europe: An Evolutionary Economic Approach 149

understanding tourism firm behaviour in new economic contexts such as the

collaborative economy, and it provides a starting point for more in-depth studies
in the future.

References

Amin, A., & Thrift, N. (2000). What kind of economic theory for what kind of economic
geography. Antipode, 32, 4–9.
Ap, J., & Wong, K. (2001). Case study on tour guiding: professionalism, issues and problems.
Tourism Management, 22(5), 551–563. doi:10.1016/S0261-5177(01)00013-9.
Baker, V. (2013, June 12). The rise of the ‘free’ city tour. The Guardian. Accessed March 22, 2015,
from https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2013/jun/12/free-pay-you-want-city-tours
Barcelona Turisme. (2014). Estadístiques de Turisme a Barcelona. Barcelona: Turisme de
Barcelona.
Bathelt, H., & Glückler, J. (2003). Toward a relational economic geography. Journal of Economic
Geography, 3(2), 117–144. doi:10.1093/jeg/3.2.117.
Bathelt, H., & Glückler, J. (2011). The relational economy. Geographies of knowing and learning.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online.
Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595–1600.
Benson-Rea, M., Roderick, J., & Herbert Sima, S. (2013). The plurality of coexisting business
models: Investigating the complexity of value drivers. Industrial Marketing Management, 42,
717–729.
Boschma, R., & Martin, R. (Eds.). (2010). The handbook of evolutionary economic geography.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Brouder, P. (2014). Evolutionary economic geography: A new path for tourism studies? Tourism
Geographies, 16(1), 2–7.
Brouder, P., & Eriksson, R. H. (2013). Tourism evolution: On the synergies of tourism studies and
evolutionary economic geography. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 370–383. doi:10.1016/j.
annals.2013.07.001.
Cohen, E. (1985). The tourist guide: The origins, structure and dynamics of a role. Annals of
Tourism Research, 12, 5–29.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and
innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–153.
Compass. (2015). The global start-up ecosystem ranking report. San Francisco: Start-up Compass.
Cooke, P., & Laurentis, C. (2010). Evolutionary economic geography: Regional systems of
innovation and high-tech clusters. In R. Boschma & R. Martin (Eds.), Handbook of evolution-
ary economic geography (pp. 239–260). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
David, P. A. (1994). Why are institutions the ‘carriers of history’? Path dependence and the
evolution of conventions, organizations and institutions. Structural Change and Economic
Dynamics, 5(2), 205–220.
Denicolai, S., Zucchella, A., & Cioccarelli, G. (2010). Clusters, networks and economic develop-
ment: An evolutionary economics perspective. In R. Boschma & R. Martin (Eds.), Handbook
of evolutionary economic geography (pp. 280–297). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of
Economic Literature, 26, 1120–1171.
Dredge, D., & Gyimóthy, S. (2015). Tourism and the collaborative economy: Critical perspectives,
questionable claims and silenced voices. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(3), 286–302.
150 M. del Pilar Leal Londo~
no and F.X. Medina

Essletzbichler, J., & Rigby, D. L. (2010). Generalized Darwinism and evolutionary economic
geography. In R. Boschma & R. Martin (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary economic geography
(pp. 43–61). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
European Business Innovation Observatory. (2013). The sharing economy: Accessibility, based
business models for peer-to-peer markets. Brussels: European Commission.
Gill, A. M., & Williams, P. W. (2011). Rethinking resort growth: Understanding evolving
governance strategies in Whistler, British Columbia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19
(4–5), 629–648. doi:10.1080/09669582.2011.558626.
Giuliani, E. (2007). The selective nature of knowledge networks in clusters: Evidence from the
wine industry. Journal of Economic Geography, 7(2), 139–168.
Giuliani, E. (2010). Clusters, networks and economic development: An evolutionary economics
perspective. In R. Boschma & R. Martin (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary economic geogra-
phy (pp. 261–279). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Glückler, J. (2007). Economic geography and the evolution of networks. Journal of Economic
Geography, 7, 619–634.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness.
American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.
Halkier, H., & Therkelsen, A. (2013). Exploring tourism destination path plasticity, the case of
coastal tourism in North Jutland, Denmark. ZeitschriftfuerWirtschaftsgeographie, 57, 39–51.
Hjalager, A. M. (2010). A review of innovation research in tourism. Tourism Management, 31,
1–12. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.012.
Koopman, C., Mitchell, M., & Thierer, A. (2014). The sharing economy and customer protection
regulation: The case for policy change. Fairfax: Mercatus Center, George Mason University.
Ma, M., & Hassink, R. (2013). An evolutionary perspective on tourism area development. Annals
of Tourism Research, 41, 89–109.
Markwell, K., Stevenson, D., & Rowe, D. (2004). Footsteps and memories: Interpreting an
Australian urban landscape through thematic walking tours. International Journal of Heritage
Studies, 10(5), 457–473. doi:10.1080/1352725042000299063.
Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2006). Path dependence and regional economic evolution. Journal of
Economic Geography, 6, 395–438.
Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2010). The place of path dependence in an evolutionary perspective on
the economic landscape. In R. Boschma & R. Martin (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary
economic geography (pp. 62–92). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Martı́nez-Román, J., Tamayo, J. A., Gamero, J., & Romero, J. E. (2015). Innovativeness and business
performances in tourism SMEs. Annals of Tourism Research, 54, 118–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.annals.2015.07.004
Metcalfe, J. S., Foster, J., & Ramlogan, R. (2006). Adaptive economic growth. Cambridge Journal
of Economics, 30, 7–32.
Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 96–104.
Owyang, J., Samuel, A., & Grennville, A. (2014). Sharing is the new buying: How to win in the
collaborative economy. Vision Critical. https://www.visioncritical.com/resources/collabora
tive-economy-report/
Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Sanz-Iba~nez, C., & Anton Clavé, S. (2014). The evolution of destinations: Towards an evolution-
ary and relational economic geography approach. Tourism Geographies, 16(4), 563–579.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Shaw, G., & Williams, A. (2009). Knowledge transfer and management in tourism organisations:
An emerging research agenda. Tourism Management, 30(3), 325–335.
Souto, J. E. (2015). Business model innovation and business concept innovation as the context
of incremental innovation and radical innovation. Tourism Management, 51, 142–155.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2015.05.017.
Free Walking Tour Enterprises in Europe: An Evolutionary Economic Approach 151

Stam, E. (2010). Entrepreneurship, evolution and geography. In R. Boschma & R. Martin (Eds.),
Handbook of evolutionary economic geography (pp. 139–161). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Stokes, K., Clarence, E., Anderson, L., & Rinne, A. (2014). Making sense of the UK Collaborative
Economy. London: Nesta and Collaborative Lab.
The European Cities Marketing (ECM). (2014). Benchmarking report 2013–2014. Paris: European
Cities Marketing.
Visit Berlin. (2015). Annual Report, everything about Berlin. Berlin Tourism and Congress
GmBH.
Yeoung, H. W. C. (2005). Rethinking relational economic geography. Transactions of the Institute
of British Geographers, 30(1), 37–51.
Airbnb: Turning the Collaborative Economy
into a Collaborative Society

D. Michael O’Regan and Jaeyeon Choe

Abstract New decentralised collaborative platforms are said to be challenging and

redesigning traditional business models and reinventing how the tourism business
works. Collectively termed the ‘collaborative economy’, these platforms are
increasingly intersecting with the established tourism industry and how a tourist
interacts with host communities, destinations and other tourists. By utilising the
concept of cultural capitalism to explore the global “disruptive” brand Airbnb, we
find that the collaborative economy is not about collaboration at all, and argue that
the Airbnb platform is merely reinforcing the values of consumer capitalist society
by providing a more efficient means to satisfy tourist wants and desires. While we
conclude that collaborative economy in its manifest forms will continue, we believe
the tourism industry is well placed to address its impacts, and recommend that
authorities should recognise parts of the collaborative economy as predatory
laissez-faire platform capitalism in need of regulation.

Keywords Collaborative economy • Sharing economy • Sustainability • Airbnb •

Hospitality • Tourism

1 Introduction

We are told we are undergoing a rapid explosion in sharing, bartering, lending,

trading, renting and swapping, scaled up in ways never before possible because of
new social technologies as well as economic and environmental imperatives. We
are told that a new consumptive model is moving tourists and even societies away
from hyper-consumption while increasing access to wealth and employment. Its
economics of scope is said to offer protection from food, energy and resource
scarcity, falling public investment in infrastructure, increasing food prices, unem-
ployment, housing costs and natural disasters. Botsman (2012) believes the collab-
orative economy is as potentially as important as the industrial revolution as it

D. Michael O’Regan (*) • J. Choe

Faculty of Management, Bournemouth University, Dorset House D154, Talbot Campus, Fern
Barrow, Poole BH12 5BB, UK
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 153

D. Dredge, S. Gyimóthy (eds.), Collaborative Economy and Tourism,
Tourism on the Verge, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-51799-5_9
154 D. Michael O’Regan and J. Choe

reinvents consumer and business models by unlocking assets and driving new
sustainable marketplaces as well as productivity, entrepreneurship, intercultural
understanding and innovation. This new model is focused on reinventing traditional
sharing, re-distributing, bartering, lending, trading, renting, gifting, and swapping
through technology and peer communities. It depends on and/or can create new
kinds of relationships, changing how we consume, socialise and move. Collectively
termed the ‘collaborative economy’, it presents itself to us in multiple, shifting
forms. It has been called the peer-to-peer economy, the access economy, the gig
economy, shared capitalism, the on-demand economy, hippienomics, the people
economy and the enabling economy. As an encompassing label, Rachel Botsman
(2015), a global authority on the collaborative economy, describes it as an “an
economic system of decentralized networks and marketplaces that unlocks the
value of underused assets by matching needs and haves, in ways that bypass
traditional middlemen.” The collaborative economy sector has attracted entrepre-
neurs, the public sector, venture capitalists and start-up corporations to a sector with
an estimated a global worth of US$335 billion by 2025 (PwC, 2014). It has also
attracted those with consistent and specific motivations to offer, share or lease
products, skills and capital deemed valuable to tourist desires and needs. A United
States consumer survey conducted by the Travel Technology Association and the
Internet Association reported that in 2015 that nearly half of all Americans (46%)
participated in one or more aspects of the sharing economy (King, 2015).
Using the concept of cultural capitalism, which refers to the application of capitalist
theory to cultural affairs, this paper reveals how critical questions are not being asked
about the collaborative economy and explores the unbalanced, short-term and ahistor-
ical rhetoric fostered by collaborative economy evangelists such as Brian Chesky, the
co-founder and CEO of Airbnb. We utilise Airbnb as an example of a collaborative
economy platform which is said to be disrupting and reshaping the tourism industry and
tourist destinations. Through the prism of cultural capitalism, we identify both the
impacts of Airbnb on cultural, economic, political, and consumer worlds as well as the
opportunities and challenges that Airbnb is bringing the established tourism industry.

2 Theoretical Framework

2.1 Cultural Capitalism

“Cultural capitalism” is a concept developed and/or used by Rifkin (2000), Žižek

(2009a) and Holloway (2010) to address a phenomenon that they believe is a new
stage of commodification that does not change the basic rules of capitalism. They
describe a world where the relationship between an object and its symbol-image is
inverted, as an image no longer represents the product, but, rather, the product
represents an image (Žižek, 2006). We no longer buy products we want to own, but
seek life-experiences to render life meaningful. In a new age of access, where in the
Airbnb: Turning the Collaborative Economy into a Collaborative Society 155

“declining relevance of physical capital, the ascendancy of intangible assets, the

metamorphosis of goods into pure services” (Rifkin, 2000, p. 114), businesses are
increasingly mining assets and resources, and turning them into commodified life
experiences and brand communities.
As ‘everything is accessed’ (Rifkin, 2000, p. 6), experiences are increasingly offered
for low transactional cost in order to seduce tourists into buying the true “experiential
commodity”. Experiential tourism is being immersed as you experience a place, with
an increasing popularity of homestays, cooking and craft classes. Access to yachts,
private homes and luxury cars serve merely as props, while access to local guides,
home cooked meals and paid for romantic dates with locals highlight how the intimate,
social and cultural spheres are being pulled into the commercial sphere through vast
supplier-user networks controlled primarily by private companies. Žižek (2009a, p. 52)
argues that no one any longer sells (and buys), but “in order to render our lives
pleasurable and meaningful,” one becomes server or client, supplier or user as “social
relationality in its very fluidity is directly the object of marketing and exchange” (Žižek,
2009a, p. 139). Holloway (2010) argues that cultural capitalism is the means to expand
the capitalist economy by way of capital accumulation in the face of a global, structural
crisis. Just as capitalism surged on the dot.com boom as corporations unlocked peoples’
homes using sub-prime refinancing (Harvey, 1989), the collaborative economy mines
an individual’s assets and resources. Collaborative economy platforms have been fully
integrated into the market economy by raiding, cracking open, exploiting and releasing
surplus value by using resources from private and public sources and repackaging them
as cultural commodities and entertainment for the short-term benefit of stockholders,
entrepreneurs and venture capitalists, as well as the ultimate tourist consumer.
Collaborative economy platforms have flourished in this context as they seek
to persuade people to leverage physical, network, mobility, economic, cultural,
human, social assets and other resources so as to capitalise on their liquid and
economic value by renting (sharing, leasing) them out to those that demand
them. By connecting individuals to information, other people, objects, ideas,
lifestyles, capital and physical things such as cars, apartments, tools, relation-
ships, time, bodies and friendship in more efficient ways, rhetoric by collabo-
rative economy evangelists such as Chase (2015), Howard (2015), Kramer
(2015) and Krakovsky (2015) claim that the collaborative economy offers
health, emotional and spiritual benefits, as well as boosting living standards
across the many countries which they span. Blurring the lines between personal-
commercial and private-public, anyone can use their assets and resources such
as cars (to lease), spaces (parking, a spare room), skills (food preparation, tour
guiding, driving) and other goods, products, services and utilities. Tourist
focused businesses that seek to unlock ‘idling capacity’ through platforms that
market them as experiences include Dopios (connects travellers with locals who
serve as guides and drivers), UrbanBuddy (local concierge), Dufl (someone to
pack your suitcase), EatWith (meals cooked by locals), TravellerChic (local
dates) and Bellhop (room service provided by locals).
These new businesses are an evolution in the ways they connect tourists with
locals, with Botsman and Rogers (2011) describing collaborative economy
156 D. Michael O’Regan and J. Choe

platforms as a means to disrupt “out-dated” consumption and “anti-innovation”

business models propagated by entrenched and monopolistic elements within travel
and tourism such as car hire companies, hotel groups and airlines. Largely meeting
market-exchangeable needs, with asset owners acting on economic-oriented moti-
vations on the supply side (Hamari & Ukkonen, 2013), these new businesses have
recognised the scarcity in tourist infrastructure and experiences, and have sought to
trade in these resources using market values. Airbnb has been the leading disruptive
innovator in the industry, which Brian Chesky, in his own words, describes as a
platform that provides access to social and cultural experiences by helping tourists
on a budget visit destinations they might otherwise not go because of cost, as well as
unlock latent market demand and thereby offer growth potentials in an otherwise
competitive and saturated tourism marketplace (Stephany, 2015).

3 Airbnb

3.1 The Rise and Rise of AIRBNB Inc.

For many, Airbnb is a champion in the libertarian revolt against the oppressive
social organisations characterised by entrenched out-dated business models and big
government (Lux, 2015). Founded in 2008, Airbnb is part of a new generation of
businesses that have, embraced the egalitarian and anti-hierarchical rhetoric of the
counterculture to match its many hosts with tourists who rent out their homes and
rooms for a fee. It is a strategy that has seen Airbnb increase its value to US$25
billion in 2015 by generating upward of two million listings across more than
34,000 cities across the globe. While striving for an efficient use of existing
resources, Airbnb has grown to a global brand by avoiding what they see as
outdated regulations, and spending vast sums lobbing lawmakers to deregulate
what they see as excessive regulation covering the accommodation sector. Their
head of global policy and public affairs, Chris Lehane, who once served as the
adviser to former US President Bill Clinton, has lobbied across the globe for a
facilitating legal environment. They argue that they should be exempt from existing
regulations because their services are ordered over the Web and therefore not
subject to ‘local’ regulation such as existing local housing ordinances or laws
pertaining to fire and safety inspections. In practice, this means, for example that
in New York, 72%, or more than 25,000 of short-term Airbnb rentals, violate local
laws (Schneiderman, 2014).
Airbnb: Turning the Collaborative Economy into a Collaborative Society 157

3.2 Airbnb and Control

Airbnb is a well-funded for-profit business with a vertical, linear structure that uses
user interfaces, software and algorithms on its platform to control what is shared,
with whom, and for what purposes. It rides on the network effect of the more people
who join Airbnb, the more useful it is and the more valuable it becomes as a vehicle
to generate revenue. However, the more people join, the more power and control
Airbnb have over sellers, who have little to no control over the platforms rules,
software, and even their reputation (Gurvich, Lariviere, & Moreno-Garcia, 2015).
Žižek (2012, p. 165) argues that contemporary capitalist modernisers like Airbnb
seek to “diversify, devolve power, and try to mobilise local creativity and self-
organisation”, without retaining any of the risks and responsibilities to these
independent contractors (Dredge & Gyimóthy, 2015). At the same time that Airbnb
promotes itself as a platform for those who have financially over extended them-
selves in a turbulent world economy, Airbnb exercises control over the conditions
and terms by which users secure access to the Airbnb marketplace. At a time of
joblessness and high debt levels, as well as poverty in many tourist destinations,
Chesky encouraged people to extract value or productivity from their assets to
offset rent or mortgages, and make life/austerity/depth bearable. He notes that “I
assumed this was a trend that would happen in the aftermath of the recession
[in 2008]. . . I didn’t realise this was something that will sustain and become a
part of people’s lives. It’s not too surprising because that’s the reason we started this
company. We started this because we couldn’t afford to pay rent and it allowed me
to keep my home in San Francisco. Without being able to rent my rooms, how
would I have paid rent?” (Ahmed, 2014).
While lowering start-up friction costs (in the absence of paperwork), there are no
protections like health coverage, insurance against injuries, paid vacations,
pensions, maximum working hours, a stable income, job security and other safe-
guards for those hosting via Airbnb and many of those working in the Airbnb
ecosystem. From Guesthop (check-in and concierge service) to Proprly (cleaning),
Airbnb has facilitated a world without taxes, hourly ceilings, anti-discrimination
laws, unions, health and safety regulations and minimum wages. Airbnb does not
offer a physical place of work, training, infrastructure or education, and frequently
varies the incentives for hosts (i.e. charging hosts an additional 12–15% fee for each
booking if their guest found the listing through Google advertising). Data provided
by Airbnb rarely reflects host expenses, given sellers must pay third parties
(e.g. insurance and self-employment taxes) and other hidden costs of participation,
such as the high degree of emotional labour—smiling and conveying friendliness
and use of personal time (Hochschild 2003). Through Airbnb videos, guidebooks,
and Airbnb Mentors, individuals are trained how to behave and provide hospitality
as hosts. As a fragmented, individualistic, temporary, insecure labour force, these
“micro-entrepreneurs” have, through little fault of their own, undermined hard-
fought protections and regulatory frameworks.
158 D. Michael O’Regan and J. Choe

By addressing output over outcome, Airbnb have gained control by way of a

superior-subordinate relationship. This is manifested in sellers’ fear of algorithms
(how they appear in customers’ search results) and hidden aspects of algorithms
making (or ruining) reputations. While calling its hosts “micro-entrepreneurs”,
Airbnb controls the keys to the relationship by controlling demand through algo-
rithms, and asking these entrepreneurs to rely on Airbnb to generate leads, market
their properties and take payment. The control a seller has (i.e. in setting prices,
work hours, income, reputations and refund policies) is exaggerated, as Airbnb
terms and conditions supersede their preferences. Given Airbnb is among the top
travel booking sites on the planet, its hosts may have few alternatives to source
business. Airbnb for example, can delist hosts for no reason (Lynam, 2016), does
not allow the host and guest trade email addresses and has very particular demands
for hosts to meet the requirements to be a “business ready” host (i.e. no pets, no
smoking). For a private corporation, they are also intrusive, by requiring hosts to
upload government issued identity documents into third party “secured servers”,
whilst arguing that the demand by local authorities for the same information about
hosting activities is a violation of privacy. In addition, control also includes the fear
of leaving a platform because of its “lock-in” nature, high switching costs (inability
to move data and reputations to another platform), and the suggestions offered to
hosts through the site via their hosting toolkit and hosting tips. The host prices that
emerge on Airbnb through its Aerosolve pricing system are created by algorithms
that simulate market mechanisms, and are not the result of the free play of supply
and demand. The effect ensures prices are set within 5% of Airbnb’s algorithmic
result, and may lead to surge holiday accommodation pricing. As well as increasing
the amount generated from its transactional cut (i.e. Airbnb take approximately
13% off every booking), the Aerosolve pricing system blurs the line between
Airbnb as a marketplace and as a more controlling actor.

3.3 Reputation and Capital on Airbnb

Airbnb is dependent on confirming identity, so as to create trust between strangers

and enabling trust to be conveyed by way of a bidirectional rating systems,
background checks, and frictionless payment systems. Brian Chesky strongly
believes that reputation not only serves as a psychological reward or currency,
but also as an actual currency, as “[t]he more you broadcast your reputation, the
more you’ll have access too” (Ferenstein, 2014). By using various verification
systems such as giving access to one’s social graph on Facebook, creating personal
profiles, peer reviews ratings and official verifications (passport, background
checks), one is supposed to build reputation capital on Airbnb over time. However,
market-based reputation is often about control, manipulation and discipline rather
than transparency and accountability. A damaged reputation, even when playing the
role of a dutiful and dependent host, may result in the movement of capital away
from a host. A tourist’s negative review of an Airbnb host because of poor Wi-Fi
Airbnb: Turning the Collaborative Economy into a Collaborative Society 159

signal strength can lead to a hosts’ account been downgraded in search results. For
Debord (1998, p. 18), reputations have become ‘malleable and alterable at will by
those who control all information.’ Debord argues that you cannot believe anything
about anyone that you have not directly learned for yourself, with Airbnb customer
ratings found to be unreliable and skewed (Zervas, Proserpio, & Byers, 2015b).
Airbnb eliminates the possibility that buyers and sellers ever come into contact
without some trust mechanism, which in turn makes relationships dispensable. One
can leave a reference for the ‘Other,’ out of lack of pity, empathy or spite, leading to
the commodification of culture, and the cultural interaction between hosts and
guests.
Airbnb notes in its terms of use, that it merely provides an online platform that
connects hosts who have accommodations to rent with guests seeking to rent such
accommodations. It notes that Airbnb has “no control over the conduct” of hosts or
guests. Airbnb have been accused of facilitating discrimination, with Airbnb hosts
in various parts of the world allegedly denying service to consumers with wheel-
chairs, minorities and guide dog owners. A study by Wang, Xi, and Gilheany (2015)
revealed the prevalence of racial discrimination among hosts in California, while
another study by Edelman, Luca, and Svirsky (2015) also concluded that Airbnb
facilitates discrimination based on a host’s race, gender, age, or other characteris-
tics. There is also no reputation mechanism to assist either hosts or tourists denied
the use of Airbnb because of discrimination or access to protections that may
normally cover accommodation provision and use. A destination fulfilled by only
Airbnb may see bodies that are coloured, disabled, queer, sick and obese
categorised as ‘out of place’ by some hosts. There is no backstop to hosts’ discrim-
inating, or Airbnb facilitating the threat of violence, racism, sexism and homopho-
bia. Yet Airbnb seeks to control any measures that threaten the extractive nature of
their platforms by appealing to their consumers-sellers to push regulators to loosen
restrictions and regulatory protections.

3.4 Airbnb’s Future Plans

“Dead Capital” is an economic term related to assets which are informally held, but
are not legally recognised and not easily bought, sold, valued or used. Airbnb seeks
to exploit the precise dead capital of each seller by forcing the value incorporated
inside assets, such as socialised spaces like a private home into the open where they
can be re-enclosed and commodified. Given that the majority of the world’s
population are denied access to valuable property or asset ownership, people will
increasingly leverage everything they have. The goal of cultural capitalism is to
commodify everything, including human relationships, in a process of ‘making
things exchangeable on markets either actually and/or discursively by framing
things as if they were exchangeable’ (Sevignani, 2013, p. 733). As the physical
economy is shrinking (Rifkin, 2000), the new operative term is “lifetime value”
(LTV). This is the theoretical measure of how much a human being is worth if every
160 D. Michael O’Regan and J. Choe

moment of his or her life were to be commodified in one form or another in the
commercial sphere. In 2014, Airbnb began experimenting with a plan to turn their
host’s homes into restaurants. A San Francisco pilot let diners eat at hosts’ homes
for US$25 for a three-course meal. In 2015, it launched a pilot option offering
“hand-crafted” package holidays and listings especially for business travellers.
Anchored in commerce and enclosure, hosts are not only tourist infrastructure,
but also corporate activists. Airbnb has embedded tools and incentives on its site to
mobilise hosts in support of less restrictive regulations. Its community organiser
program uses hosts to advocate for the company, while also paying its host
community directly (e.g. US$10 credit for a 2014 campaign to promote Airbnb
thought social media). In fighting Proposition F, a ballot to restrict short-term
rentals in San Francisco in 2015, Airbnb asked its hosts to join a local action
team to fight the measure by writing to politicians, attend rallies, and become an
involved volunteer. Airbnb is also introducing a network of home-sharing guilds in
cities across the North America in 2016 to act for the corporation, and become a
formidable voting constituency as well offering training, tools and support to these
guilds to influence leading elected officials and organisations. This may help to
ensure that Airbnb see off future policies or laws that act against its interests.

4 Discussion

Airbnb incorporates the language of the underdog, whilst taking on monopolistic

tendencies and accepting existing socio-economic relations built on the conven-
tional economy. Created through venture-capital-backing and a hierarchical
structure, it facilitates little more than a transactional form of “collaboration”.
The utopian spin and frontend of such a service-oriented platform offers the
pretence of collaboration, solidarity, community, equality, trust, sustainability,
mobility justice, reciprocity and altruism. Airbnb has claimed that they reduce
pollution and poverty, and provide more authentic tourist experiences by lowering
transaction costs. Botsman and Rogers (2011, p. 216) argue that the collaborative
economy is a “systems change”, because it converts hyper-consumption into
“fewer products, more efficient usage, less material consumed, reduced waste and
more social capital” as well as “mopping up the surplus created by overproduction
and consumption” (ibid, xvi). Airbnb has been adept at promoting socio-ideological
motifs (care for the environment, social responsibility, communal life, social
solidarity) and geographical imaginaries (autonomy, intimacy, authenticity) to
legitimise their business model. Žižek (2011, p. 236) argues that cultural capitalism
promotes solutions as “containing or providing the remedy against the consumerist
excess”, such as doing one’s social and ecological duty. Airbnb evokes the rebel-
lious and anti-establishment spirit of its co-founders, and makes use of its platform
for symbolic acts of personal commitment to the causes they invoke (Rifkin, 2000).
Paraphrasing Žižek (2009b), tourists are evoked to buy into redemption by
being a consumerist. By selling varying slogans and ideas, as helping the
Airbnb: Turning the Collaborative Economy into a Collaborative Society 161

environment, or restoring a sense of community, tourist endeavours on Airbnb

become capitalism with a human face (Žižek, 2009b). Its 2015 “Never a Stranger”
campaign sought to position it itself as sustainable, culturally immersive and a
transformative travel experience in cities including Paris, Tokyo, Rio, New York,
and Tulum in Mexico. The campaign shows a highly idealised version of the host/
guest relationship where a young woman travelling alone buys into a life-style, where
consumption and anti-consumerism have been brought together. Latching onto our
inherent sentimentality and care for humanity, it promises us we can all feel good
(and safe) about using the platform and using the local resources of hosts.
There is nothing wrong with collaboration, sharing, making money or indeed
technology. The collaborative economy may be a more efficient means to satisfy
every tourist want and desire by expanding lifestyles, niches and brands and may
through unintended effects, create some positive social and environmental benefits.
Airbnb, however, will not end the financial crisis, climate change, peak oil,
inequality, resource scarcity, loss of biodiversity and ecosystem resilience and
unemployment. It will not contribute, to any great degree, to a more sustainable
world, or more sustainable tourism marketplaces. Airbnb will not create secure and
stable jobs and generate greater trust amongst hosts and guests. There is absolutely
no evidence to suggest that Airbnb can offset ecological and human damage, make
us greener or more ethical tourists and make up for inequality. While Fiske (1992)
argues that individuals can live simultaneously in a world where social norms
prevail, and where market norms make the rules, Zelizer (2005) argues that trouble
ensues when social and market norms collide.
Airbnb ensures that lines between public and private, community and the
market, production and consumption, voluntary activity and precarious exploita-
tion, commercial and intimate life, market and non-market, economic value and
personal life become more permeable and harder to discern. For governments, these
blurred lines mean the illusion of income creation, micro-entrepreneurship, and it
makes the degradation of labor, socio-spatial inequalities, intimacy and distribu-
tional conflicts associated with Airbnb (somehow) irrelevant. Given that Airbnb is
designed to nurture the needs of those who can afford access to paid hosts on the
platform, there is a potential breakdown of reciprocity, intimacy, sympathy, under-
standing and trust between those who perform services and those who pay for them.
In a dystopian future, a seller’s day might include collecting tourists from the
airport, sharing their house, cooking meals, doing their laundry, walking their
dog, minding their children and packing their bags. While receiving everything
one desires by a commoditised transaction at the touch of an app can be liberating
for tourists, it can also be dehumanising, even though Airbnb seeks to conceal any
monetising of interaction and intimacy through frictionless payment systems. Our
understanding of tourism as a composite commons is being changed by Airbnb in
both striking and subtle ways. From demonstrations in Barcelona, where Airbnb is
accused of pushing out locals in the old quarter of the city (Arias-Sans & Quaglieri
Domı́nguez, 2016) to the ways we lose something when we forget how to value
things without a price tag, a more individualistic, transactional, less creative
commons may lead to more manipulation, exploitation, abuse and conflict. The
162 D. Michael O’Regan and J. Choe

concept of ethical consumption or responsible tourism where autonomy, commu-

nity or participation is valued now seems quaint as values become guided by the
logic of the market.
As the substance and integrity of social life weakens as businesses market inter-
actions, emotions, time and bodies as depreciating assets, the very notion of what can
be shared, bought and rented has transformed. As the walls between intimate lives,
social relations, community and the market become permeable, what was once
thought unthinkable to buy or sell has changed. While one’s intimate or private life
will never be ruled by the absolute logic of market, the collaborative economy is
driving a new kind of flatness or depthlessness (Jameson, 1984, p. 60), leading to the
“reductionism of all beings and all cultural differences to a common commodified
form” (Harvey, 2000, p. 83). The more you give away via the collaborative economy,
the more commercially customised your world becomes. As economic activity
degrades intimate relationships (Zelizer, 2005), the very source of culture on which
tourism feeds is threatened. As information, knowledge, and culture are produced
through market rather than social relations, the lines of difference between culture,
entertainment, information and consumption become blurred to such an extent, that
almost everything viewed or interacted with becomes an act or object of consumption.
Market morality encourages tourists to seek the ease of market exchanges for
experiences over serendipity, the uniqueness of the locale, a nuanced appreciation
of journey and relationships. The expansion into intimate lives flattens the texture of
the social fabric, and the illusion of affluence pushes the poorest, with little to share
and little to lose into new terrains of rent extraction (Kaminska, 2015), and a
subsequent reduction of the value and meaning of a human life.

4.1 Turning the Collaborative Economy into a Collaborative

Society

As an increasing number of politicians and policy makers around the globe adopt the
collaborative economy, and destinations such as Amsterdam, Seoul, London and San
Francisco describe themselves as “Sharing Cities”, Airbnb and similar platforms are
here to stay. The collaborative economy can work in many areas of the economy, if
sharing businesses work with cities and destinations. However, governments (and
unions) must play a pivotal role in ensuring the collaborative economy is more than
a modality of economic production (Benkler, 2006), and understand how Airbnb, in
particular, violates the spirit and the letter of the law. Its fear of regulation saw it launch
an aggressive US$8 million advertising campaign on local TV, billboards and social
media in San Francisco in 2015. Using consultants, researchers, canvassers and social
media specialists to make the case against regulation, they defeated the measure.
Despite this, political debate about the role of the Airbnb, their actual contributions
to public good, autonomy and external costs (inequality, discrimination and social
exclusion generated by platform use) is slowly emerging. Studies indicate that Airbnb
Airbnb: Turning the Collaborative Economy into a Collaborative Society 163

can push up rents (Kusisto, 2015), hit small and medium hotel room revenue (Zervas,
Proserpio, & Byers, 2015a) and push rentals off the market. Recent studies have
indicated major negative impacts in Barcelona (Arias-Sans & Quaglieri Domı́nguez,
2016), San Francisco (Budget and Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2015) and New York
(Schneiderman, 2014). As Airbnb seeks enclosure over the resources once nurtured and
protected within communities, the very source of culture on which non-profits and
non-governmental organisations such as charities emerge, is threatened. Airbnb has
proven to indirectly work against loosely affiliated groups and non-profit entities, who
may seek to deliver actual or desired outcomes in a given locality, such as social
inclusion, greater equality, cultural understanding and poverty reduction. SERVAS, for
example, is an offline, and paper based hospitality exchange system affiliated with the
United Nations. As Airbnb refuses to be regulated as it scales up, regulated non-profits
are vulnerable to losing their place in tourism. Destinations must invest in the protec-
tion of non-profits that could distribute value amongst the value creators, and provide
resources for such creators to interconnect technologically (e.g. Platform
Cooperativism) to facilitate federations of locally-owned cooperatives.
Adept at paying lip service to poverty, inequality, social and economic exclu-
sion, and beholden to owners, stockholders and investors, there will be market
created problems that will soon need innovative solutions. Many solutions from
market facing businesses in the tourism industry were structured in forms amenable
to non-profit intervention, such as ratings and quality control systems for sustain-
able businesses and responsible tourism (e.g. Green Globe). However, the more
fragmented and decentralised collaborative economy becomes, altruistic interven-
tions may no longer be applicable. While many argue that tourism marketplaces are
already exploitive, cultural capitalism has the power to add to its destructive
elements. While many collaborative economy platforms package their market
communication along the rhetoric of morality and eco-ethics, they do not address
or promote moral or ethical decision-making. Airbnb properties, for example, by
and large, do not coordinate with the UNWTO Task Force to Protect Children in
Tourism, or promote “The Code of Conduct for the Protection of Children from
Sexual Exploitation in Travel and Tourism” (ECPAT), or train hosts to spot the
signs of child sexual abuse. However, a private trade body called SEUK
representing the collaborative economy in the United Kingdom has joined the
Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship at Oxford University and Rachel Botsman
in 2015 to develop a “trustmark”. The idea that Airbnb can regulate and police
itself, with the invisible hand of the market protecting the environment, hosts and
the public is questionable. Airbnb also throws into question whether a future self-
interested consumer, many of whom do not currently pay any taxes on Airbnb, will
pay into any future tourism system (i.e. the Balearic Islands accommodation
eco-tax, the Dubai tourist tax, the Hamburg culture and tourism tax) and whether
policy makers will engage in partnerships with intermediaries such as Airbnb to
regulate the accommodation sector (Dredge & Gyimóthy, 2015).
Regulators must decide whether Airbnb’s “micro-entrepreneurs” are employees
or independent/dependent contractors. Entrepreneurs, for example, should be able
to set their own prices and find their own customers. Regulators should also ensure
164 D. Michael O’Regan and J. Choe

that Airbnb cannot pass the burdens of service, liability, legal, fiscal and social
responsibilities onto hosts and consumers in the name of public good and the “big
society”. Neither should authorities spend resources to enforce existing regulations.
Regulators must demand the Airbnb data that they need to enforce regulations and
taxation, require hosts to register with local agencies and create new mechanisms to
collect taxes, restrict the density of short-term rentals in certain areas, and deal with
absentee owners whose guests may become nuisances. In the longer term, margins
may not be worth the burden of participation once a “level playing field” between
incumbents and Airbnb is introduced and the costs of regulatory, tax and general
compliance costs are added. Host “churn” will also impact on host availability.
Airbnb also risks becoming a victim of its own success, as it becomes forced to
introduce more efficient oversight, host and customer tools, and managerial prac-
tices. As it grows, it risks being obscured by new and hungrier platforms. In
addition, “micro-entrepreneurs” who begin to invest capital (cleaning staff,
redecorating rooms) may end up replicating the existing professional system
(Kaminska, 2014) just as the “entrenched” accommodation providers become
revitalised as they adapt to the new access-oriented, on-demand environment.
Paradoxically, because Airbnb works because of the pretense that it is not a
commodity, but an experience, any replication of the existing system and its fixed
costs may lead to consumers looking elsewhere for experiences. The venture
capitalists who have invested up to US$2.39 billion up to 2015 may also seek to
recoup their investments by asking Airbnb management to squeeze even more cash
from hosts and raise prices through algorithmic manipulation.
There is no data to indicate the Airbnb threatens entrenched business models,
given Airbnb acts to free spare capacity if and when professional capacity falls
short. By unlocking spaces at favourable prices, Airbnb actually expands the size of
the market. However, spare capacity during peak periods when hotels normally
increase prices could affect low and high end independent properties if quality
processes and efficiency innovations are not implemented by those independent or
chain properties. In addition, Christensen, Raynor, and McDonald (2015) argue that
as Airbnb uses nicer host homes in wealthier areas, their disruption to entrenched
hotel business models will become more pronounced. However, modest innovation
by accommodation providers, either individually or part of a global chain, can be
very successful. In 2015, the Hyatt Hotel group become an investor in onefinestay,
which rents owners’ upscale vacation homes, and allows the platform users an
opportunity to freshen up at a Hyatt Hotel, whilst Expedia purchased Homeaway to
add vacation rentals to its online travel booking options. Hotel groups, like Ovotel,
Citizen M and Marriott International’s “Edition” have also sought to incorporate
and sell real life “experiences”, make better use of customer data and utilise
techniques prevalent in Airbnb such as user feedback, flexibility (e.g. self-laundry,
flexible check out, co-working spaces), authentic local interactions (i.e. linking
guests to local guides), easier transactions and a “lifestyle ethos”. Hotels and other
accommodation providers increasingly use events, shareable moments and content
that speak to customer values, and address the desire for authenticity, flexibility,
accessibility, efficiency and adventure. Unlike Airbnb, many hotels (groups) have
Airbnb: Turning the Collaborative Economy into a Collaborative Society 165

also made great strides in working with authorities and tourists to protect labor and
the environment, and work with cities and those in governance and locally owned
platform coops to deliver a real-world service to create sharing destinations where
benefits trickle down. In contrast, Airbnb are in conflict with authorities across the
globe. They were, for example, fined €30,000 in 2014 for breaching local tourism
laws in Barcelona. In Australia and Europe, Airbnb has not fully incorporated any
method to show local laws during the listing process, or adequately disclose
mandatory fees, such as for service and cleaning in advance, despite regulatory
demands.

4.2 Future Research

Further research may explore whether the shared resources on Airbnb are really
excess capacity from the perspective of hosts, or whether, when fulfilling tourist
needs, they create shortages within their immediate social circles (i.e. hosting
intermediately rather than seeking higher income, full-time employment). In addition,
while Airbnb is delivering progressively more market-sourced income to asset
owners, more research is needed to explore whether such income is recycled back
locally through taxes, wages and payment for consumer goods and services. Research
should explore the emotional impacts of collaboration and sharing on hosts, and
whether those who participate freely do so, or are induced to monetise their assets
and sociality. It may also be relevant to research the diverse forms, impacts and
regulatory responses in different geographical contexts (urban-suburban-peri-urban-
rural), including welfare societies and societies in economic crisis. Finally, the
impacts of ‘short-term strangers’ on civic life and the authenticity of neighbourhoods
in heavily visited destinations would be useful, as well an examination of the
disruption to public policy making in tourist destinations.

5 Conclusions

In its full scope, the collaborative economy encompasses gift transactions and
nonprofit collectives and cooperatives. However, despite claims from many
advocates, the collaborative economy is, by and large, administered by
for-profit companies anchored in commerce and enclosure. As people, their
skills, assets and belongings are monetised in a new age of access, Airbnb brings
the efficiency and capabilities of the internet to exploit network organisation for
the purpose of extraction by connecting tourists with service providers. While
boosting economic output without requiring destinations to increase public
spending, we argue that parties are as much influenced by economic incentives
as by trust underpinned by shared norms, values or protections. While techno-
logical infrastructure and entrepreneurial dynamism coupled with regulatory
166 D. Michael O’Regan and J. Choe

and tax evasion and without proper oversight and proper accountability, Airbnb
will continue to grow the demand for experiential travel and make money. However,
the organisational ethos of the platform will be increasingly recognised as a symptom
of predatory laissez-faire platform capitalism and, therefore, be in need of greater
regulation across the globe. While disruption to aspects of the tourism industry as
well as destinations themselves are needed to achieve a more sustainable future
(e.g. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector), Airbnb is
not a disruptive movement, its venture capital backed business model merely an
extractive online tourism marketplace.

References

Ahmed, M. (2014, January 28). Brits turn to Airbnb to make ends meet. The Times. Accessed July
22, 2015, from http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/technology/article3988333.ece
Arias-Sans, A., & Quaglieri Domı́nguez, A. (2016). Unravelling Airbnb. The case of Barcelona. In
G. Richards & A. P. Russo (Eds.), Reinventing the local in tourism. Travel communities and
peer-produced place experiences (pp. 209–228). London: Channelview.
Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and
freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Botsman, R. (2012, August 20). Welcome to the new reputation economy. Wired Magazine.
Accessed July 22, 2015, from http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2012/09/features/wel
come-to-the-new-reputation-economy
Botsman, R. (2015, May 27). Defining the sharing economy: What is collaborative consumption—and
what isn’t? Fast Company. Accessed July 9, 2015 from http://www.fastcoexist.com/3046119/
defining-the-sharing-economy-what-is-collaborative-consumption-and-what-isnt
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2011). What’s mine is yours: How collaborative consumption is
changing the way we live. London: Collins.
Budget and Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2015). Analysis of the impact of short-term rentals on
housing. City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Accessed July 9, 2015, from
http://www.sfbos.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid¼52601
Chase, R. (2015). Peers Inc: How people and platforms are inventing the collaborative economy
and reinventing capitalism. New York: Public Affairs.
Christensen, M., Raynor, M. E., & McDonald, R. (2015). What is disruptive innovation? Harvard
Business Review, 44–53.
Debord, G. (1998). Comments on the society of the spectacle. London: Verso.
Dredge, D., & Gyimóthy, S. (2015). The collaborative economy and tourism: Critical perspectives,
questionable claims and silenced voices. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(3), 286–302.
doi:10.1080/02508281.2015.1086076.
Edelman, B., Luca, M., & Svirsky, D. (2015). Racial discrimination in the sharing economy: Evidence
from a field experiment. Accessed December 20, 2015, from http://www.benedelman.org/publica
tions/airbnb-guest-discrimination-2015-12-09.pdf
Ferenstein, G. (2014). Airbnb CEO spells out the end game for the sharing economy, in 7 quotes.
Venture Beat. Accessed November 5, 2015, from http://venturebeat.com/2014/07/02/airbnb-
ceo-spells-out-the-end-game-for-the-sharing-economy-in-7-quotes/
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of
social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689–723.
Airbnb: Turning the Collaborative Economy into a Collaborative Society 167

Gurvich, I., Lariviere, M., & Moreno-Garcia, A. (2015). Operations in the on-demand economy:
Staffing services with self-scheduling capacity. Working Paper. Accessed July 25, 2015, from
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/lariviere/research/GLM_Revised_WithNames.pdf
Hamari, J., & Ukkonen, A. (2013). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative
consumption. Helsinki: Helsinki Institute for Information Technology.
Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity. Oxford: Basic Blackwell.
Harvey, D. (2000). Spaces of hope. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hochschild, A. R. (2003). The commercialization of intimate life: Notes from home and work.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Holloway, J. (2010). Crack capitalism. London: Pluto.
Howard, B. (2015). We-Commerce: How to create, collaborate, and succeed in the sharing
economy. New York: Perigee Books & Penguin Random House.
Jameson, F. (1984, July–August). Postmodernism, or the cultural logic of late capitalism. New Left
Review, 146, 59–92.
Kaminska, I. (2014, March 27). The unscaling myth. Financial Times. Accessed June 5, 2015,
from http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2014/03/27/1812572/the-unscaling-myth/
Kaminska, I. (2015, May 21). The sharing economy will go medieval on you. Financial Times.
Accessed June 5, 2015, from http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2015/05/21/2130111/the-sharing-econ
omy-will-go-medieval-on-you/
King, D. (2015). Survey finds surge in peer-to-peer home rentals, ride-hailing. Travel Weekly.
Accessed December 13, 2015, from http://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Travel-Tech
nology/Survey-finds-surge-in-peer-to-peer-home-rentals-ride-hailing
Krakovsky, M. (2015). The middleman economy: How brokers, agents, dealers, and everyday
matchmakers create value and profit. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Kramer, B. (2015). Shareology: How sharing is powering the human economy. New York:
Morgan James Publishing.
Kusisto, L. (2015). Airbnb pushes up apartment rents slightly, Study says. Wall Street Journal.
Accessed July 19, 2015, from http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2015/03/30/airbnb-pushes-
up-apartment-rents-slightly-study-says/?mod¼WSJBlog
Lux, M. (2015). A Libertarian dream: The ‘Sharing Economy’. The Huffington Post. Accessed
October 19, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/a-libertarian-dream-the-shar
ing-economy_b_7313014.html
Lynam, J. (2016, February 15). Airbnb ‘delisting hosts for no reason.’ BBC. Accessed March
2, 2016, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35574971
PwC. (2014). The sharing economy. PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Accessed July 19, 2015, from
http://download.pwc.com/ie/pubs/2015-pwc-cis-sharing-economy.pdf
Rifkin, J. (2000). The age of access: The new culture of hypercapitalism, where all of life is a paid-
for experience. New York: J.P. Tarcher/Putnam.
Schneiderman, E. T. (2014). Airbnb in the city. New York State Attorney General. Accessed
November 15, 2015, from http://www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/Airbnb%20report.pdf
Sevignani, S. (2013). The commodification of privacy on the Internet. Science and Public Policy,
40, 733–739.
Stephany, A. (2015). The business of sharing: Making it in the new sharing economy. London:
Palgrave MacMillan.
Wang, D, Xi, S., & Gilheany, J. (2015). The model minority? Not on Airbnb.com: A hedonic
pricing model to quantify racial bias against Asian Americans. Technology Science. Accessed
October 1, 2015, from http://techscience.org/downloadpdf.php?paper¼2015090104
Zelizer, V. A. (2005). The Purchase of Intimacy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., & Byers, J. W. (2015a). The rise of the sharing economy: Estimating the
impact of Airbnb on the hotel industry. Working paper. Accessed July 10, 2015, from http://
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id¼2366898
168 D. Michael O’Regan and J. Choe

Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., & Byers, J. W. (2015b). A first look at online reputation on Airbnb:
Where every stay is above average. Working paper. Accessed July 10, 2015, from http://
collaborativeeconomy.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Byers-D.-Proserpio-D.-Zervas-G.2015.
A-First-Look-at-Online-Reputation-on-Airbnb-Where-Every-Stay-is-Above-Average.Boston-Unive
rsity.pdf
Žižek, S. (2006). The universal exception. London: Continuum.
Žižek, S. (2009a). First as tragedy, then as farce. London: Verso.
Žižek, S. (2009b, November 24). RSA animate: First as tragedy, then as farce. RSA. Accessed July
10, 2015, from https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/blogs/rsa-lecture-slovoj-zizek-tran
script.pdf
Žižek, S. (2011). Living in the end times. London: Verso.
Žižek, S. (2012). Organs without bodies: On Deleuze and consequences. London: Routledge.
Sharing the New Localities of Tourism

Greg Richards

Abstract Geographers have long pondered the role of tourism in producing and
shaping space. The description of resort geographies popular in the 1980s and
1990s has gradually given way to the current vogue for place-making and place
marketing, re-centering geography in the tourism field. More recently, however, the
rise of the sharing economy and “relational tourism” has caused researchers to look
beyond the construction and consumption of place and to delve into the co-creation
of localities between tourists and residents. These shorter and longer-term “locals”
increasingly find each other without the intervention of the traditional tourism
industry, giving rise to whole new fields of economic, cultural and social exchange.
The growth of companies such as Couchsurfing, Airbnb and Uber not only
represents a challenge to traditional views of tourism, but is also reshaping the
localities inhabited by tourists. This analysis examines the consequences of the new
localities of tourism and they ways in which this might affect the future of tourism
itself.

Keywords Sharing economy • Airbnb • Localities • Relational tourism • Place

1 Introduction

From a geographical point of view, tourism can be seen as an activity that produces
and consumes space. In the past, there used to be a fairly close relationship between
the spaces in which tourism produced tourism experiences, and the spaces in which
tourists consumed them. The spatial diffusion of tourism was controlled by a
dedicated, narrow value chain that had changed little since the days of Thomas
Cook. Tourists went to hotels run by tourism companies, transported there by trains
or planes run by transport companies and consumed animation provided by
dedicated tourism staff. In the contemporary network society, however, consumers
are increasingly able to circumvent the tourism supply chain and become actively

G. Richards (*)
Department of Leisure Studies, Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000LE Tilburg,
The Netherlands
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 169

D. Dredge, S. Gyimóthy (eds.), Collaborative Economy and Tourism,
Tourism on the Verge, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-51799-5_10
170 G. Richards

involved in the production of their own tourism experiences. The new ‘mobile
consumer’ (Ochoa, 2015) is more directly in contact with a raft of new ‘tourism’
producers that have little or no contact with the traditional tourism industry.
In this shifting tourism landscape the conventional tourism industry seems to
be particularly concerned about the rise of the ‘collaborative economy’, which
arguably facilitates the direct sharing of resources between consumers, without
the intervention of commercial intermediaries. The tourism industry itself is
beginning to see this as a threat to its business, labelling it a ‘shadow industry’
(HOTREC, 2014).
This chapter considers the consequences of the shift towards collaborative and
co-created forms of supply for the tourism industry and for the production of
tourism spaces. We will attempt to assess the ways in which these new ‘shared’
localities of tourism are re-ordering the relationships between tourism space, place
and location, and shifting the distribution of power within the tourism industry.

2 The Rise of the Local

Early analyses of tourism development mirrored the relatively homogeneous and

linear processes of mass tourism development in their analysis of tourist space. The
models of Barrett (1958), Miossec (1977), Butler (1980) and Smith (1991) all
depicted the growth of coastal resorts as stemming from a central zone close to
the beach and fanning out in successive temporal waves into the periphery. The
market-based nature of such development processes produced a landscape
dominated by large-scale tourism consumption. This is one of the central arguments
of such seminal works as Sharon Zukin’s (1991) Landscapes of Power, John
Hannigan’s (1998) Fantasy City and Judd and Fainstein’s (1999) Tourist City.
However, the development of the collaborative economy is now contributing to
a hollowing out of such traditional models of “industrial tourism”, because low
entry costs mean that local communities are now able to act as micro-producers of
tourism. So we are seeing a divergent movement of power in the tourism system,
upwards towards global distribution systems and downwards to micro-producers
and small local enterprises.
Recently, therefore, the study of tourism geographies more attention has been
focussed on the micro level of urban neighbourhoods (Zukin, 2010) or small rural
communities (Brouder, 2012) where micro-entrepreneurship is emerging. Sharon
Zukin’s (2010) Naked City explores the development of different neighbourhoods
in New York, which in her view are being transformed into consumption zones. She
explored the processes by which former working class areas have been gentrified,
with the generation of symbolic value in these areas largely being attached to the
concept of “authenticity”. Essentially, she argues that the “authentic” is now
symbolically linked with the local. The question then becomes not “what is
authentic?” but “what is local?”
Sharing the New Localities of Tourism 171

However, the new localism seems to complicate rather than resolve the issue of
authenticity. The “global” and “local” are not spatial structures (levels, scales,
places, distances, etc.), but different representations of space competing against
each other to determine social reality (Guy, 2009). The point is that distances and
other spatial measurements simply cannot tell us where to draw the boundary
separating what is local and what is global or where the local ends and where the
global begins. The adoption of particular temporal or spatial practices can make
one a “local”, even when s/he has travelled far or stayed a relatively short length
of time.
Essentially, in an era of global mobility, it is easy to become a (para)local
somewhere else. A range of “soft infrastructure” facilitates this shift, with facilities
such as hostels, coffee bars and Internet cafes and local intermediaries offering a
‘plug and play’ destination (Richards, 2010). Boutique hotels and Airbnb are
simply the latest plug-ins for the local experience:
I think what’s similar between a boutique hotel and Airbnb are three key things. Boutique
hotels were really all about living like a local. How do you have an experience that feels
like a local experience? That was really all around the food experience. Secondly, it was
about having a design point of view so the design didn’t feel generic. Thirdly, it was about
turning strangers into friends. That’s why we called staff “host” at our hotels. All of these
things apply to Airbnb too. (Chip Conley, Airbnb)

The interesting point about the collaborative economy is that the economic
structure itself builds in the “local” dimension, by offering the sharing of goods,
services and knowledge between visitors and hosts.

3 The Spatial Effects of Collaborative Tourism Practices

The growth of the collaborative economy points to a new set of practices operating
in the field of tourism production and consumption. If we view the situation from a
social practice perspective, then we can borrow from Shove, Pantzar, and Watson’s
(2012) analysis of practices as comprising objects and materials (technologies,
things, tools, infrastructure, etc.), skills and competence (know-how, background
knowledge) and images and meanings (emotions, motivations, ideas, etc.). A
change in any one of the elements of the practice is likely to have recursive effect
on the others. For example, the rise of budget airlines (technological change) has
stimulated a change in the image of previously peripheral tourism locations (image
change) and increased the know-how of local actors about tourist needs and how to
meet them (increased skills). Changes in the practice also affect the consumers, who
are afforded a range of new destinations, becoming more skilled in researching the
possibilities of the destination via the Internet and fuelling the image of new
destinations as the ‘place to be’.
The usefulness of the practice approach lies in emphasising how the different
elements of the tourism system, including the ‘locals’ and the ‘tourists’ are
interlinked and interact. Transitions in practice reflect changes in the composition
172 G. Richards

of the elements of materials, skills and meanings in the practice. Practices emerge,
persist and disappear as connections between different elements are made and
broken. New practices involve novel combinations of new and existing elements.
The ways in which the different elements of the tourism practice are affected by the
collaborative economy are considered below.

3.1 Resources

One of the key dimensions of the collaborative economy is that it has opened up a
range of new resources to tourism practices. This is evident in the way that the
recent rise of Airbnb has transformed the tourism profile of many cities:
Nearly 55 million guests have booked the online sharing site since 2007, and 30 million of
those were in the last year. Looking just at summer 2015, more than 17 million people
booked Airbnb. That’s 353 times the number of bookings 5 years ago when Airbnb hosted
47,000 guests during the summer of 2010 (Oates, 2015).

Companies such as HomeAway are also making an impact on local tourism

markets, with over 10% growth in 2015. The company is now partnering with
online distribution companies such as Kayak and Expedia to expand reach and
increase bookings (Oates, 2015: 52). Such companies can have a big effect at local
level. In Barcelona, for example, by May 2014 Airbnb was offering almost 7000
entire flats, almost 5000 entire rooms and 285 shared rooms (Arias Sans &
Quaglieri Domı́nguez, 2016). This has had a significant impact on the accommo-
dation supply and revenue in the city:
Jeroen Merchiers, Airbnb’s Barcelona-based general manager for Spain and Portugal, said
that last year rentals through his firm had a $128 million impact in Barcelona, much of
which helped struggling locals: 77% of the hosts rented out one room in their home and
earned an average of 220 euros a month, he said, most of which went toward basic needs.
“In southern Europe, people are struggling. Fifty three percent of the hosts say the money
they make as a host allows them to stay in the room or house where they are. Thousands of
families are using this to make ends meet.” (Mount, 2014)

Interestingly, many of these new tourism resources in Barcelona are being provided
by foreigners. As Arias Sans and Quaglieri Domı́nguez (2016) note for example:
The knowledge of the Italian language is indicated in more than one fifth of Airbnb
listings studied in Barcelona, whilst the proportion of Italian citizens in the whole
resident population is relatively marginal. Most of the foreign residents active on
Airbnb tend to be white, western middle class “ex-pats” rather than being repre-
sentative of the migrant of population of the city as a whole.
Sharing the New Localities of Tourism 173

3.2 Skills and Competence

In the emerging collaborative economy of tourism, more formal hospitality and

intermediation skills are being replaced by informal ones. The Airbnb host also
needs to acquire specific skills in the reproduction of the “local” Airbnb experience.
These include how to show “empathy” towards the client and recognise their needs.
Airbnb gives specific guidance to hosts on how to develop such skills.
The way in which the host engages with guests is defined by Airbnb in terms of
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Pinchera, 2015). At the basic level, what guests want
is a clean environment with wi-fi. At higher levels of need, which Airbnb equates to
“success”, the important thing is for hosts to give attention to the guest, for example
by giving them information about things to do and places to go. But the highest
level of “transformation” or self-actualisation is seen as the creative part of the
process. This is where personalised experiences are generated through empathy
between host and guest. This requires creativity and emotional work on the part of
the host, and this is where a networked system such as Airbnb has an important
competitive edge over traditional tourist providers. Where hotels and other tradi-
tional forms of accommodation have to train their (usually poorly paid) staff to
empathise and be creative, Airbnb relies on their feedback system to reward and
train the host to deliver transformational experiences. Those who are good at this
will receive more positive guest feedback, and therefore more business than other
hosts.
But also important in the new collaborative hospitality system is the role of
“local” hosts in providing local “buzz” or atmosphere (Bathelt, Malmberg, &
Maskell, 2004). Maintaining this buzz also depends heavily on face-to-face contact
between key actors, a fact that shapes creative spaces and also provides potential
entry points into the local creative field for tourists. Examples include the ‘ruin
bars’ in Budapest (Lugosi, Bell, & Lugosi, 2010), emerging creative clusters in
Berlin (Lange, 2012), and creative events such as SXSW (OECD, 2014).
Again there seems to be a specific role for ex-pats in the development of conduits
and local buzz attached to tourism. In Barcelona, for example, much of the recent
innovation around tourist transport has been led by European ex-pats. This includes
the creation of a large number of bike hire companies, predominantly founded by
Dutch migrants, and the Cooltra scooter hire company, founded by German
brothers living in the uber-cool Gracia neighbourhood (Richards, 2016). These
ex-pats bring with them specific technical skills, but they also have the communi-
cation channels necessary to reach foreign markets in the countries of origin, which
is far more difficult for most spatially embedded locals.
174 G. Richards

3.3 Meanings

One of the important meanings attached to the new collaborative tourism systems is
that they are not part of the traditional tourism system. Airbnb makes much of the
fact that it is not a hotel company. Because each of the dwellings offered by Airbnb
is unique, it offers a vast diversity of accommodation options, as a recent review
points out:
[...] while Airbnb has come to be known as the low-key, economical way to travel, it also
boasts some seriously incredible, one-of-a-kind accommodations. So, yeah, you could stay
in hotel. Or, you could stay in a glass tree house in the Tuscan forest, or a real-life Scottish
castle, or even a restored windmill in Santorini (Refinery 29, 2015).

Airbnb also emphasises the fact that it promotes relationships. One important part
of the Airbnb practice is that the direct financial transaction between host and guest
is removed by the Airbnb website, so that the development of a relationship is not
made more awkward by the host having to ask for money. So in this sense it also
positions itself as being different from other commercial accommodation providers.
Airbnb also likes to stress that it contributes to local communities by giving them
opportunities to earn money directly from visitors. The ‘community’ role has been
strengthened by the opening of Airbnb offices in many different cities around the
world. These offices provide a physical point of contact for Airbnb hosts in the city,
but they also enable the company to lobby directly with municipal authorities when
its interests are threatened.

4 Emerging Practices: Co-Creation Between Tourists

and Locals

New practices emerge as a result of new combinations of resources, skills and

meanings, such as those discussed so far (Shove et al., 2012). The emergence of a
new system of the co-creation of space between tourists and locals has been an
important result of these changes. The production of tourist space is no longer
simply a question of top-down production of standardised experiencescapes by
multinational companies or governments. Increasingly, the development of
experiences takes place as a co-creative process between ‘tourists’ and “locals”
linked in networks operating largely outside the tourism system. This changing
practice also results in very different types of space or ways of using space.
One of the most evident changes in the practice has been the shifting boundaries
of the “tourist” and the “host” or “local”. The rise of the mobilities paradigm has
underlined the shift from highly directed to much more diffuse and widespread
forms of tourist movement. Whereas in the past tourists were fairly easy to identify
and localise through their relatively limited range of behaviours, today the concept
of the tourist is much more difficult to define. Growing numbers of people travel for
a wide range of reasons which may have little to do with the idea of a “holiday”.
Sharing the New Localities of Tourism 175

Many people now travel with a mix of leisure and work or study motivations, such
as ERASMUS students, lifestyle entrepreneurs or “global nomads” (Kannisto,
2014). Again, these patterns emphasise the important role of expats in providing
the conduits to the local buzz.
In particular, major cities have become places where different groups of
relatively mobile cosmopolitans meet with the relatively sedentary “locals”. As
Russo and Quaglieri Domı́nguez (2012) have pointed out in the case of Barcelona:
It is up to the cities and regions to accommodate such diversity and nurture the social and
cultural connections or ‘atmospheric’ elements that determine their capacity to offer a
distinct and stimulating atmosphere where, according to the logic of experience marketing,
ordinary activities are transformed in memorable experiences.

This makes it clear that what is important for places to attract tourists and other
mobile populations is no longer just concrete attractions or tourist infrastructure,
but “atmosphere”. This atmosphere is often seen as something pertaining to the
“local”, the “everyday”, and particularly the “edgy” aspects of these (Hannigan,
2007). At the same time, “locals” make increasing use of the spaces once reserved
for tourists. In fact in some places the tourists themselves have become subject to a
“local gaze” that places them as objects of curiosity themselves (Richards &
Wilson, 2004).
Locals also become the providers of tourist experiences. In many cases locals
become the intermediaries who interpret the places they live in for the tourist, a
function that in the past was often taken by the guide travelling with the tourists.
Locals are also increasingly supplementing the local accommodation supply.
Barcelona research (Richards, 2015) shows that 47% of local residents have
provided accommodation to friends and relatives in the past year, supplementing
the more commercial spaces provided via Airbnb and the hospitality exchange
possibilities of Couchsurfing.
The shared or collaborative tourism model is now being extended to whole
communities or cities. For example, Seferihisar in Turkey has become the “world’s
first homestay holiday village”, linking together different houses in the village to
provide accommodation for tourists. “Fast-food outlets and chain stores are out.
Renewable energy, slow travel and long-held local traditions are decidedly in”
(Tomasetti, 2014). As one homestay guest notes:
And [with our guests] we will pick our own vegetables from our garden. If they want to eat
fish at dinner, we will go fishing ourselves in the morning. We will give [visitors] a real
opportunity to live in a Cittaslow (Tomasetti, 2014).

The emphasis is on local people, local products and local hospitality. These are
elements of the tourism experience that have been gaining momentum in recent
years. For example, Gilli and Ferrari (2016) describe the development of the
albergo diffuso or diffuse hotel in Italy as a new form of network hospitality. In a
number of small villages different abandoned houses have been converted into
tourist accommodation, and have been linked together with services such as
restaurants to produce a network accommodation system. This has helped to
176 G. Richards

regenerate a number of villages that otherwise would have suffered from depopu-
lation and economic decline.
The shift of the collaborative economy from individual producers and consumers
towards entire communities has not escaped major players such as Airbnb. Brian
Chesky, one of the founders of Airbnb recently coined the idea of the “shared city”.
“We are committed to enriching cities and designing the kind of world we want to
live in. Together, let’s build that shared world city by city.” The Airbnb vision of
the shared city has been extended into the Airbnb Community Compact, which
contains three commitments:
• We are committed to treating every city personally and helping ensure our
community pays its fair share of hotel and tourist taxes.
• We are committed to being transparent with our data and information and we
will help cities understand the home sharing activity in their community while
simultaneously honoring our commitment to protect our hosts’ and guests’
privacy.
• In cities where there is a shortage of long-term housing, we are committed to
working with our community to prevent short-term rentals from impacting the
availability of long term housing by ensuring hosts agree to a policy of listing
only permanent homes on a short-term basis (Chesky, 2015).
The difference between these new places and the traditional spaces of tourism is
that their function relies on relationality rather than visual consumption or any type
of traditional tourist “gaze” (Urry, 1990; Richards, 2013, 2014). We go there
because of the local people and the opportunity to live like them, rather than just
to look at them. For cities this places an increasing emphasis on what Richards and
Delgado (2003) termed “trusting spaces”, where the users of specific spaces can
come together and develop relationships of greater or lesser duration. This in turn
facilitates the sharing of knowledge and skills, strengthening the practice of
relationality itself. Trust development in the Airbnb practice is supported by a
number of aspects of the process. The properties have reviews from customers,
which the company says “cannot be invented”. The reviews are supported by photos
of the property, and the trust of guests is increased through a verified ID, by links to
social media and a “host guarantee” of up to 700,000 euros.
According to Germann Molz (2014), “sharing with strangers” is one of the key
aspects of the new “networked hospitality” model. Through such sharing, Airbnb
provides relationality benefits for both hosts and guests, as one host explains:
As a society we have fewer and fewer opportunities to interact with real human beings,
strangers, in person. This is due to the explosion in popularity of smartphones and other
technological devices that consume attention in public spaces. (These devices were not as
ubiquitous in the past 10 years as they are today). If you look around you as you wait at a
bus stop or for the train, you’ll see everyone looking at their phones or shut off from the
world via their headphones. AirBnB offers people a chance to make those serendipitous
personal connections that we are missing in society today. It can be absolutely wonderful to
meet random people you would never have otherwise met via AirBnB.
Additionally, the experience of being in someone’s home is very different from staying
in a hotel. You get a real taste of what life is like for the locals. You can get one of a kind
Sharing the New Localities of Tourism 177

recommendations and tips from your hosts, who are familiar with the area and who can
usually give you more insightful recommendations (and more tailored to you!) than what
you will find in a guidebook (Airbnb host, Quora.com, June 2014).

These new practices of tourism therefore require new skills (relationality) to

open up new resources (private homes) to tourists and to create new meanings
(don’t be a tourist—live like a local). These new practices have in turn transformed
tourism, and the spaces in which tourism is produced, consumed and performed.

5 How Has the Making of Tourism Spaces Changed?

Recent studies of emergent tourism localities have identified many new types of
tourism spaces, such as the Airbnb apartment, the local neighbourhood or the
albergo diffuso. If we compare the contemporary process of developing new spaces
for tourism with the “traditional” model of cultural attraction development, some of
the key features can be identified. If we look for example at MacCannell’s (1976)
model of sight sacralisation, then we can identify a process that proceeds through
stages of marking, framing, enshrinement, mechanical reproduction, and social
reproduction. These are basically processes that work from discrete and embedded
space to more abstract and diffuse social contexts. In many cases, these processes
are driven by the competition that emerges between places in the local, regional,
national and global search for attention in the modern economy. But in the
relational context of contemporary tourism, different processes are at work. As
the structures of modern society lose their importance and authority, so does the
shared need for identity and self-actualisation begin to take on a more important
role, as Airbnb has recognised (Pinchera, 2015). Rather than the sights of tourism
being marked and framed by a tourism industry intent on concentrating the tourist
gaze, the “local” has now taken on the position of a collaborative marker of
authenticity that is co-created between residents (including temporary residents,
expats or migrants) and visitors. This tends to shift the focus of tourism activity
away from the traditional public spaces of the city towards the private and intersti-
tial spaces of the home, the atelier or the hostel.
The re-location of tourism practices has stimulated a lively debate on the
ownership of and access to the city by visitors and by residents creating tourism
services. The basic question being posed is: who benefits from these new tourism
practices? There is a clear shift in economic benefits away from the traditional
tourism sector towards new relational forms of tourism, but there are also other
issues at stake.
Airbnb is keen to emphasise the benefits that it brings to local communities. For
example, it claims that it helps hosts to make ends meet, and that 50% of hosts are
on moderate to low incomes. To emphasise the fact that most hosts are private
individuals, Airbnb claims that “82% share only the home in which they live.”
These hosts not only earn money, but also gain other benefits. For example in
178 G. Richards

Boston, 48% of hosts said that Airbnb hosting had positively affected their
interaction with the local community and 62% said it had positively affected the
way they view life (Airbnb, 2014). In terms of the benefits for “travellers”, Airbnb
says that most visitors want to “experience cities not as tourists, but as locals.”
According to their surveys, 76% want to explore a specific neighbourhood, and
89% want to “live like a local”. This seems to suggest a collaborative benefit for
hosts and tourists in constructing a local experience that will appeal to visitors and
generate income for local people.
In spite of all the hype about the benefits of the collaborative economy, however,
it seems that the outcomes are not always positive. In the case of Airbnb, for
example, Arias Sans and Quaglieri Domı́nguez (2016) argue that the company is
flouting local regulations on accommodation provision, producing unfair competi-
tion for commercial accommodation suppliers and increasing the concentration of
tourism in already heavily visited areas. They also see indications that apartment
rentals through Airbnb and other platforms has helped to keep property prices high
in such areas in spite of the economic downturn in Barcelona.
Similar problems are now being noted in New York, where a report published in
2014 noted that 72% of Airbnb rentals booked in New York appeared to violate the
law (New York State Office of the Attorney General, 2014). In addition, three
districts of the city—the Lower East Side/Chinatown, Chelsea/Hell’s Kitchen, and
Greenwich Village/SoHo—accounted for one-third of private short-term rentals.
These three, largely central districts, accounted for host revenue of $186.9 million,
which represented 55% of host revenue for private stays in Manhattan. As Arias
Sans and Quaglieri Domı́nguez (2016) found in the case of Barcelona, therefore, the
pattern of Airbnb provision in New York seems to strengthen rather than dilute the
concentration of tourist accommodation in central areas of the city. The locational
concentration also tends to channel income towards particular types of hosts. In
Boston, for example, Airbnb figures indicate that around 12% of hosts work in the
Arts, design and creative services, 13% in Information Technology, 15% in
professional and business services and 20% in education and health services. This
seems to indicate a large over-representation of the middle class, or Florida’s
‘creative class’.
Airbnb has tried to deflect criticism of its operations by releasing a large amount
of data on its operations in New York City. The Airbnb presentation of the figures
seems to support the picture of local homes being rented out by local residents.
About 93% of revenue earned by active hosts in New York City comes from those
who share their entire home and who only have one or two rental listings on Airbnb.
The median annual host income is roughly $5110—a welcome supplement to the
average income, but hardly a commercial business.
However, Airbnb also made the data available to journalists under strict
conditions. They could only access the data on Airbnb laptops in a private meeting
room, and these data had also been edited by the company, arguably to protect
confidential information. Subsequent analysis of these data revealed that of the
35,966 listings for New York City, 55% were for an entire apartment. Under state
law it is illegal to rent out an entire apartment for less than 30 days, unless it is a
Sharing the New Localities of Tourism 179

family home. In addition, less than 2% of hosts had three or more listings on
Airbnb, but this small group accounted for about 24% of total host revenue in
2015. Analysis by the Huffington Post revealed that about 10,000 hosts were
making between $10,001 and $50,000 a year, and about 127 hosts were making
between $127,000 and $350,000 a year by renting out their entire homes.
The Verge (2015) concluded:
Overall the data is a big step toward meeting the company’s pledge of transparency. But
viewed carefully, the numbers tell a different story than the one put forward by Airbnb.
Over the last year, hosts renting out multiple units for long periods of time still represent a
significant portion of Airbnb’s income in New York, potentially taking housing stock off
the market.

In spite of these apparent problems, Airbnb remains extremely popular with

hosts, visitors and the market at large. This is presumably because it is giving these
parties what they want. The hosts derive income and make new contacts through the
platform. The visitors are given a taste of the local, even if this is often
manufactured by people operating hotel-like businesses. The Airbnb brand is
viewed in a more positive light than most traditional hotel brands (Nguyen,
2013). The performance of the Airbnb platform is therefore also linked with a
high market valuation, which has risen from $10 billion to $25 billion in recent
years (O’Brien, 2015). The different parties therefore share a positive attitude
towards Airbnb, even though they may not actively be collaborating with each
other in the accommodation setting itself.
One of the explanations for the popularity of Airbnb may lie in Korczynski and
Ott’s (2006) concept of the “menu” in mediation. They argue that many products
and services are now offered in the format of a menu, which places an emphasis on
autonomous choice—the consumer is apparently free to choose from a range of
options, as on the Airbnb website. However, the menu effectively hides the
structure and power of the global platform. The consumers who choose Airbnb
accommodation are not aware of the algorithms that control the menu of properties
they are offered, which are designed to maximise sales rather than provide the
consumer with a full choice (Bialski, 2016). Thus, Airbnb can continue to appear
consumer and host friendly, while at the same time pursuing a more nakedly profit-
driven path.
The fantasy that Airbnb sells is that all its “operators” are small mom and pops who rent out
a room to make a little pin money but the studies have shown that many of the Airbnb hosts
have many many more than one or two units which they share with short term money
paying guests. Some have 50 or more. Those units are off the market for regular rentals and
are pulling in $100 a night or more in urban areas where housing for regular residents is
scarce (Justice Holmes, Charleston 17 June 2015, quoted in Gelinas, 2015).

Although collaborative tourism practices bring micro-producers and consumers

closer together, the public sector is one party that is often conspicuously absent
from the practice. Companies like Airbnb have grown up outside traditional
regulatory frameworks, and in many cases are operating in contravention of local
accommodation regulations. The response of lawmakers has been mixed, with
180 G. Richards

some cities seeming to actively embrace Airbnb’s vision of the ‘shared city’ and
others being openly hostile. Amsterdam, for example, has created new regulations
covering the temporary letting of private homes by residents, stipulating that these
cannot be let for more than 60 days a year and that they should also be occupied
during this period by the owners. The owners are also responsible for collecting the
local accommodation tax on behalf of the city. In New York, however, here has
been a much more antagonistic relationship between lawmakers and Airbnb.
Pressure has been put on the city not only by large accommodation providers, but
also by local residents objecting to the argued negative impacts of Airbnb rentals.
As some have commented, local neighbours are being replaced by tourists:
New Yorkers and residents of other cities have the right to live in buildings with neighbors,
not Dutch tourists with wheelie bags. (Gelinas, 2015).
Should you suddenly suffer a hipster “neighbor,” from a foreign country who decides
that instead of getting a real job, he’ll subsidize his existence by renting out an apartment in
your non-doorman, non-elevator, tiny rent-stabilized building to anyone flying in at 2 am
from anywhere on the globe, you will understand just how awful Airbnb truly is (Charlotte,
New York 6 July 2015, quoted in Gelinas, 2015).

Airbnb has engaged in enrolment and mobilisation strategies (Dredge &

Gyimóthy, 2015) in order to counter such criticism from public authorities and
social groups. This includes opening offices in cities with large concentrations of
Airbnb hosts, and undertaking research to support its case.

6 Conclusions

Tourism as practice has changed dramatically in recent decades. From being a

largely top-down Fordist production system, tourism has become a much more
dispersed nexus of integrated production and consumption. The impact on tourist
space has also been significant—there is now an increasingly integrated type of
tourism space emerging where the boundaries between tourism and the everyday
are becoming much more vague. The desire to live like a local, combined with the
desire of locals to become producers of tourism experiences, has stimulated a new
“live like a local” trend that has been met by a range of bottom-up products and
experiences.
This involves a reordering of resources, skills and meanings. In contrast to the
traditional tourism system, which predominantly colonised public space, the
collaborative economy has opened up interstitial private resources for tourism. So
the previous situation, in which public resources such as transport infrastructure or
cultural attractions, subsidised the private provision of tourism experiences, is
being supplemented by a new model in which the private sphere provides an
additional economic resource.
In terms of skills, consumers are becoming more skilled, and the gap between
producer and consumer is narrowing. Because the consumption of tourism increas-
ingly involves the everyday, the types of skills required become more closely
Sharing the New Localities of Tourism 181

aligned to skills gained from other fields, enabling an expansion of the provision of
such experiences by those with no experience of tourism. There has also been a vast
increase in peer-to-peer provision of information and skill development, so that the
professional gatekeeping function has become far less important. The core compe-
tence is no longer the understanding of the tourist, but understanding the source
communities of tourists. This has positioned ex-pats as particularly useful collab-
orative tourism intermediaries.
The meanings attached to the practice of tourism have also shifted as we have all
become tourists and many of us are engaged in supplying tourism. Tourists used to
be welcomed purely on economic grounds, but they now have a wider range of roles
(as citizens, as consumers of culture, as members of the creative class). They also
help to provide the carrying capacity for many practices that link the local and the
global in terms of resources, skills and meanings.
However, when one examines the effects of such ‘Airbnbization’ of tourism
practices, one sees potential dangers as well as benefits. Clearly the cheapness and
flexibility of services such as Airbnb or Uber are good for the consumer. But on the
other hand the power of the tour operator or hotel group is replaced by a colonisa-
tion of the lifeworld (Richards, 2011), which is even more seductive because the
locals seem to willingly collaborate in the colonisation process. The economic
crisis in many countries has helped to facilitate this process, as people strive to
generate additional income from the assets that they own or rent. This is a virtual
miracle of global capitalism—thanks to the network society you can now develop
the world’s largest accommodation chain without investing a penny in bricks and
mortar. Airbnb is currently estimated to be worth around $25 billion, which would
make Airbnb worth more than Hyatt Hotels Corp, which has a market value of
$8.43 billion.
Unlike Hyatt, Airbnb does not develop tourist enclaves. It may strengthen
existing ones, as in the case of the centre of Barcelona. But it can also pioneer
new tourist nodes, which are more integrated into local communities. This may be
good for some local people who may earn extra income directly from the tourists,
but it also raises important questions about the power relationships in the system.
There are now interesting battles taking place in cities around the world between
vested tourism and travel interests, such as hotel groups and taxi companies, and
‘sharing economy’ disruptors such as Airbnb and Uber. Interestingly, the hotels,
who have traditionally resisted regulation, are now very much for it. The cities
where these processes are largely unfolding have not yet found effective ways to
control or regulate these developments.
What are the likely outcomes of these new practices? One may be the develop-
ment of new types of intermediation and tourist occupations. Whereas the growth of
the symbolic economy was characterised by an increase in basic service occupa-
tions to support the consumption of the middle class (Zukin, 1995), it now seems
that the middle classes themselves have been co-opted into the labouring class.
Airbnb depends on the relational skills of the middle class or Florida’s creative
class to make the system work (Bialski, 2016). It is no accident that Airbnb itself
was founded by a pair of designers from San Francisco. Although the Airbnb
182 G. Richards

rhetoric is that they are helping the poor in cities like Barcelona, the reality seems to
be that they are particularly enlisting the mobile cosmopolitan classes, and in doing
so, helping to shift underemployment from the fields of the developing periphery to
the streets of the metropolitan core.
The extent to which the collaborative economy has changed the geography of
tourism is debateable, since much of the provision of new-style accommodation and
other services seems to be centred on established tourism areas. However, it is
opening up new spaces in the form of private homes, and producing more direct
contacts between tourists and locals. What we are actually witnessing is the
colonisation of the lifeworld, as commerce reaches into spaces that were previously
beyond its reach (Airbnb) or deregulates service provision (Uber) or privatises
space (as in the case of Park Güell in Barcelona). The problem is that as the
attractions of tourism become increasingly based on the everyday, and the potential
transformation of such spaces into tourism places is apparently limitless.

References

Airbnb. (2014, December 19). Airbnb’s positive impact in Boston. http://blog.airbnb.com/airbnbs-

positive-impact-boston/
Arias Sans, A., & Quaglieri Domı́nguez, A. (2016). Placing network hospitality in urban destina-
tions: The case of Airbnbn Barcelona. In A. P. Russo & G. Richards (Eds.), New localities in
tourism (pp. 209–228). Bristol: Channel View.
Barrett, J. A. (1958). The seaside resort towns of England and Wales. PhD thesis in geography,
University of London (unpublished).
Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2004). Clusters and knowledge: Local buzz, global
pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28(1), 31–56.
Bialski, P. (2016). Authority & Authorship: Uncovering the socio-technical regimes of peer-to-
peer tourism. In A. P. Russo & G. Richards (Eds.), New localities in tourism (pp. 35–49).
Bristol: Channel View.
Brouder, P. (2012). Creative outposts: Tourism’s place in rural innovation. Tourism Planning &
Development, 9(4), 383–396.
Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for manage-
ment of resources. The Canadian Geographer, 24, 5–12.
Chesky, B. (2015, November 11). Our commitment to communities around the world. Airbnb
Blog. http://blog.airbnb.com/our-commitment-to-communities-around-the-world/
Dredge, D., & Gyimóthy, S. (2015). The collaborative economy and tourism: Critical perspectives,
questionable claims and silenced voices. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(3), 286–302.
Germann Molz, J. G. (2014, March 3). Toward a network hospitality. First Monday, 19(3).
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4824/3848
Gelinas, N. (2015, June 16). Airbnb is a problem for cities like New York and San Francisco. New York
Times. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/san-francisco-and-new-york-weigh-
airbnbs-effect-on-rent/airbnb-is-a-problem-for-cities-like-new-york-and-san-francisco
Gilli, M., & Ferrari, S. (2016). The “albergo diffuso”: A new Italian model of network hospitality. In
A. P. Russo & G. Richards (Eds.), New localities in tourism (pp. 65–83). Bristol: Channel View.
Guy, J.-S. (2009, Spring). What is global and what is local? A theoretical discussion around
globalization. Parsons Journal for Information Mapping, I(2), 322.
Hannigan, J. (1998). Fantasy City: Pleasure and profit in the postmodern metropolis. London:
Routledge.
Sharing the New Localities of Tourism 183

Hannigan, J. (2007). From fantasy city to creative city. In G. Richards & J. Wilson (Eds.), Tourism,
creativity and development (pp. 48–56). London: Routledge.
HOTREC. (2014). HOTREC raises strong concerns about the shadow tourist accommodation market
and calls for a level playing field. Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.hotrec.eu/
newsroom/press-releases-1714/hotrec-raises-strong-concerns-about-the-shadow-tourist-accommo
dation-market-and-calls-for-a-level-playing-field.aspx
Judd, D. R., & Fainstein, S. S. (1999). The tourist city. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kannisto, P. (2014). The global Nomad. Tilburg: Tilburg University.
Korczynski, M., & Ott, U. (2006). The menu in society: Mediating structures of power and
enchanting myths of individual Sovereignty. Sociology, 40(5), 911–928.
Lange, B. (2012). Field configuring events: How culturepreneurs use space for the purpose of
professionalisation in the design segment of Berlin. In G. Hagoort, A. Thomassen, &
R. Kooyman (Eds.), Pioneering minds worldwide (pp. 117–121). Delft: Eburon.
Lugosi, P., Bell, D., & Lugosi, K. (2010). Hospitality, culture and regeneration: Urban decay,
entrepreneurship and the ‘ruin’ bars of Budapest. Urban Studies, 47, 3079–3101.
MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Miossec, J. M. (1977). Un modèle de l’espace touristique. L’Espace Géographique, 1, 41–48.
Mount, I. (2014, May 28). Airbnb, Uber under attack in Barcelona. Fortune. Accessed January
26, 2016, from http://fortune.com/2014/05/28/airbnb-uber-barcelona/
New York State Office of the Attorney General. (2014). Airbnb in the city. New York: State Office
of the Attorney General.
Nguyen, H. (2013). Brand passion index: Airbnb and Hipmunk outpace the big guys. Accessed
January 26, 2016, from http://www.netbase.com/all-posts/brand-passion-index-airbnb-and-
hipmunk-outpace-the-big-guys/
Oates, G. (2015). Alternative lodging versus traditional hotels. Skift Magazine, 2, 52–53.
O’Brien, S. A. (2015). ‘Crazy money’—Airbnb valued at over $25 billion. Accessed January
26, 2016, from http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/27/technology/airbnb-funding-valuation-update/
Ochoa, G. (2015). Global tourism chains and local development in the Amazon: Implications for
community wellbeing. s-Hertogenbosch: BOXPress.
OECD. (2014). Tourism and the creative industries. Paris: Organisation for Economic
Cooperation & Development.
Pinchera, M. (2015). Are you experienced? Accessed January 26, 2016, from http://www.mpiweb.
org/Magazine/MPINews/2015/11/01/are-you-experienced
Refinery 29. (2015). 30 Airbnbs that will blow your mind (Not your budget). Accessed January
26, 2016, from http://www.refinery29.com/crazy-airbnb-rentals#slide
Richards, G. (2010). Leisure in the network society: From pseudo-events to hyperfestivity?
https://www.academia.edu/1271795/Leisure_in_the_Network_Society
Richards, G. (2011). Creativity and tourism: The state of the art. Annals of Tourism Research, 38
(4), 1225–1253.
Richards, G. (2013). Tourism and creativity in the city. Current Issues in Tourism, 17, 119–144.
Richards, G. (2014). Creating relational tourism through exchange: The Maltese experience.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 12(1), 87–94.
Richards, G. (2015). Barcelona: A victim of its own success? In S. Hodes (Ed.), Amsterdam:
Anticipating the future (pp. 58–59). Amsterdam: Architectura & Natura Press.
Richards, G. (2016, September). Tourism and the city: Towards new models? Afers
Internacionals, N 113: «Turismo: perspectivas locales y tendencias globales», Ed. Yolanda
Onghena, CIDOB.
Richards, G., & Delgado, E. (2003). Trusting spaces. Barcelona: Interarts.
Richards, G., & Wilson, J. (2004). The global Nomad. Bristol: Channel View.
Russo, A. P., & Quaglieri Domı́nguez, A. (2012). From the dual tourist city to the creative melting
pot: The liquid geographies of global cultural consumerism. In M. Smith & G. Richards (Eds.),
Routledge handbook of cultural tourism (pp. 324–331). London: Routledge.
184 G. Richards

Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice everyday life and
how it changes. London: Sage.
Smith, R. A. (1991). Beach resorts: A model of development evolution. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 21(3), 189–210.
The Verge. (2015). Airbnb’s worst problems are confirmed by its own data. Accessed January
26, 2016, from http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/4/9849242/airbnb-data-new-york-afford
able-housing-illegal-hotels
Tomasetti, K. (2014, August). Slowly does it. Easyjet in-flight magazine.
Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze. London: Sage.
Zukin, S. (1991). Landscapes of power: From Detroit to Disney World. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
Zukin, S. (1995). The cultures of cities. Oxford: Blackwell.
Zukin, S. (2010). Naked City: The death and life of authentic urban places. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Collaborative Economy and Destination
Marketing Organisations: A Systems
Approach

Jonathon Day

Abstract Destination systems, embedded systems in the larger tourism system,

evolve as a result of changes in consumer and stakeholder expectations, social
trends and new technologies. New system dynamics necessitate change to tradi-
tional supply chains, management practices and relations, and allow the entrance of
new players. This chapter examines the changing nature of Destination Marketing
Organisations (DMOs) and the challenges they face in providing value to con-
sumers and stakeholders. It also examines the rise of collaborative economy
companies and their impact on the destination system. Collaborative economy
companies in the destination are leading to new legislative frameworks, a changing
competitive landscape, a wider range of product and increased innovation. The
chapter also examines the new dynamics developing in the destination system as
DMOs and collaborative economy companies respond to the changing system and
to each other. Changing DMO roles, new areas of conflict and potential opportu-
nities for collaboration in the collaborative economy are explored.

Keywords Collaborative economy • Destination marketing organisations •

Tourism systems • Destination systems • Impacts

1 Introduction

The tourism system (Mill & Morrison, 2009) is constantly changing. As a complex
adaptive system (Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2005), tourism adapts to changes in tech-
nology, consumer tastes, and financial conditions to name a few factors, by
reorganizing, embracing new types of organisations and adapting to new conditions.
Driven by changing consumer demands and fueled by enabling technology, the
collaborative economy is shifting the equilibrium within the tourism system in a variety
of ways. In some ways, these changes are most evident in destinations, themselves
systems embedded in the larger tourism systems (Day, Cai, & Murphy, 2011). But

J. Day (*)
School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Purdue University, 610 Purdue Mall, West
Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 185

D. Dredge, S. Gyimóthy (eds.), Collaborative Economy and Tourism,
Tourism on the Verge, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-51799-5_11
186 J. Day

collaborative consumption related changes are not the only changes currently taking
place in destinations. Technology and new expectations of DMOs are leading to
changes in the focus and operation of these actors in the destination system. The
current chapter explores such evolution due to the entrance of collaborative consump-
tion related organisations, challenges faced by DMOs and the impacts of collaboration
consumption of DMOs.

2 Systems and Value: Destinations, DMOs and the Sharing

Economy

Destination systems, like tourism systems more generally, are complex adaptive
systems (Day et al., 2011; Volgger & Pechlaner, 2015). They are comprised of a
broad variety of types of organisations. The destination system includes a mix of
attractions, events, hotels and other lodging, food and beverage, other support
industries like retail establishments, infrastructure (water, power, communication,
sewage/drainage, healthcare, security), transportation, and hospitality services
(Mill & Morrison, 2009). Destinations can be considered “amalgams of tourism
products and services, offering an integrated experience to consumers” (Buhalis,
2000, p. 98) or packages of tourism facilities and services (Hu & Ritchie, 1993).
Within the destination system, networks of organisations come together to create
value for consumers and stakeholders. This value is measured in a variety of ways,
the most common of which is what network members will pay for the product,
service or experience (Porter & Millar, 1985). Using this economic proxy for value,
a business is viable when the value it creates exceeds the cost of performing the
value activities. Companies that don’t create value are not sustainable. The value
chain for a company is the set of activities that must take place to create value
(Porter, 1985).
Value chains are embedded in a larger “stream” of activities Porter describes as a
“value system”. For instance, the value system for tourism includes the value chain
of travel providers, destination system members and the consumers themselves.
The ability of the destination system to deliver consumer experiences is dependent
on the value created by each organisation in the system (Song, Liu, & Chen, 2013).
Value chain/value system analysis has been applied in a variety of contexts in
tourism research (Mojic, 2012; NDivo & Cantoni, 2015). Porter and Millar’s value
chain concept is useful in at least two ways—it focuses on value and it recognises
the linkages between values that are created by different actors in the system. The
value chain/value system approach also recognises the inter-dependencies of actors
to create value. As Song et al. (2013) note “every node of the chain can affect the
value attained by tourists, which in turn affects the profit of individual actors”
(p. 17). However, the traditional value chain and value system approach to tourism
has significant limitations derived from its narrow definition of value. One notes
that the tourism system is often considered as an “industrial system” and, “tourism
Collaborative Economy and Destination Marketing Organisations: A Systems. . . 187

is primarily valued as a tool for regional economic development, employment and

investment” (Dredge, 2016, p. 2). This characterisation of tourism as a purely
economic phenomenon ignores the broader nature of tourism. Tourism takes
place in destination communities and impacts life in those communities both
positively and negatively. A multidimensional approach to tourism, incorporating
a broader set of metrics rather than only economic value is increasingly necessary
for analysis of the tourism system.
As the system changes, organisations adapt to create value in new ways and new
types of value-creating organisations enter the system. For example, the business
model of leisure travel agents has adapted to changes due to innovation in technol-
ogy, resulting in new organisations like online travel agencies (OTAs), which
provide new value chains for consumers. For some time there has been a general
understanding that consumer demands are changing and travellers are increasingly
rejecting the standardisation and commodification of tourism experiences. This has
been evident in the growth of new products promising more authentic or unique
experiences and can be seen in the rising popularity of products such as boutique
hotel chains and farm to table dining. Stimulated by technology that supports peer-
to-peer interactions, these trends have contributed to the growth of the collaborative
economy. As noted by Dredge and Gyimóthy (2015) “consuming travel is inti-
mately bound to identity construction and narratives of authentic encounters with
local culture” (p. 9). The collaborative economy has enabled travellers to enjoy
these types of experiences. Other factors contributing to the growth of the collab-
orative economy in tourism include the consumer’s ability to interact directly with
tourism providers and the resultant individualized, “user-focused” service provided
by the hosts and collaborative economy providers, and the low incremental capital
requirements of companies in providing innovative products (Dredge & Gyimóthy,
2015). These trends, combined with underlying principles of collaborative con-
sumption identified by Botsman and Rogers (2010)—critical mass, idling capacity,
belief in the commons and trust in strangers—have resulted in changes in the
system.
Many of the same factors that have facilitated the rise of the collaborative
economy—new technologies, changing consumer wants and needs, and new social
norms—are significantly impacting DMOs and their role in the tourism system.
Presently, DMOs face an existential challenge to create value in the destination
system (Dredge, 2016) at a time when many of their traditional core competencies
are no longer valued or becoming too complex and costly to undertake effectively
using current funding models.

3 The DMO’s Challenge to Create Value

In some countries, DMOs have existed for over a century. These organisations are
known by a variety of names, including national tourism offices (NTOs), regional
tourism offices (RTOs) and visitors and convention bureaus (CVBs) and are found
across the globe. The acronym, DMO, refers to both Destination Marketing
188 J. Day

Organisations and Destination Marketing Organisations (Dredge, 2016). Pike

(2004) defined the Destination Marketing Organisation as “any organization, at
any level, which is responsible for the marketing of an identifiable destination”
(p. 14) while Morrison (2013) described destination management as a “broader and
more inclusive concept that includes destination marketing and other activities to
manage tourism at the destination” (p. 9). As the role of DMOs adjusts to changing
conditions, the concept of destination “management”, with particular reference to
destination development activities, is gaining favour among DMO managers. While
appealing, the ability of DMOs to manage the destination system in a traditional
“command and control” sense overstates the capabilities of most DMOs. In recent
years, a number of researchers (Beaumont & Dredge, 2010; Song et al., 2013;
Volgger & Pechlaner, 2015) have recognised the limitations of so-called “destina-
tion managers” and proposed the concept of destination network governance, in
which DMOs are framed as network coordinators or network managers, and is a
more appropriate description of the role of DMOs in the destination system. As
“network managers” their ability to interact with stakeholders in the tourism system
is critical to their success (Beaumont & Dredge, 2010; Bornhorst, Brent Ritchie, &
Sheehan, 2010; Volgger & Pechlaner, 2014). Indeed, the DMO role of network
“management” is more dependent on stakeholder oriented and participative gover-
nance than the “top down management” approach commonly associated with com-
pany management. DMOs have a singular position in the value chains within the
destination system and the larger tourism system. While they rarely have a signif-
icant direct role in the consumer’s destination experience, they are generally per-
ceived to add value through a set of activities that support the effectiveness of the
networks to provide value. Nevertheless, in recent years, the assumption that DMOs
add value to the system has been challenged by academics (Dredge, 2016) and
practitioners (Gonzalo, 2013; Thompson, 2012). The ability of DMOs to show the
value they create is an on-going challenge.
Dredge noted that “DMO functions fall into three broad categories designed to
enhance tourism industry outcomes: market enhancing policies, product enhancing
policies and policies addressing market failures” (Dredge, 2016, p. 3) and Morrison
(2013) identified the following six key roles of DMOs:
• Leadership and Coordination: Setting the agenda for tourism and coordinating stake-
holders’ efforts toward achieving the agenda.
• Planning and Research: Conducting the essential planning and research needed to attain
the destination vision and goals.
• Product Development: Planning and ensuring the appropriate development of physical
products and services for the destination.
• Marketing and Promotion: Creating destination positioning and branding, selecting the
most appropriate markets, and promoting the destination.
• Partnership and Team Building: Fostering cooperation among government agencies and
within the private sector and building partnership teams to meet specific goals.
• Community Relations: Involving local community leaders and residents in tourism and
monitoring resident attitudes to tourism (pp. 6–7).

While the list is comprehensive, one may note considerable variation in the
activities of DMO from this ideal. Not all DMOs undertake all these roles, and those
Collaborative Economy and Destination Marketing Organisations: A Systems. . . 189

that do undertake all these actions, do not prioritise them equally. Resource
limitations within DMOs (Shankman, 2013) tend to confound the ability to fulfill
these roles effectively.
Recognising the challenge to remain relevant in the changing tourism system,
Destination Marketing Association International (DMAI) initiated research to pro-
vide a “strategic road map for the next generation of global destination marketing”.
That resulted in the Destination Next Report (DMAI, 2014) that advocates a
rebalancing of DMO priorities to include adjusting marketing techniques to meet
the needs of new consumers (dealing with the new marketplace: broadcast to
engagement), increasing stakeholder engagement (evolving the DMO business
model: collaboration and partnerships) and developing product and destination
products, services and experiences (building and protecting the destination brand:
destination managers).
Destination Next emphasises stakeholder engagement. As such it recognises the
need for DMOs to engage with their network to create value. This approach is
consistent with research proposing the necessity of networked governance of
destinations (Bornhorst et al., 2010; Volgger & Pechlaner, 2014). Destination
Next also advocates significant changes from “business as usual” approaches to
marketing. Traditionally, DMOs have focused on marketing and promotion
although there has been greater emphasis on product/destination development
activities as DMO have revisited the term “marketing”. While the concept of the
marketing mix is comprised of four P’s—product, price, promotion and place
(distribution)—introduced by McCarthy (1960), many practitioners continue to
tend to equate marketing with promotional activities. DMOs have undertaken
advertising campaigns, supported destination publicity efforts, undertaken sales
activities, and provided comprehensive (often generic) information about the des-
tination. The evaluation of the value created by DMO activity is dominated by
analysis of advertising and promotional activities (Bornhorst et al., 2010). How-
ever, effectiveness of DMOs to “add value” through promotional activities is
questionable. Criticisms of DMO marketing include that it is underfunded and
insufficient to meet the demands of the market place (Gonzalo, 2013; Shankman,
2013; Thompson, 2012). More recently, DMOs have become more engaged in
destination development, product development and experience management.
Rebalancing of these priorities reflects the response of DMOs to changing condi-
tions. For example, the rise of SoMoLo (Social, Mobile and Local) technologies,
drivers of the CE, requires greater emphasis than ever before on the delivery of the
product experience. A negative video distributed via social media has the potential
to overwhelm positive advertising campaigns. Destination Marketing/Management
Organisations are working to ensure that experience delivery measure up to the
promise of their promotions.
Product and destination development is a multidimensional construct for DMOs
that includes not only stimulating the development of physical product but also
supporting human capital development and training. As a result, DMOs are engag-
ing in greater levels of “internal” marketing within the destination. Although
Kotler, Bowen, and Makens (2015) defined internal marketing as “marketing to
190 J. Day

its internal customers, its employees” (p. 274) in the case of a destination, internal
customers include employees and stakeholders/actors within the destination sys-
tem. While many DMOs have moved resources to destination development their
ability to impact the destination has also been questioned. Based on current
evidence, Pike and Page (2014) suggest that DMOs have very little impact on
overall visitor experience.
Whether DMOs are redundant or merely in a period of transition will be revealed
in the future. Even as DMOs adjust to the new system dynamics, new organisations
are playing increasingly important roles in destination marketing. The rise of
Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) or the more tourism focused Tourism
Improvement Districts (TIDs) as funding mechanisms for existing DMOs, or
alternatives to existing DMOs undertaking marketing and product development
(Civitas, 2014), reflects the changing dynamics of DMOs. Nevertheless, DMOs and
TID tend to be anchored in the economic value of tourism. Dredge (2016) posited
that DMOs are policy tools—organisational instruments—designed to support
industrial and economic policies. To create value in the destination system,
DMOs are seeking closer relationships with economic development organisations.
This approach of DMOs to focus on purely industrial and economic factors restrict
the ability of DMOs to contribute to other important considerations, such as social
and environmental concerns, and limits the value they can create. This raises the
important issue that DMOs must consider: Who they are creating value for? Is it the
destination community or the industrial tourism system in the destination commu-
nity? While Destination Next advocates greater stakeholder engagement, the stake-
holders are often defined as tourism business operators and governments as opposed
to consumers and destination residents.
While traditional DMOs and new organisations like TID are place-based, some
authors suggest that being constrained by location is one of the factors limiting the
effectiveness of DMOs. It has been proposed that destinations should not be
bounded by arbitrary demarcations and that “destinations are socially, politically,
spatially and economically mobile” (Dredge, 2016, p. 4). Destinations exist at
different scales—local, regional and beyond- simultaneously and the interaction
between stakeholders at different levels raises the complexity for DMOs substan-
tially (Dredge & Jamal, 2013). Organisations that market places that are not
confined by physical destination boundaries are identifiable in the commercial
world as tour operators, travel wholesalers and online travel agencies.

4 Destinations and the Rise of the Collaborative Economy

While DMOs adapt to these new challenges in creating value, other elements of the
destination system are rapidly changing. The rise of collaborative consumption
represents significant change to the dynamics of the destination as new organisa-
tions enter the system and new experiences are generated. Such changes within the
Collaborative Economy and Destination Marketing Organisations: A Systems. . . 191

system create new opportunities and new rivalries. New actors in the system create
new “value chain” networks to deliver tourism experiences. The response to the
changing system dynamics, and the disruption to the current system, impacts not
only DMOs but also the destination system.

4.1 New Companies in the Destination System

The impacts of companies leveraging the collaborative economy have been wide-
spread, but tourism and visitor related industries have been impacted most dramat-
ically. Core elements of the destination mix, including transportation,
accommodations, and tours and attractions have seen new entrants based on the
basic principles of the sharing economy. Several such organisations have achieved
significant market share. Airbnb, the peer-to-peer accommodation facilitator, has
over two million rooms available every night, significantly more than the largest
hotel chain, Marriott including newly acquired Starwood, with 1.1 million rooms
and the impact of Airbnb has been widespread given that it operates in 191 countries
(Chafkin, 2016). In the United States it is currently capturing 1.6–1.8% of tradi-
tional hotel demand (Lane & Woodworth, 2016). In several destinations, including
New York, Los Angles, San Francisco, and Miami, the number of Airbnb rooms
available represents more than 10% of the available hotel rooms. One notes that
loyalty to Airbnb is high and average revenue per room beats hotel revenue (Lane &
Woodworth, 2016), indicating that the organisation is delivering value not satisfied
by traditional hotels. Collaborative economy companies like Airbnb, Uber and
others are now important components of many destination systems.

4.2 Innovation in the System

Collaborative economy companies have unleashed a wide range of new experiences

for consumers. From unique accommodation styles to tours with local experts, from
rideshares with locals to sharing meals in people’s homes and learning about their
lives, such sharing economy companies provide highly differentiated products with
a unique personal flavour. One may note that many of these product types have
existed for some time in one form or another. Meals with locals have been available
in New Zealand for many years; cycle rental is not new, or couch surfing, or
personalized specialty tours. So, one may argue that the social and technological
advances that have led to collaborative consumption have ushered in a wave of
innovation in the destination system and that these trends have enabled existing
business concepts to flourish in new forms.
192 J. Day

4.3 Changing Dynamics

Some collaborative economy companies in destinations have entered relatively new

market spaces with little controversy. For instance, bicycle-share companies and
car-sharing companies have been embraced, even encouraged, by many destina-
tions. Nevertheless, the rise of collaborative economy companies in some destina-
tion systems is leading to conflict and change; some of which is predictable but
some of which is unexpected. Collaborative economy organisations, disruptors of
the current equilibrium, operate new business models and challenge existing legis-
lative frameworks. Policy makers and legislators are responding to these new
circumstances in a variety of ways, from embracing the new companies to imposing
regulations and taxes, to banning collaborative economy activities completely.
While early advocates of collaborative economy proposed that the marketplace
could be policed by self-regulatory mechanisms such as social media feedback, and
this would be sufficient to govern the collaborative economy, recognition is emerg-
ing that new regulatory frameworks designed to meet public safety and market
needs is required. In some cases, these new legislative frameworks are reducing
legal bureaucracy and sidelining existing structures. In some cases new legislation
supports “legacy” organisations, like taxi companies, that have longstanding and
highly regulated operating agreements with cities. Such approaches are criticised
by collaborative economy representatives as stifling business innovation.
An additional element of complexity in this dynamic is that each destination
community is responding in their own way and legislation is not uniform across the
sharing economy companies. Rideshare companies compete with powerful, reve-
nue generating and highly regulated taxi companies, and these face different legal
battles compared to accommodation sharing organisations. For example, in
New York where taxi interests are strong, Uber delayed a government imposed
cap on its growth. Adding to the complexity of the change is the fact that many
destinations are governed by local and regional authorities with differing perspec-
tives about the value of collaborative economy elements. In the greater Los Angeles
area, while the city of Los Angeles accepted Airbnb, Santa Monica has legislated
against short-term rentals (Sanders, 2015). In addition to the basic questions of
operation, legislation is developing to ensure public health and safety in the new
regime where providers are not “professionals”. It is certain that there may be many
legal battles before a new equilibrium is established in the legal frameworks which
allow collaborative economy companies to operate in destinations.
There is also conflict in some sectors of the system where competition between
the traditional organisations and new challengers is both direct and immediate.
Building on Dredge and Gyimóthy’s (2015) conceptual work, Table 1 highlights
the traditional enterprises the new businesses are challenging. The competition
between ride-share companies and traditional taxi companies is insightful. Uber
and other ride sharing companies compete directly with taxi companies, many with
long histories and substantial legal protection. The conflict between these two
groups of suppliers has been among the most confrontational. Hotel companies,
Collaborative Economy and Destination Marketing Organisations: A Systems. . . 193

Table 1 Collaborative economy creates new competition

Collaborative economy Traditional types of
Destination mix A sample of new enterprises enterprise
Where can I stay? AirBnb Hotel companies
Accommodations Couch Surfing
VRBO
Luxury Retreats
Flipkey
Onefinestay
Homeaway
How can I get there/Get around? Uber Taxis
Transportations Lyft
GrabTaxi (Malaysia)
Zipcar
Bicycle shares (Liquid)
Relay Rides
Getaround
Sidecar
Where can I get travel products, Guidehire Local tour companies
tours and experiences? Localo
Tours and Guides ADVLO
Likealocal
Vayable
Where can I eat? UberEats Restaurants and food
Food Bonappatour delivery
UberFresh
Eatwith
VoulezVousDiner

while recognizing the changing dynamics of the accommodations market, have not
responded as aggressively to the new competitors; there are differing perspectives
about the potential impact of the new collaborative economy. Nevertheless, hote-
liers are aware of the changing system dynamics. Commentators have noted the
potential impact on traditional supply and demand equations, particularly during
peak times (Jordan, 2015; O’Neill, 2015). As new forms of accommodations
become popular with both leisure and business travellers, they will impact various
parts of the industry in different ways. For instance, hotel room contracting
associated with conventions, already changing due to the impact of OTAs, will
need to adapt to emerging accommodation trends. While there is challenge for
traditional accommodation providers, there is also opportunity for innovation and
collaboration. Some hotel chains, such as Starwood, Hilton and Hyatt have
partnered with rideshare company Uber. Others have partnered with companies
offering complementary products. For example, Onefinestay, a company that offers
high-end luxury home rentals, and Hyatt have developed a strategic partnership
(Staff, 2015). Interestingly, several major hotel brands have adopted sharing
194 J. Day

elements of collaborative economy principles. Accor has adopted listing policies

similar to Airbnb and increased its property offerings from 3700 to over 10,000 by
adding independent, non-affiliated properties (Staff, 2015). Marriott, recognising
excess capacity with meeting space, has partnered with LiquidSpace, a sharing
company that offers workspace for business (Botsman, 2014).
Less predictable are the conflicts created by new relationships within the system.
While in the past commercial accommodations were restricted to hotels and tourists
often confined to “tourist bubbles” within cities or other destinations, today house,
apartment and room sharing sites bring tourists into the community. This has some
advantages as it disperses economic benefits from tourism more broadly throughout
a destination. Airbnb study of the impact of Home-sharing in Portland and Its
Neighborhoods (Airbnb, 2014) describe “neighborhood activation” as Airbnb’s
ability to “stay in traditionally less visited towns and neighborhoods” (p. 11).
While neighborhood activation has possible benefits, it also has the potential to
increase community tension. For example, in Barcelona, the headline “Airbnb
remains a symbol of Barcelona’s growing unease with tourism” (Croft, 2015)
leads to a discussion of the mayor “picking a fight with home rental websites as
she cracks down on uncontrolled tourism that she fears could drive out poor
residents and spoil the Catalan capital’s charm” (Croft, 2015). Similar tensions
are experienced in a variety of locations including Santa Monica and New York.

4.4 New Business Structures and New Participants

in Tourism

Many collaborative economy businesses can be characterised by a larger number of

relatively independent operators working with a technology-based “umbrella”
system. For example, Airbnb provides a system through which people with excess
capacity in their homes (i.e. a spare bedroom) can rent the space to travellers.
Similarly, Uber allows people with cars and spare time to provide transportation
services. These new “hosts” may not identify as being part of the tourism system
and their introduction to the system creates a need for capacity building, training
and knowledge sharing to ensure quality delivery of tourism experiences.

5 Collaborative Economy and the Role of DMOs

As collaborative economy enterprises establish their place in the new system, the
growth of the collaborative economy in many destinations is challenging DMOs to
adjust current practices. While the DMO may be considered a “steward” of the
destination, destination and DMO are distinct. DMOs must respond to this changing
system dynamic in at least two ways:
Collaborative Economy and Destination Marketing Organisations: A Systems. . . 195

• Impact on DMO: They must respond to the specific impacts these new players
make on the DMOs themselves.
• Impact on the destination: They must adapt and respond to the rise of collabo-
rative economy companies in order to meet their tourism management goals for
the destination.
Responding to these changes, DMOs are presented with a series of potential
challenges to DMOs. Using the six roles of DMOs (Morrison, 2013) discussed
earlier in the chapter as a framework for analysis, new challenges include:
Leadership and Coordination Partnership and Team Building: DMOs must
engage with new collaborative economy players as they work to set the agenda
for tourism and coordinate stakeholders’ efforts toward achieving the agenda. This
process is impacted by several factors including role conflict in the system as new
competitors establish roles within the destination, and/or larger numbers of stake-
holders and actors who are either new to the tourism industry or do not identify as
being part of it. DMOs will need to prove to these new participants the value of
DMOs in the system in order to successfully establish their role as leaders,
coordinators or potential partners.
Planning and Research The changing dynamics of the system will necessitate
new research to better understand the impacts of the CE, and also to identify
strategies for attaining a destination’s vision and goals. The inclusion of new
companies will require adaptation and modifications to destination plans and their
inclusion in the destination planning process.
Product Development Planning to ensure the appropriate development of phys-
ical products and services for the destination is required. DMOs must respond to
changing consumer preferences and emerging business models as they undertake
destination planning for product development. DMOs active in product develop-
ment may influence policy that seeks to regulate collaborative economy companies.
As noted previously, more emphasis on destination experience is increasingly
placing DMOs in the role of promoting standards of service that are destination
brand consistent. Training programs designed to create “destination ambassadors”
are becoming more common (Shankman, 2014) as a means of ensuring customer
service standards throughout the destination systems. As a new extension to this
task, DMOs must engage with collaborative economy travel product suppliers like
Uber drivers and AirBnb hosts to ensure high levels of service and brand-consistent
messaging.
Marketing and Promotion A key function of DMOs is the creation of destination
positioning and branding and selection of the most appropriate markets and pro-
motion of the destination. Several DMOs have recognized the value of
crowdsourcing elements of their advertising creative in order to leverage the
believability of user-generated content. Australia’s: Nothing Like Australia” cam-
paign (“There’s Nothing Like Australia—Campaign Strategy,” 2012) collected
196 J. Day

60,000 stories and images from ordinary Australians and shared them with potential
travellers from around the world.
As the impact of collaborative economy on destinations becomes clearer, inno-
vative DMOs are joining in marketing campaigns with collaborative economy
partners. In July of 2015, San Francisco announced a first-of-its kind “destination
promotion partnership” that leverages the sharing economy to spread the economic
benefits of travel and tourism throughout the city (Alderton, 2015). In announcing
the program, the San Francisco Travel Association, the city’s DMO, emphasised
that the campaign would “complement—not replace- its relationship with the
(traditional) hospitality community”. The campaign reflects many product devel-
opment components including creating neighborhood toolkits for local merchants
and supporting local hosts to share their love of San Francisco. More traditional
promotion includes sales activities with meeting and event planners responsible for
city-wide conferences and the development of content about local neighborhoods,
businesses and experiences across the city.
Community Relations As noted previously, the rise of collaborative economy
companies, particularly accommodation sharing companies, has placed residents in
new proximity to guests. This is touted as a benefit that supports local business and
spreads the benefits of tourism throughout the community. However, also as noted
previously, these new tourists have increased tensions in some destinations. While
DMOs rarely have direct control over legislation regarding collaborative economy
companies or their activities, this is a new challenge that DMOs face in addressing
community understanding and appreciation of tourism within the community.
Advocacy for the tourism industry is a key role of the DMOs, and this role is
expected to become increasingly important in the years ahead according to the
Destination Next strategic analysis (DMAI, 2014). DMOs will need to reconcile the
benefits and the costs of tourism and tourists in new ways and to new stakeholder
groups.

6 Responding to the New Destination System Dynamics

The changing dynamics of the destination have practical implications for DMOs
beyond the issues associated with the six core roles already identified in the chapter.
DMOs governance models are based on the previous system equilibrium and will
need to adapt to the changing market place. Perhaps the clearest example is in the
funding models of CVBs in the United States. Over 88% of CVBs are funded by
room tax from hotels (DMAI, 2015). To some degree, this approach makes policy
sense as commercial accommodations were direct beneficiaries of marketing activ-
ities undertaken by DMOs. To date, only a handful of destinations require collab-
orative economy companies to collect occupancy tax (Airbnb, 2016). In the new
collaborative economy, where both commercial accommodation and “shared
accommodations” benefit from the destination marketing undertaken by the
Collaborative Economy and Destination Marketing Organisations: A Systems. . . 197

DMO, at least two issues associated with room tax, or its equivalent, can be
identified:
• Shared accommodation not paying room tax or its equivalent is clearly a “free-
rider” on the DMO’s marketing efforts. While many tourism organisations “ride-
free” (i.e. attractions and tour operations) they are rarely direct competitors and
the fairness of two competitive accommodation providers (Airbnb and a hotel
company for example) operating under different tax rules is problematic; and
• In destinations where room tax funds DMOs and shared accommodation is not
room-taxed, the DMO lacks direct financial incentive to encourage visitors to
use the shared accommodation.
The issue is significant for both collaborative economy companies and DMOs.
San Francisco Travel, recognised as one of the first DMOs to partner in marketing
activities with Airbnb, ensured the organisation was collecting occupancy tax,
requiring insurance providing the guarantees for business in a similar way to hotels.
As Joe D’Alessandro, President and CEO of San Francisco Travel noted “It’s about
levelling the playing field. It would not have been fair for Airbnb to operate and not
collect the hotel tax and not play by the same rules that hotels do (Oates, 2016).”
Interestingly, Airbnb has taken the position that it would like to collect the tax, but it
is stopped in some cities including New York City, where hotels oppose such
legislation since they fear it will legitimise Airbnb’s activity (Griswold, 2015).
Despite such issues, collaborative economy companies are appealing to DMOs
for a variety of reasons. Collaborative economy companies provide additional
capacity at times of high demand. Airbnb is acknowledged as providing important
additional rooms for not only major conferences but mega-events like the
Superbowl (Oates, 2016), the Olympics, and Papal visits. Additionally, collabora-
tive economy companies are useful to destination markets who typically pursue
differentiation strategies (Porter, 1980) as they tend to provide special experiences
useful in demonstrating the uniqueness of the destination experience.
Although many of the issues associated with the rise of collaborative economy
impact DMOs indirectly, the new sharing economy does present some direct and
immediate challenges to DMOs. For instance, DMOs also face challenges as they
deal with the democratizing of destination knowledge. They often position them-
selves as the “authoritative” source of information about the destination. In this new
market, where experts can provide customized tours on specific topics, the DMO
may have the most general information but there will also be specific experts with
greater knowledge in specific fields. How DMOs respond to this changing dynamic
will be important in establishing the new equilibrium within the destination. There
is clearly potential for other disruption of traditional roles. For instance, collabora-
tive forces could challenge the assumption that DMOs are the “legitimate” desti-
nation branders. An early example of this is the “Up Greek Tourism” campaign. Up
Greek Tourism was established during the Greek financial crisis by expatriates
concerned about the lack of government funding for tourism, an important compo-
nent of the struggling Greek economy. Funded by crowdsourcing, the marketing
campaign ran in 2012 in London, New York, and Washington, DC and featured
198 J. Day

advertising creative from award winning Greece-based designer (“Up with Greek
Tourism”).
It should be expected that other challenges will emerge and, while the collabo-
rative economy offers a broad range of product, some organisations have greater
likelihood to disrupt traditional DMO roles. As an example, Airbnb is a shared
accommodation sales facilitator, connecting homeowners with an extra room to the
marketplace. As such, it works with a complex network of “non-professional”
product providers to deliver tourism product. The similarity to the role of a DMO
is striking; Airbnb provides leadership and coordination to its network, undertakes
planning and research to facilitate more efficient sales, supports product develop-
ment with its host network, markets and promotes the network, fosters cooperation
between government entities and within the private sector to meet goals, and
engages in community relations. Such similarities represent opportunities for both
collaboration and synergy or competition.

6.1 In the Balance

DMOs must assess the value of the collaborative economy to their destinations.
With the introduction of new members in the tourism system, DMOs are faced with
the challenge of determining which organisations will be most helpful to achieve
overall destination goals. Clearly, the costs and benefits of collaborative consump-
tion are different from traditional tourism; some destinations are exploring the
value of these new relationships. For instance, Airbnb, with assistance from Visit
Portland, examined the value of Airbnb to the Portland community (Airbnb, 2014)
and found the company supported household incomes, promoted enterprise and
innovation, grew the tourism market by attracting “new” travelers, and “activated”
neighborhoods for tourism. As DMOs assess the value of developing relationships
with collaborative economy they must consider a variety of factors; the market
demand for the products, the positive and negative impacts on the destination, the
economic contribution of the CE, the quality of the tourism experience, and others.
While some progressive DMOs, like the San Francisco Travel Association, have
engaged with collaborative economy partners, many DMOs are taking a “wait and
see” approach to the largest and most impactful collaborative economy companies.
As one DMO CEO in a major destination noted, “we don’t formally promote
it. Airbnb and the Ubers have not approached us. It’s an evolving model”
(Shankman, 2015). Awareness of collaborative economy and the issues associated
with it is growing. Rachel Botsman, co-author of “What’s mine is yours: The Rise of
the Collaborative Consumption” (Botsman & Rogers, 2010) was the keynote
speaker at DMAI’s, 2014 annual convention. Nevertheless, concern for the impacts
of these new approaches is low. DMAI’s strategic planning report, Destination Next
(2014), ranks “the market moving toward a shared economy with assets being
rented or bartered outside traditional commercial arrangements (i.e., Airbnb,
home exchange)”, 45 of 64 important trends impacting destination marketing.
Collaborative Economy and Destination Marketing Organisations: A Systems. . . 199

At the same time, collaborative economy companies are assessing the value
provided by engaging with DMOs. As new players in the destination system they
have a fresh perspective on the relevance of DMOs to tourism system. As noted
previously, DMOs are currently addressing a number of challenges associated with
changing roles and stakeholder engagement. DMOs recognise a lack of understand-
ing of their work and have embarked on advocacy programs designed to raise
awareness of the value created through their actions. Within this broader context,
the importance of establishing the relevance of DMOs in the “new” tourism system
should not be underestimated. Interestingly, Airbnb’s head of global hospitality and
strategy, Chip Conley, is reported to have had “immersive sessions” with Hilton,
Hyatt and Marriott about “how to be collaborative and how we can work together to
promote travel and tourism globally” (Staff, 2015). New players in the destination
system must see the value created by DMOs in order to engage.

7 Conclusions

The tourism system and the destination system, in particular, are changing as the
result of evolving technology and demand for more authentic experiences. As the
system adjusts to the entry of new organisations using innovative business models
and distributed workforces, new opportunities for both conflict and collaboration
are emerging. Stakeholders within the destination are responding in a variety of
ways: new policies and legislation are developing, new sources of competition are
emerging, and new opportunities for collaboration to meet the needs of consumers
are presenting themselves.
Within this system, DMOs face new challenges to achieve their tourism goals in
the changing destination system. DMOs are increasingly balancing traditional
promotional priorities with product development responsibilities that range from
customer service training to grant programs for attracting new tourism investments.
At the same time, DMOs face existential threats to which they are responding with
advocacy and stakeholder awareness campaigns highlighting the value they provide
to the destination system. At this highly dynamic time in DMO evolution, the
disruptive impacts of the collaborative economy are becoming increasingly appar-
ent. Collaborative economy has the potential to impact each of the core roles of the
DMO, challenging DMOs to engage with a wide range of new actors and
responding to new business models and innovative products. While collaborative
economy companies are not currently directly competing with DMOs, they are a
disruptive force that impacts DMO operations. As DMOs adjust their approach to
achieving their goals in light of the new destination dynamics, they must adjust to
systematics inequities as the new equilibrium emerges. DMOs are directly
impacted by the conflict concerning collaborative economy lodging companies
and lodging taxes, the primary funding mechanisms for DMOs. While there is
already concern over the funding model for DMOs, this issue creates urgency for
many DMOs to find alternative approaches to funding their operations. The growth
200 J. Day

of collaborative economy companies in the tourism represents an exciting time of

innovation and change in the tourism system. Consumers are embracing new ways
of enjoying travel, empowered by new technologies and attitudes toward consump-
tion and social interaction.

References

Airbnb. (2014). Airbnb: Impacts of home-sharing in Portland and its neighborhoods. Accessed
May 5, 2016, from https://1zxiw0vqx0oryvpz3ikczauf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/
uploads/2016/09/PortlandEconomicImpactReport.pdf
Airbnb. (2016). In what areas is Occupancy Tax Collection and Remittance by Airbnb available?
Accessed May 5, 2016, from https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/653/in-what-areas-is-occu
pancy-tax-collection-and-remittance-by-airbnb-available
Alderton, M. (2015). Airbnb, San Francisco form innovative “Destination Promotion Partnerships”.
Successful Meetings. Accessed May 5, 2016, from http://www.successfulmeetings.com/News/
Destinations/West/Airbnb,-San-Francisco-Form-Innovative--Destination-Promotion-Partnership-/
Beaumont, N., & Dredge, D. (2010). Local tourism governance: A comparison of three network
approaches. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(1), 7–28. doi:10.1080/09669580903215139.
Bornhorst, T., Brent Ritchie, J. R., & Sheehan, L. (2010). Determinants of tourism success for
DMOs and destinations: An empirical examination of stakeholders’ perspectives. Tourism
Management, 31(5), 572–589. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.06.008.
Botsman, R. (2014). Sharing’s not just for start-ups. Harvard Business Review. Accessed May 5, 2016,
from https://hbr.org/2014/09/sharings-not-just-for-start-ups
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours: The rise of collaborative consumption.
New York: Harper Business.
Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism Management, 21,
97–116.
Chafkin, M. (2016). Airbnb opens up the world. Fast Company, (202), 76–95.
Civitas. (2014). U.S. tourism district law study. https://esto.ustravel.org/sites/default/files/
ESTO14_Destination_Marketing_Funding_TUESDAY_8.26.pdf
Croft, A. (2015). Airbnb remains a symbol of Barcelona’s growing unease with tourism. http://
skift.com/2015/08/26/airbnb-remains-symbol-of-barcelonas-growing-unease-with-tourism/
Day, J., Cai, L., & Murphy, L. (2011). Increasing destination competitiveness: Destination brands
and their benefits for destination team members. Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality
Research, 4(2), 1–13.
DMAI. (2014). Destination Next: A strategic road map for the next generation of global destina-
tion marketing. http://www.destinationmarketing.org/sites/destinationmarketing.org/files/
DestinationNEXT%20Report%20Phase%201%20July%2022%202014%5B2%5D.pdf
DMAI. (2015). DMO organizational and financial profile. http://www.destinationmarketing.org/
2015-dmo-organizational-financial-profile-study
Dredge, D. (2016). Are DMOs on the path to redundancy? Tourism Recreation Research.
doi:10.1080/02508281.2016.1195959.
Dredge, D., & Gyimóthy, S. (2015). The collaborative economy and tourism: Critical perspectives,
questionable claims and silenced voices. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(3), 286–302.
doi:10.1080/02508281.2015.1086076.
Dredge, D., & Jamal, T. (2013). Mobilities on the Gold Coast, Australia: Implications for
destination governance and sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(4),
557–579. doi:10.1080/09669582.2013.776064.
Farrell, B., & Twining-Ward, L. (2005). Seven steps towards sustainability: Tourism in the context
of new knowledge. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(2), 109–122.
Collaborative Economy and Destination Marketing Organisations: A Systems. . . 201

Gonzalo, F. (2013). The destination marketing organization model in tourism is broken. https://
skift.com/2013/07/24/the-destination-marketing-organization-model-in-tourism-is-broken/
Griswold, A. (2015). Why Airbnb desperately wants to pay hotel taxes. http://www.slate.com/articles/
business/moneybox/2015/02/airbnb_hotel_taxes_why_does_the_sharing_economy_startup_want_
to_pay_them.2.html
Hu, Y., & Ritchie, J. (1993). Measuring destination attractiveness: A contextual approach. Journal
of Travel Research, 32, 25–34.
Jordan, G. (2015). Airbnb not just a worry, but “tectonic shift”. http://www.hotelnewsnow.com/
mobile/articles.aspx?articleid¼16545
Kotler, P., Bowen, J., & Makens, J. (2015). Marketing for hospitality and tourism (6th ed.).
Boston: Pearson.
Lane, J., & Woodworth, R. (2016). The sharing economy checks in: An analysis of Airbnb in the
United States: Implications on traditional hotel development and market performance going
forward. http://cbrepkfcprod.blob.core.windows.net/downloads/store/12Samples/An_Analy
sis_of_Airbnb_in_the_United_States.pdf
McCarthy, E. J. (1960). Basic marketing: A managerial approach. Homewood Illinois: Richard
D. Irwin.
Mill, R., & Morrison, A. (2009). The tourism system (6th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Mojic, J. (2012). Creating value chain model and shaping authentic tourism product: The case of
South Serbia. Tourism and Hospitality Management, 18(2), 195–211.
Morrison, A. (2013). Marketing and managing tourism destinations. New York: Routledge.
NDivo, R., & Cantoni, L. (2015). Economic empowerment of communities through tourism: A
pro-poor tourism value chain approach. Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Research: An
International Journal of Akdeniz Tourism Faculty, 3(3), 116–134.
O’Neill, S. (2015). Airbnb’s threat to hotels may be structural, going beyond tax fight. Tnooz.
Retrieved from Tnooz website: http://www.tnooz.com/article/airbnbs-threat-to-hotels-may-
be-structural-going-beyond-tax-fight/
Oates, G. (2016). Interview: San Francisco tourism CEO on getting in bed with Airbnb. https://
skift.com/2016/02/09/interview-san-francisco-tourism-ceo-on-getting-in-bed-with-airbnb/
Pike, S. (2004). Destination marketing organizations. Oxford: Elsevier.
Pike, S., & Page, S. J. (2014). Destination marketing organizations and destination marketing: A
narrative analysis of the literature. Tourism Management, 41, 202–227. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.
2013.09.009.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and companies.
New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance.
New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. E., & Millar, V. E. (1985). How information gives you competitive advantage. Harvard
Business Review, 63(4), 149–160.
Sanders, S. (2015). Santa Monica cracks down on Airbnb, bans “vacation rentals” under a month.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/05/13/406587575/santa-monica-cracks-down-
on-airbnb-bans-vacation-rentals-under-a-month
Shankman, S. (2013). The haves and have nots of U.S. State tourism budgets. https://skift.com/
2013/07/17/most-state-tourism-boards-get-peanut-budgets-in-comparison-to-the-top-ten/
Shankman, S. (2014). How destinations turn locals into their best brand ambassadors. http://skift.
com/2014/08/29/how-destinations-turn-locals-into-their-best-brand-ambassadors/
Shankman, S. (2015). Interview: Miami Tourism CEO on the significance of partnerships. http://
skift.com/2015/03/31/interview-miami-tourism-ceo-on-the-significance-of-partnerships/#1
Song, H., Liu, J., & Chen, G. (2013). Tourism value chain governance: Review and prospects.
Journal of Travel Research, 52(1), 15–28. doi:10.1177/0047287512457264.
Staff. (2015). Traditional suppliers and upstarts enter frenemy territory. Travel Weekly. http://www.
travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Hotel-News/Traditional-suppliers-and-upstarts-enter-frenemy-ter
ritory/?cid¼eltrdb
202 J. Day

There’s Nothing Like Australia—Campaign Strategy. (2012, June 5). http://www.tourism.austra

lia.com/media/8242-3284.aspx
Thompson, T. (2012). 3 reasons why the DMO will not survive. http://travel2dot0.com/ideas/3-
reasons-why-the-dmo-will-not-survive/
Up with Greek Tourism. Retrieved Date 10 Oct 2015 from http://www.upgreektourism.gr/
Volgger, M., & Pechlaner, H. (2014). Requirements for destination management organizations in
destination governance: Understanding DMO success. Tourism Management, 41, 64–75.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2013.09.001.
Volgger, M., & Pechlaner, H. (2015). Governing networks in tourism: What have we achieved,
what is still to be done and learned? Tourism Review, 70(4), 298–312. doi:10.1108/tr-04-2015-
0013.
Working Within the Collaborative Tourist
Economy: The Complex Crafting of Work
and Meaning

Jane Widtfeldt Meged and Mathilde Dissing Christensen

Abstract This chapter explores from a critical perspective how workers in the
collaborative tourism economy craft meaning and identity in work and discusses
transformations on the established labour market induced by the collaborative
economy. It does so through the perspectives of guides working with Copenhagen
Free Walking Tours, a platform offering guided tours and hosts offering short-term
rentals on the platform Airbnb. Both guides and hosts practice job crafting. How-
ever, guides and hosts navigate the collaborative economy in different ways. Both
markets require hosting qualities drawing on personal competencies when deliver-
ing hosting–on-demand. Guides can be characterised as social lifestyle entrepre-
neurs as they experience guiding as a lifestyle with high social and cultural returns.
To the contrary, the Airbnb hosts interviewed can be perceived as micro-
entrepreneurs practising pseudo-sharing, and manoeuvring in micro-competitive
platform capitalism.

Keywords Airbnb • Copenhagen Free Walking Tours • Informal economy • Job-

crafting • Collaborative economies

1 Introduction

The collaborative economy may be examined from a range of interrelated perspec-

tives such as (1) an ideological perspective tapping into sustainability, shared
communities and non-profit (e.g. Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Gansky, 2012); (2) an
economic perspective presenting new hyper flexible business models eliciting

J.W. Meged (*)

Department of People and Technology, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark
e-mail: [email protected]
M.D. Christensen
Department of People and Technology, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark
Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 203

D. Dredge, S. Gyimóthy (eds.), Collaborative Economy and Tourism,
Tourism on the Verge, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-51799-5_12
204 J.W. Meged and M.D. Christensen

hidden resources at extremely low cost facilitated by technological development

(Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Gansky, 2012; World Economic Report, 2014); or (3) a
critical perspective—albeit a hitherto less widely applied perspective—addressing
the impact of the collaborative economy on, for example, working life and on the
welfare system, particularly in developed countries (Nielsen, 2015; Skytte, 2014a,
2014b; We-Economy, 2015).
Taking the third perspective above as a point of departure, this chapter explores
how the meaning of work and identity are crafted by workers in the collaborative
tourism economy. The chapter discusses the transformations on the labour market
induced by the collaborative economy, and how workers in the collaborative
tourism economy position themselves vis-
a-vis the established labour market in a
welfare state like Denmark. The collaborative economy envisions a new economic
model based on sustainability and sharing, where the glue and tradable value are
trust and social capital (Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Germann Molz, 2014a, 2014b;
Rifkin, 2014). Rifkin (2014) argues that, in the wake of a third industrial revolution,
the economy will be based on abundance instead of scarcity as the Internet of
Things (IoT) will lead to extreme productivity at ‘near zero’ marginal cost, thus
producing the next item for ‘almost free’. To some extent one can argue that this is
already happening in education with MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses),
publishing, communication, entertainment and in areas of tourism. The proponents
of the collaborative economy see former workers as prosumers and micro-
entrepreneurs engaging in “a distributed, collaborative, open, transparent, peer-to-
peer economy as an expression of lateral power” (Rifkin, 2014, p. 241), carried
forward by visions of empathy and the common good.
These visions of the benefits of the collaborative economy are already being
put to the test as the emergence of the collaborative economy is sending
shockwaves through the established economy and labour market. Collaborative
enterprises are beginning to overtake old markets, e.g. in hospitality (Airbnb),
transport (Uber) and many other services in the tourism economy, disrupting the
markets and turning the tables on the “old workers” and professionals in the
tourism labour market.
In the Danish labour market, “pay and working conditions are typically laid
down by collective agreements concluded between trade unions and employers’
organisations. This system of labour market regulation is referred to as ‘the Danish
Model’ ” (Ministry of Employment, 2015). This labour model was constructed
during the twentieth century, and is based on strong labour market organisations
with a high membership rate, which currently is around 70% of workers (Ministry
of Employment, 2015; Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2015). The third party in the
employment equation is the state, which by and large leaves the social partners
alone to agree on conditions through collective bargaining, but it also ensures
universal welfare for all citizens by applying substantial redistribution through
healthcare, a free education system and social security. Furthermore, the state
supports an active labour market policy by offering guidance, a job or education
to all unemployed persons (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2015). The result is a
generous welfare model, where organised workers are guaranteed a minimum wage
Working Within the Collaborative Tourist Economy: The Complex Crafting of. . . 205

well above that of many other countries, which, as of November 2015, amounted to
14.82 euros per hour for an unskilled worker (HK, 2015). Unemployment benefits
are also provided at a relatively high level—up to 90% for the lowest paid workers.
Furthermore, workers receive other important rights and benefits such as sick pay,
six weeks annual holiday and more than a year parental leave.
The model is also referred to as ‘flexicurity’, as it ensures extensive worker
protection while also taking changing production and market conditions into
account (Madsen, 2002; Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2015). This flexibility mani-
fests itself in a high level of job mobility, as employers can easily hire and fire
workers to adjust to the market—indeed, about 25% of Danish private sector
workers change jobs each year (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2015)—but security
for the workers when needed. The system builds on mutual trust and responsibility,
where public expenditure constitutes as much as 58.2% (2010) of GDP, and
simultaneously ranks Denmark amongst the countries with lowest inequality in
the world (OECD, 2015).
However, critical voices claim that collaborative economies present a threat to
the current organisation of labour within the Danish society. The Danish think tank
We-Economy hosted the Fair Share—dilemmas in a digital job market seminar in
March 2015, which was well attended by the industry, unions, the press and other
interested parties. At the seminar, critics draw attention to the notion of ‘Platform
Capitalism’ (Olma, 2014), which views many collaborative enterprises as a ‘gig
economy’ of subcontracting. Along these lines, the leftist newspaper Information
reported after the seminar:
. . . the [collaborative] services are accused of undermining hard-fought for working rights
and further spur a new class of casual labourers, roustabouts or ‘self-employed’ free-lancers
without rights—the so-called precariat. Instead of being micro-entrepreneurs a new group
of micro-earners has been created (Kjærgaard, 2015, own translation).

While terms like sharing or collaborative economy may denote acts of friendship
and participation, a kind of supplementary part-time job that is half-work, half-
social, it is already a global billion dollar business, and many people have made it a
way of living, executing small jobs in a gig economy. This has given rise to critical
voices in Denmark as well as internationally, reflecting a growing ambivalence
against the unintended impact of collaborative economies (Allen, 2015; Mosendz,
2015; Nezik, 2015; Olma, 2014; Quijones & Street, 2015; We-Economy, 2015).
Another observation from the seminar was the traditional workers unions’
unpreparedness to handle this type of work and workers, which they might consider
constitute a fundamental threat to the old structures and ideas of job markets, but
that also pose opportunities of new ways of organising old as well as new members.
While working in the collaborative economy may be a detriment for workers who
crave stability, it may offer flexibility and opportunities for others (The Economist,
2015). We will therefore examine how workers within the collaborative tourist
economies negotiate stability, flexibility and opportunity. Which tasks are being
crafted working within the collaborative tourist economies? How is meaning
206 J.W. Meged and M.D. Christensen

created within their working life, and do workers share concerns for the precarious
nature of their work, and if so, how are these concerns navigated?

2 New Workers and Lifestyle Entrepreneurs in Tourism

Tourism is an important generator of jobs (Ladkin, 2011), but as part of an economy

that is heavily involved in globalisation and restructuration, employment in tourism
tends to adjust through flexibilisation strategies, such as numerical flexibility,
externalisation, wage flexibility, temporal flexibility and functional flexibility
(Buchholz et al., 2009). Many types of tourism workers have always been flexible
labourers, such as guides (Meged, 2017), workers in the cruise-ship industry
(Weaver, 2005) and hotel employees (Adler & Adler, 2004), with heavy stratifica-
tion running along the lines of ethnicity, gender and class. However, more than just
turning into a flexible labour market, tourism is also a hub for new workers or
lifestyle entrepreneurs (Meged, 2017; Veijola, 2009a). This development is
characterised by the notion that in tourism “a new emphasis on human and physical
capital in the forms of communication and affective labour is prominent: a bodily
mode of work that produces social networks, forms of community, biopower”
(Veijola, 2009a, p. 114).
To understand how these new tourism workers actually shape their work, we
turn to the theory of job crafting, which captures “the active changes employees
make to their own job designs, in ways that can bring about numerous positive
outcomes, including engagement, job satisfaction, resilience and thriving” (Berg,
Dutton, & Wrzesniewski, 2007, front page). Job crafting practices fall into three
categories: the first involves changing the job’s task boundaries in number or form,
the second involves changing cognitive task boundaries, which is how workers alter
their view of their work, and the third involves changing the relational boundaries to
other actors. Workers job crafting depends on the objective features of their job
design, as well as on their motivational orientation; whether they perceive their
work as a job where their focus is on financial rewards; as a career, (where focus is on
advancement); or as a calling (where focus is on the enjoyment of carrying out
socially useful work). Motivation may also be either intrinsic, i.e. doing the work for
its own sake, or extrinsic, i.e. doing the work for a reason apart from the work itself,
where the former enhances job crafting more than the latter (Berg et al., 2007).
In a recent study, Meged (2017) shows how certified guides are ardent job
crafters, who typically act as guides to pursue their passion for people, arts and
history. They perceive themselves as natural born guides and by engaging in
lifelong learning, networking and creativity, they craft new job opportunities and
thereby see themselves as self-employed lifestyle entrepreneurs rather than as
causal labourers, although they are effectively hired as such by employers. Guides
often take on large amounts of unpaid work, sometimes below market rates, as they
may be in fierce competition with colleagues, who are also competitors, and can
suffer a great sense of isolation. Garsten (2008) argues from a critical perspective
Working Within the Collaborative Tourist Economy: The Complex Crafting of. . . 207

that what is labelled as “freedom of choice”, and the use of positive buzzwords like
“flexibility”, ‘lifelong learning and “entrepreneurship”, may in fact just be a spin to
cover a not-all-that-voluntary adaptation to strong market forces. In reality, adap-
tation is individualised and internalised, leaving the workers in an isolated,
fragmented and highly competitive state in their working life.
In this chapter, we explore how workers or lifestyle entrepreneurs in the collab-
orative tourism economy perceive their role and how they craft their work, but also,
critically, we look at the implicit and explicit cost-benefits of working in an
economy operating in the informal sector (Guttentag, 2015, p. 9). We consider
two case studies of two different business models in the collaborative tourism
economy, namely the global company Airbnb and the small locally run Copenha-
gen Free Walking Tours, in order to observe the differences and similarities of
working within the two businesses. The first company in our case study, Airbnb, is
truly global and market-mediatized, while the other, Copenhagen Free Walking
Tours, is small, local and self-governed, although it is also market-mediatized. Our
analysis utilizes a number of research tools, including netnography, a literature
survey, participant observations and interviews with agents working with the
respective companies, namely four guides (Guide X, Y, Z and V) from Copenhagen
Free Walking Tours and two hosts (Host K and M) from Airbnb.

3 Working with Copenhagen Free Walking Tours

Copenhagen Free Walking Tours (CFWT) was started in 2012 in the city of
Copenhagen, Denmark, by a couple of guides. The previous year they had worked
with the ‘worldwide’ company of free guided tours Sandemans New Europe, which
had started to offer tours Copenhagen in 2011. Much of the early CFWT model is
derived from the co-founders experience with Sandemans, so it is worthwhile to
first give some background information on Sandemans. Sandemans was originally
set up in Germany in 2004 and offered free guided tours of Berlin, which quickly
became popular and helped them expand to other regions and cities. It now operates
in 18 cities in Europe, the Middle East and US, and operates an ethos of peer-to-
peer guiding, mainly attracting young tourists (Sandemans New Europe, 2010). The
concept is a tips-alone based income for the guides who, in return, have to pay 1–2
euros per tourist to the company (guide Z and V). Sandemans works as a franchise,
with local offices and management personnel. In its first year of operating in
Denmark, the Danish branch did not pay off well enough, and the company
suddenly decided to close down activities in Copenhagen in November 2012
(Guide Z). However, as the tourists continued arriving for daily tours, a couple of
the guides decided to continue to offer tours but through their own company, and
hence, Copenhagen Free Walking Tours (CFWT) was born. In its first year of
operation, CFWT offered one daily tour, which attracted around 50–70 tourists in
the high season, and the tours proved so successful that within 3 years CFWT had
grown exponentially. By August 2015 CFWT were offering four daily tours with
208 J.W. Meged and M.D. Christensen

three different itineraries, guiding an average of 400–500 tourists daily, and even
more on special occasions. However, demand is seasonal, and in low season, they
offer only one daily tour; indeed typically in February they may have as few as
20–25 tourists on weekdays, and around 50–60 on weekends. In addition, they have
started to offer organised pub crawls. Initially CFWT engaged eight guides, five of
whom worked for CFWT as their primary occupation and only source of income;
now, just 3 years later, the company engage 15 guides, of which ten of them earn
their living entirely by guiding for CFWT. The takings from conducting a tour
involving an average of 30 tourists is, according to the interviewees, around
120–200 euros. The tacit norm amongst the guides is that 6.5 euros per tourist is
a fair and just tip, although tourists can give any amount they feel is justified.
CFWT is run collectively by all the guides, and an early collective decision was
taken to lower the return fee to the company to 65 cents per tourist, to fund the
company spending money on marketing, such as brochures, umbrellas, etc. As
everybody pool their competences and labour, this permits the company running
costs to be close to zero. Guide X explicates the working ethos of CWFT in the
frame of collective ownership:
It is the mindset of Christiania [a small self-governed free town in the centre of Copenha-
gen], that people create the society, that people themselves create community, like you do
on Facebook, If you are not there, Facebook doesn’t exist. Nobody from outside is doing it
for you, it is the members who create it (Guide X).

During the interviews with the guides, it became clear that all of them put
substantial work into the company without additional economic reward, other
than the tips they got from the tours. The guides hold monthly meetings, where
decisions regarding CFWT are taken in plenary. All the company marketing is
planned and carried out by themselves, and each guide has responsibility for a
district, in which they regularly distribute flyers. The partner of one guide has
cleverly set up their homepage to operate in connection with Facebook and
TripAdvisor, where they advertise themselves as the highest rated walking tour in
Copenhagen, with a rating of five out of five. Email details are collected from all the
tour participants prior to departure with the promise that they will receive only one
mail from CFWT. In turn, the guides then take the lead and the same day send a
personal email to all the tour participants containing a link to the CFWT Facebook
profile, where the photos from the tour groups are posted each day. Additionally,
the tour participants are asked to leave a rating on TripAdvisor. This work can be
rather cumbersome for the lead guide, as the number of tourists on one tour may be
as high as 150–200. One of the co-founders of CFWT explained how they thought
of it as a hobby, even the ones who earned their living from being a guide. The
co-founder herself had permanent employment elsewhere but had initially contin-
ued to work with CFWT, mostly as a key administrative person, responsible for
statistics and forecasts and for working out duty rosters etc., besides also guiding
some tours.
Clearly the guides subscribe to a collaborative entrepreneurial ethos, where
everybody contributes with time and skills without calculating the exact time or
Working Within the Collaborative Tourist Economy: The Complex Crafting of. . . 209

cost, and this ethos is also adopted and managed by the constant influx of new-
comers. The co-founder interviewed had just left CFWT to focus on a regular job,
and explained that since its start in 2012, there was only one of the original guides
now left in CFWT, rationalising “Guides are drifters, here today gone tomorrow!”
Guide Y described how she had worked as volunteer in a non-profit Copenhagen
café, when she first joined CFWT to do tours in German, and she essentially saw
CFWT as part and parcel of the environment of volunteers. This points to a
generation of super flexible collaborative lifestyle entrepreneurs, who are highly
prone to job craft in almost-zero-cost platform enterprises. They cognitively iden-
tify themselves with the company, which may be why they are willing to assume a
number of unpaid tasks, even if they are only briefly associated with the company.
To explain this commitment, we also have to look at the social fabric of
CFWT:
This group (CFWT) also works as a group of friends, who has a lot of fun together. And
there have been the pub crawls in the evenings, so in that way it was a fun crowd to be part
of. The tourists also sense that, and they get dragged into it, and it is a kind of an everyday
party (Guide Y).

Crafting meaningful connections to colleagues and tourists are important

(Meged, 2017), and in CFWT the boundaries between work and privacy have
seemingly been erased, as guides are happy to spend their free time with colleagues
and even with tourists after a tour, e.g. going to new places or for drinks. Further-
more, CFWT is an integral part of a wider young international community of
unskilled tourism workers in Copenhagen, who regularly socialise at a central
Kayak bar (Guide Y). The CFWT homepage reveals that only three out of twelve
guides are Danish born, indicating a global, flexible workforce working on platform
enterprises, which to a large degree eludes national regulations and functions as an
informal economy. This is exemplified by the mixed attitudes of the guides in
regard to taxation and the formal Danish welfare system. The co-founder clarified
that all the guides received an explanation about how to fill out their tax forms,
i.e. for when income consists of tips. “It is box 12 in the tax form” (Guide Z);
however, it is left to the discretion of the individual guide on how much to fill
in. Another guide had discussed the issue with colleagues, and was left with the
impression that some would not pay tax at all, while others would, but only to the
extent they felt they could afford it, hence considering it as a kind of a private moral
issue (guide Y). This demonstrates that CFWT is part of an informal economy.
Guide Y explained that she knew that some of her foreign colleagues, who worried
about their residence permit, but even though she had permanent residency, she also
worried about working in the informal economy:
As I do not save for my pension, I do not earn paid holiday, I do not build up hours to my
unemployment insurance fund, which is important should I need unemployment benefit one
day, because the hours I work are not registered anywhere, and I toiled. You are a kind of
out of society, you don’t exist actually, you are out of the system. What if I can’t work
anymore, then I have no safety net, because I did not exist in the labour market. But also in
the future, if I have to look for other jobs, then I am not present anywhere. It is a little scary.
It could have some immeasurable consequences later, which I am not even able to predict
210 J.W. Meged and M.D. Christensen

now. A couple of months are ok, but to continue year in and year out would make me feel
insecure in all senses (Guide X).

CFWT offers a full lifestyle package for its’ guides/workers, but it appears to be
connected to a fleeting lifestyle, where people operate in fluid networks loosely
attached from the formal structures of society. For some people, this temporary
lifestyle may be attractive, as they constantly add to their cultural and social
networks and economic capital, but for other people looking for stability it may
provoke anxiety. The isolation from society, which Garsten (2008) claims this
competitive system fosters, is not between people, as seen with the certified guides
(Meged, 2017), but rather an isolation from the formal structures in society.
However, in both instances problems are individualised and internalised, as the
guides rarely discuss these issues amongst themselves (Guide Y).

4 Working with Airbnb

One of the most successful and well-known collaborative platforms is the accom-
modation platform Airbnb. Airbnb is, unlike the non-monetised alternative
Couchsurfing (Bialski, 2013; Germann Molz, 2007, 2013, 2014a, 2014b) still
relatively unexplored, albeit there are a few studies in the literature (Guttentag,
2015; Ikkala & Lampinen, 2015). In Airbnb’s business model, users create a
profile and either search for a place to rent (acting as a guest) or offer a place for
others to rent (acting as a host). Hosts may offer single or multiple rooms,
sometimes with the host present in the residence, as well as entire apartments.
Accommodation is offered at various standards, accommodating both the budget
conscious backpacker as well as the more comfortable traveller. The host deter-
mines the price of their accommodation and chooses to accept or reject requests
by potential guests.
Airbnb was launched in 2008 and has since grown at an astonishing pace to now
operate in more than 190 countries and over 34,000 cities (Guttentag, 2015;
New York State Attorney General, 2014). The platform offers more than 1.4 million
listings and is valued at US$25.5 billion, with expected revenue of US$900 million
in 2015 (Demos, 2015). Airbnb provides the platform that facilitates contact
between hosts and guests and offers a safe marketplace through providing three
key elements: secure payments, a US$1 million host guarantee and by creating trust
through verified profiles, message functions and a review system. Furthermore,
support is offered through professional photographs and descriptions of the accom-
modation, an algorithm guides the host towards prices in comparable accommoda-
tion and a 24/7 customer service is offered. Airbnb charges a 3% service fee from
the host and a service fee ranging from 6 to 12% from the guest.
Whereas peer-to-peer platforms are creating new structures in the working life of
guides, Airbnb also allows users who rarely perceive themselves to be professional
hosts to play a role in the tourism industry. Although a user’s motivation to host
Working Within the Collaborative Tourist Economy: The Complex Crafting of. . . 211

through Airbnb may not necessarily solely be economic (Ikkala & Lampinen,
2015), at times of recession and economic distress income through hospitality
exchanges may represent a quite significant income (Primack, 2012). Host M,
whose main work is as a waiter, explains how, at times, Airbnb has formed the
main, or large part, of her income:
At that point I was only working part time and sort of needed the money. And it was a
really good way to earn some money, rather than risk eviction. It [the apartment] is a
Co-op. So I have bills to pay. It was an extra income, a quite important income! Later on,
I was out of a job, and I wouldn’t go on welfare. At that time it was more or less my
(only) income (Host M)

To Host M, the profit from Airbnb presents a significant income, and an essential
back-up income in case of economic misfortune, in which case she vacates her
apartment and stays with relatives to rent her residence out, which prevents her from
having to vacate the residence permanently. Another host (K) channels her income
from Airbnb towards an indirect retirement fund, and sees it as an important
economic supplement, as she tries to pay off her mortgage before pension, and to
help her “butter the bread”.
Both interviewees had economic reward as their sole motivation, why they
primarily adjust their engagement and availability as hosts on an economic cost/
benefit rational basis. Nevertheless, these forms of economic transactions exist, to a
large extent, within the informal economy, and even though Airbnb is not illegal in
Denmark, various regulations have caused many rentals to be classed as not fully
legal, as seen in multiple settings (Guttentag, 2015; New York Attorney General,
2014). Furthermore, much of the resulting income is not taxed, either because it is
not reported or because the hosts make sure not to make more profit than allowed
within the local tax frames.1 One host we interviewed was aware that Airbnb rental
is not permitted in her housing cooperative, and also admitted that she doesn’t keep
a keen eye on whether the income exceeds the permitted tax frame. The other host,
though, was very aware and careful to stay within the tax-free frame. However, both
starkly refused to pay taxes from their income, as they agreed that if you pay taxes,
it is simply not worth it. Like the guides in CFWT, the Airbnb hosts perceive
themselves as micro-entrepreneurs; however, with a clearly pronounced economic
scope. An interesting discussion between the interviewees revealed what they
called a “generational” issue. One host, who was nearing her pension refused to
depend on such an unstable income, which could be prohibited or made less
lucrative in the future, as is happening now in several cities (Quijones & Street,
2015). The other host, who is young and unattached and was neither a member of a
union nor an unemployment fund, had no problem of thinking of Airbnb as her
safety net in times of trouble, thus indicating her greater reliance on the informal
sector than on the welfare state.

1
In Denmark, a certain amount of income from rent is exempt from tax. The precise amount is
determined in accordance with the real estate value.
212 J.W. Meged and M.D. Christensen

Although Airbnb is clearly a company of significant scale and value, their

commitment to their hosts, who hold the assets that produce the value, is quite
detached. As a collaborative platform, it does not act as an employer, and has none
of the responsibilities and obligations that employers in hospitality firms normally
have, particularly if the parties have signed a collective agreement. On the contrary,
as micro-entrepreneurs, hosts are more likely to compete against fellow hosts rather
that to unite efforts towards the “employer”. Our hosts explained how they consider
competition from other local Airbnb hosts when adjusting prices, in order to make
sure their price is low enough to attract requests. When Host M had Airbnb as her
only income, she lowered her prices further to attract guests. During this period, she
let her apartment roughly 15 days a month in order to make ends meet. Conversely,
our interviewed hosts raise prices or demand longer stays, when they are in less
need of money.
Hosting on Airbnb does not simply mean offering a place to stay. Rather, a long
list of tasks is tied into the (unofficial) job of being an Airbnb host. Most obvious
perhaps is preparing the home for the guest, e.g. by cleaning and laundering, as well
as cleaning and washing after the guest’s departure. Hosts often spend time making
sure that breakfast is available (if offered). They also organise how to welcome the
guest and hand over the key. Both hosts M and K valued meeting their guests
personally upon arrival, mainly in order to instruct them about the particularities.
This could sometimes involve hours of waiting. However, before an appointment is
even made, hosts spend considerable time communicating with potential guests.
They try to determine which guests to accept and they answer questions about the
destination, often making use of their social capital, when their personal knowledge
doesn’t suffice. Furthermore, hosts usually remain within reach of current guests
during the stay, often through text messages. As such, hosting requires cleaning and
accommodation-related tasks, but also other skills, such as the capability to func-
tion as a local informant.
Such demands add to the workload and, in particular, one host felt the tasks
surrounding hosting, and particularly demands for availability, quite stressful at
times:
Finally it was just like it took over, and I do think you use an incredible amount of time to
write and . . .. I have gotten a boyfriend lately, and I felt like I was on the phone all the time.
He asked: What are you doing? Oh—it is Airbnb I replied almost every time (Host K).

Both hosts agreed that these pressures are further amplified, if one has limited
digital and/or cultural capital. Familiarity with technologies, languages and the
cultural aspects of one’s town makes the tasks of Airbnb less troublesome. Airbnb’s
review system was seen as particularly important by the hosts, which is not
surprising as a review system translates helpful and fast responses into reputation
capital (Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Germann Molz, 2014a). Well aware that the
social capital displayed through the review has a very real economic value, hosts
feel a pressure to be available all the time.
You can see it on your rating system, on your profile, how often you answer. Whether you
have a 100% answering score, and how fast you answer. So it means something. So usually
Working Within the Collaborative Tourist Economy: The Complex Crafting of. . . 213

I answer as fast as possible and always within 24 hours, because otherwise it is taken as a
no. That adds to your profile (Host M).

These shared practices of monitoring and reporting are an essential part of

creating trust between guests and hosts and is considered a basic condition of
hosting, “Everybody reviews everybody. They review you and you review them”
(Host M). Even though it can been argued that trust and reputation systems are a
vital part of the collaborative economy, the disciplining effect of collaborative
surveillance practised in the echo chamber of mutual reviews (Germann Molz,
2014a) adds strongly to the complexity of crafting work with Airbnb. In fact, while
most of the work undertaken in connection with hosting through Airbnb is done out
of necessity, and with the scope of economic reward, it may also be done to secure
the hosts’ homes, as is the case with our interviewed hosts. Other job crafting
practices enhancing personal satisfaction were ranked at a minimum.

5 Discussion and Conclusion

As a common feature between working with CFWT and Airbnb, both guides and
hosts practice job crafting. While Aibnb hosts first and foremost mobilise physical
idling assets, namely their homes, the guides only mobilise intangible idling assets,
namely their personal services, and we see that guides and hosts approach and
navigate the collaborative economy in different ways. Both markets require hosting
qualities, overlapping private and work spheres and drawing on personal compe-
tencies, as well as flexibility and preparedness, when delivering hosting–on-
demand. The scope to which this is felt as a burden or a reward appears closely
connected to motivational factors, and to the assets being offered. The guides
working with CFWT convey strong intrinsic motivation, doing the work for its
own sake. Their approach can be characterised as a social lifestyle entrepreneur-
ship. Although they experience quite significant economic rewards, they also
consider guiding a lifestyle that offers them social and cultural returns, which is a
general trait found in the guide profession (Carnicelli-Filho, 2013; Guerrier &
Adib, 2003, 2004; Meged, 2017; Veijola, 2009a). Veijola (2009a) and Valkonen
(2010) argue that the job of the guide is a source of happiness and passion, to the
point where guides sacrifice their private lives and stay fit to “turn themselves into
fountains of hospitality and affective connectivity and their lives into incessant vital
labour” (Veijola, 2009a, p. 120).
The CFWT guides practise extensive job crafting, incorporating numerous tasks
into their working life. They develop a perspective towards their professional life
that appeals to them; they integrate sociality with colleagues and tourists, as well as
participating in a collaborative management of the company. For them, the collab-
orative approach allows them to live a flexible lifestyle, with the opportunity to
travel for large parts of the year as well as “being their own boss”, also utilizing
214 J.W. Meged and M.D. Christensen

social, cultural and digital competencies through the collective management

structure.
Although other motivational factors exist (Ikkala & Lampinen, 2015), the
Airbnb hosts interviewed demonstrated a solely economic and thus extrinsic moti-
vation, which made them less prone to job craft, perhaps as it is a tangible resource
that is the key asset offered. However, even though they clearly execute numerous
tasks to deliver hospitality-on-demand, they do not perceive themselves as working
in hosting, but rather as performing necessary and time consuming supplementary
tasks in order to rent their homes to tourists in short-term rentals. They consider
hosting “a lot of work”, sometimes to such an extent that it even triggers stress.
Although often meeting their guests, they have no desire for sociality and perceive
them solely as customers. This hospitality-on-demand is guided by the Airbnb
review function serving as a surveillance system, as well as their wishes to keep
an eye on their property. Such hosts can fruitfully be understood as micro-
entrepreneurs practising pseudo-sharing (Belk, 2014). As such, it can be argued
that they appropriate a traditional neoliberal approach, and rather than participating
in collaborative exchanges with peers, they manoeuvre in micro-competitive plat-
form capitalism (Dredge & Gyimóthy, 2015).
Collaborative platform enterprises in tourism demonstrate remarkable strengths
in mobilizing seemingly limitless labour and competences from new workers in
high yielding businesses at close to zero costs. The organisational boundaries of
collaborative enterprises are porous and ever changing with low entry and exit
barriers for individuals. The benefit for workers appears to be precisely this
flexibility, as well as the accumulation of economic, digital and network capital,
and for lifestyle entrepreneurs, like guides, also cultural and social capital. All these
forms of capitals are increasingly vital, and partaking in platform economies may
well equip and harness workers for the future of a global labour market with a
rapidly decreasing number of fixed positions (Buchholz et al., 2009; Rifkin, 2014).
It could be argued that a precarious, footloose workforce is no stranger to the
tourism industry. “Tourism-related jobs, occupations and employment are often
precarious, low-paid and labour-intensive; they appropriate embodied presences
and personalities and especially feminine skills and female bodies” (Veijola, 2009b,
p. 84), and combined with a strong seasonality, the industry has long attracted and
absorbed a large uneducated workforce and groups with limited attachment to the
organized labour market, such as women, youngsters and immigrants. Furthermore
families with limited funds have often been known to rent part of their accommo-
dation to visiting tourists. In recent times, the precarious working conditions in
various transnational tourist livelihoods have been addressed e.g. by Meged (2017)
covering licenced guides, Weaver’s (2005) research on cruise ships workers and
Adler and Adler’s (2004) work on hotel workers. As such, there are many parallels
between the working conditions within the collaborative economies and the tradi-
tional tourism industry. However, it can also be argued, that tourism industries have
started the process of professionalizing only relatively recently, and there has been
an upsurge in tourism educations on all levels (Airey, Dredge, & Gross, 2015).
Professionals, like the certified local guides, in Copenhagen have been organised in
Working Within the Collaborative Tourist Economy: The Complex Crafting of. . . 215

a union since 1978 and have long participated in collective bargaining with central
employers with regard to minimum wages and basic working conditions, even
though they still work as casual labourers (Meged, 2017). The collaborative econ-
omy puts this development under pressure, causing increased economic competi-
tion, and in fact the employers of the Copenhagen certified guides are beginning to
opt out of the collective agreements as this chapter is being written, as they want to
be able to hire unskilled low cost guides. As such, differences between the
established but sometimes precarious industry and the collaborative part of tourism
appear to be anchored between the notions of professionalism, formal organisation
and also authenticity, which we address below.
Tourism has previously been perceived as an extraordinary practice, but tradi-
tionally restricted to tourist enclaves separated from the world of the everyday.
However tourist landscapes are created within and coexist with existing landscapes
of the everyday (Edensor, 2001, 2007; Larsen, 2008) Accommodation in private
homes, and other collaborative practices, can be seen as a counterpart to main-
stream tourism, either as a more sustainable mode of travel or symbolically an anti-
hotel, representing local identity and connection to the surrounding community. It
can be seen as an attempt to enter what Goffman calls the “authentic” back-stage
rather than settle with the front-stage performed for the tourist gaze (Bruner, 2005;
MacCannell, 1973; Urry & Larsen, 2011).
Collaborative tourist economies seem to attach themselves to strong notions of
‘authenticity’ and both older and current trends with tourists increasingly demand-
ing ‘authentic and special’ experiences (Bruner, 2005; MacCannell, 1973). Follow-
ing such trends, Airbnb promotes itself with strong notions of authenticity and
belonging through their slogan ‘belong anywhere’ (Airbnb, 2015). Furthermore, at
a seminar at the Danish Architecture Centre in November 2015, an Airbnb repre-
sentative argued that not only did the use of Airbnb help disperse tourists through-
out the city, it had a strong effect on the types of experiences encountered. Hosts
play a vital role conveying, facilitating or maybe even co-creating local authentic
experiences. This adds to the expectations and tasks of hosts, and support-services,
such as meals (Ferenstein, 2014), transfers and so on are being encouraged by
Airbnb (Quora, 2016).
As such, the new actors within the collaborative tourism industries are
pressuring established business models by offering service and products tapping
into such trends. However, little is known about how such processes affect local
urban areas, where the tourism is increasingly dispersed and where tourism over-
laps with the spaces and everyday activities of the people there. How authenticity is
staged and perceived by guests as well as new collaborative actors and existing
businesses should be ground for further research, as this could very likely have
strong implications for service and professionalism in the industry, where a pro-
fessional approach might be perceived as being opposed to the notions of
authenticity.
Several of the guides from CFWT and one of the Airbnb hosts appear to
subscribe to the values of a global informal economy detached from the welfare
state, regardless of whether they had grown up within a welfare system. Short-term
216 J.W. Meged and M.D. Christensen

rentals or free guided tours offer them the opportunity for income, and in the case of
Host M security and flexibility in an unpredictable job market. However, as both
guides and hosts navigate the informal economies, they have little of the security
and rights that are part of being employed within the formal labour market. This
raises concern for some of our interviewees with regard to the fleeting and vulner-
able character of their livelihood, which instils a sense of being isolated and left
outside the formal structures of the society. They themselves stress that their
participation in the collaborative economies must be either limited in time span
or they must remain non-dependent on the income generated here, or even must
utilize both strategies as a detachment.
Collaborative platform enterprises have grown so rapidly that legislation and
labour organisations are lagging behind, leaving a void for the isnformal part of the
collaborative economies to flourish (Klarskov, 2015a, 2015b; Thorup, 2015). At a
national level, this is acknowledged by the Danish Minister for Business and
Growth, Troels Lund Poulsen, who demonstrates a positive attitude towards
utilising the collaborative economy as a lever for future growth (see also Dalberg
Research, 2014). However, he also states, “We must not make a parallel society,
where the sharing economy is exempted from tax and consumer protection does not
apply” (Klarskov, 2015b, own translation), and it is his ambition for “Denmark to
be one of the best countries in the EU to integrate sharing economies within the
ordinary economy” (Klarskov, 2015a, own translation). How and in what way this
integration into the ordinary economy should be applied to the rights of workers in
the collaborative economy seems less clear, and political attention is mainly
focussed on business and particularly taxation issues. However, in the US, where
the sharing economy first took off, there are now signs of workers in the collabo-
rative economy taking collective action. The Seattle based Uber drivers have
organized the App-based Drivers Association to gain bargaining power and estab-
lish some basic rights (Rogers, 2016). This movement may diffuse to other sectors
and countries.
The present study questions to what extent this situation is perceived as a
problem by workers within the collaborative economy. Although some inter-
viewees voiced concern about working outside formal structures, others did not
seem to perceive their working and living conditions as problematic. At the same
time, these workers demonstrated a viewpoint that tax should be paid at a minimum
or outright avoided. Platform economies, whether “pseudo-collaborative” like
Airbnb or fully collaborative like CFWT, create contrasts between flexibility,
opportunities and security, which are balanced by the individual. However, such
platforms thrive in informal global IT-based structures with subversive traits, which
also challenge formal national and regional power regimes, which is why the drive
for legislative and organisational changes might just emanate from the latter.
Even though some established actors note that the collaborative platforms are
competing in a lower price range of the market, and therefore do not affect
competition equally, the collaborative economy disrupts and challenges established
ways of working and doing business (Guttentag, 2015). However, there is a further
need to understand how the growing number of new workers and micro/lifestyle
Working Within the Collaborative Tourist Economy: The Complex Crafting of. . . 217

entrepreneurs in the collaborative tourism economies understand and craft their

work, as they shape and change the industry at a micro level. It is also important
to further understand the role the collaborative economy plays within the lives
and economies of individual workers, not least in times of economic recession
(Botsman, 2012; Primack, 2012), and their consequent protests if or when local
governments take legal actions against these new structures, such as in
New York (Mosendz, 2015), Barcelona (Quijones & Street, 2015) and Berlin
(Nezik, 2015).
Clearly, the collaborative economy affects different contexts differently. In the
United States, Airbnb hosts defend the platform in public media, arguing that it
functions as a social security safety net (Allen, 2015; Primack, 2012). They argue
that in times of unemployment or during health issues, Airbnb has kept them from
eviction and economic disaster. In contrast, the Danish welfare state offers a
(relatively) fine-masked security net; however, the findings of this study indicates
that in particular the younger generation are subscribing to the collaborative safety
net rather than registering in the systems of the traditional welfare state. The
question is how and to what degree this will circumvent the future order of the
economy and ways of organising labour, as it potentially may level out national
differences, both between individual welfare programs and between welfare states
and the rest of world.

References

Adler, P., & Adler, P. (2004). Paradise laborers: Hotel work in the global economy. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Airbnb. (2015). Belong anywhere—Airbnb’s new mark and identity. http://blog.airbnb.com/
belong-anywhere/
Airey, D., Dredge, D., & Gross, M. J. (2015). Tourism, hospitality and events education in an age
of change. In D. Dredge, D. Airey, & M. J. Gross (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of tourism
and hospitality education. London: Routledge. Accessed May 12, 2016.
Allen, J. (2015). Activists gather at NYC’s City Hall to protest Airbnb. USA Today. Accessed
January 20, 2016, from http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/2015/01/20/22062641/
Belk, R. (2014). Sharing versus pseudo-sharing in Web 2.0. Anthropologist, 18(1), 7–23.
Berg, J. M., Dutton, J. E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2007) What is job crafting and why does it matter?
Center for Positive Organizational Scholarship, Michigan Ross School of Business. Accessed
April 15, 2011, from http://positiveorgs.bus.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads
Bialski, P. (2013, August). Not on my couch. The limitations of sharing in the age of collaborative
travel and hospitality networks. Paper presented at the RC21 conference, Berlin, Germany.
Botsman, R. (2012). The currency of the new economy is trust. Tedtalk. Accessed September
9, 2015, from http://www.ted.com/talks/rachel_botsman_the_currency_of_the_new_econ
omy_is_trust?language¼en
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours; The rise of collaborative consumption.
New York: Harper Collins.
Bruner, E. M. (2005). Culture on tour: Ethnographies of travel. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
218 J.W. Meged and M.D. Christensen

Buchholz, S., Jabsen, A., Kurz, K., Marold, J., Schmelzer, P., & Blossfeld, H. P. (2009).
Globalization, economic restructuring and increasing uncertainty in old age. A theoretical
framework. Walqing. Work and Life Quality in New and Growing Jobs. EU- Framework 7.
Carnicelli-Filho, S. (2013). The emotional life of adventure guides. Annals of Tourism Research,
43, 192–209. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2013.05.003.
Copenhagen Free Walking Tours. (2015). Accessed September 1, 2015, from http://www.
copenhagenfreewalkingtours.dk
Dalberg Research. (2014, September). Analyse af barrierer og udviklingsmuligheder for peer-to-
peer virksomheder i Danmark. Erhvervsstyrelsen.
Demos, T. (2015, June 26). Airbnb raises $1.5 Billion in one of the largest private placements. The
Wall Street Journal. Accessed January 20, 2016.
Dredge, D., & Gyimóthy, S. (2015). Collaborative economy and tourism: Critical perspectives,
questionable claims and silenced voices. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(3), 286–302.
Edensor, T. (2001). Performing tourism, staging tourism (Re)producing tourist space and practice.
Tourist studies, 1(1), 59–81.
Edensor, T. (2007). Mundane mobilities, performances and spaces of tourism. Social and Cultural
Geography, 8(2), 199–215.
Ferenstein, G. (2014). Airbnbs stealth home dining experiment is going to be awesome.
Venturebeat. Accessed April 21, 2016, from http://venturebeat.com/2014/06/10/airbnbs-
stealth-home-dining-experiment-is-going-to-be-awesome/
Gansky, L. (2012). The Mesh. Why the future of business is sharing. New York: Penguin.
Garsten, C. (2008). Workplace vagabonds: Career and community in changing worlds go work.
Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Germann Molz, J. (2007). Cosmopolitans on the couch: Mobilising hospitality and the Internet. In
J. Germann Molz & S. Gibson (Eds.), Mobilising hospitality: The ethics of social relations in a
mobile world. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Germann Molz, J. (2013). Social networking technologies and the moral economy of alternative
tourism: The case of couchsurfing.org. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 210–230. doi:10.1016/
j.annals.2013.08.001.
Germann Molz, J. (2014a). Collaborative surveillance and technologies of trust: Online reputation
systems in the ‘new’ sharing economy. In A. Jansson & M. Christensen (Eds.), Media,
surveillance and identity: A social perspective (pp. 127–144). New York: Peter Lang.
Germann Molz, J. (2014b). Toward a network hospitality. First Monday, 19(3). doi:10.5210/fm.
v19i3.4824.
Guerrier, Y., & Adib, A. (2003). Work at leisure and leisure at work: A study of the emotional
labour of tour reps. Human Relations, 56(11), 1399–1417. doi:10.1177/00187267035611006.
Guerrier, Y., & Adib, A. (2004). Gendered identities in the work of overseas tour reps. Gender,
Work and Organization, 11(3), 334–350. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2004.00234.x.
Guttentag, D. (2015). Airbnb: Disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism accom-
modation sector. Current Issues in Tourism, 18(12), 1192–1217. doi:10.1080/13683500.2013.
827159.
HK. (2015, December 2). Alt du skal vide om løn, hvis du arbejder i butik. http://www.hk.dk/
raadogstoette/emner/loen/handel/loen-butik
Ikkala, T., & Lampinen, A. (2015). Monetizing network hospitality: Hospitality and sociability in
the context of Airbnb. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on
computer supported cooperative work and social computing.
Kjærgaard, K. B. (2015). Deleøkonomi eller Platformskapitalisme? Dansk Design Center.
Accessed May 18, 2016, from http://ddc.dk/2015/03/deleokonomi-eller-platformskapitalisme/
Klarskov, K. (2015a, August 14). Minister vil skabe bedre vilkår for deleøkonomi. Politiken,
Økonomi. Accessed May 12, 2016, from http://politiken.dk/oekonomi/virksomheder/
ECE2795839/minister-vil-skabe-bedre-vilkaar-for-deleoekonomi/
Working Within the Collaborative Tourist Economy: The Complex Crafting of. . . 219

Klarskov, K. (2015b, August 15). Troels Lund vil gøre mere for deleøkonomi—selv om han ikke selv
bruger det. Politiken, Økonomi. Accessed May 18, 2016, from http://politiken.dk/oekonomi/
dkoekonomi/ECE2796089/troels-lund-vil-goere-mere-for-deleoekonomi-selv-om-han-ikke-selv-
bruger-det/
Ladkin, A. (2011). Exploring tourism labor. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 1135–1155.
doi:10.1016/j.annals.2011.03.010.
Larsen, J. (2008). De-exoticizing tourist travel: Everyday life and sociality on the move. Leisure
Studies, 27(1), 21–34. doi:10.1080/02614360701198030.
MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist settings.
American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 589–603. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2776259.
Madsen, P. K (2002, May 16). The Danish model of flexicurity–A paradise with some snakes.
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Condition. Interaction
between labour Market and Social Protection. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi¼10.1.1.199.4437&rep¼rep1&type¼pdf
Meged, J. W. (2017). Guides crafting meaning in a flexible working life. Scandinavian Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism, Special Issue.
Ministry of Employment. (2015). The Danish labour market. Accessed December 2, 2015, from
http://uk.bm.dk/en/Themes/The%20Danish%20Labour%20Market.aspx
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2015). The Official website of Denmark. Accessed December
2, 2015, from http://denmark.dk/en/society/welfare/flexicurity/
Mosendz, P. (2015, January 21). Face-Off: NYC Lawmakers Grill Airbnb on Illegal Hotels.
Newsweek. Accessed September 9, 2015, from http://www.newsweek.com/face-nyc-law
makers-grill-airbnb-illegal-hotels-301060
New York Attorney General. (2014). Airbnb in the city. Accessed May 12, 2016, from http://www.
ag.ny.gov/pdfs/Airbnb%20report.pdf
Nezik, A. K. (2015, April 10). Tourism troubles: Berlin cracks down on vacation rentals. Spiegel
Online International. Accessed September 9, 2015, from http://www.spiegel.de/international/
business/berlin-cracks-down-on-estimated-18-000-vacation-rentals-a-1026881.html
Nielsen, J. S. (2015, January 28). Nu raser kampen om deleøkonomien. Information. Accessed May
18, 2016, from https://www.information.dk/udland/2015/01/raser-kampen-deleoekonomien
OECD. (2015). Inequality. Accessed September 9, 2015, from http://www.oecd.org/social/inequal
ity.htm
Olma, S. (2014). Never mind the sharing economy: Here’s platform capitalism. Accessed
September 9, 2015, from http://networkcultures.org/mycreativity/2014/10/16/never-mind-
the-sharing-economy-heres-platform-capitalism/
Primack, D (2012, August 16). How AirBNB helps users save their homes. Fortune. Accessed
May 12, 2016, from http://fortune.com/2015/08/30/disney-infinity-critics/
Quijones, D., & Street, W. (2015, August 11). Barcelona just declared War on Airbnb. Business
Insider. Accessed September 7, 2015, from http://www.businessinsider.com/barcelona-just-
declared-war-on-airbnb-2015-8?IR¼T
Quora. (2016). Do Airbnb hosts ever provide transportation to their guests. Accessed April
21, 2016, from https://www.quora.com/Do-Airbnb-hosts-ever-provide-transportation-to-their-
guests
Rifkin, J. (2014). The zero marginal cost society: The internet of things, the collaborative
commons and the eclipse of capitalism. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Rogers, W. (2016). Sharing economy workers seek their fair share. Left Labor Reporter. Retrieved
from https://leftlaborreporter.wordpress.com/2016/01/28/sharing-economy-workers-seek-their-
fair-share/. Accessed April 21, 2016.
Sandemans New Europe. (2010). Accessed September 2, 2015, from https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v¼WHfbYDUxnG4
Sandemans New Europe. (2015). Accessed May 18, 2015, from http://www.neweuropetours.eu/
Skytte, C. (2014a, May 30). Fra forbruger til medbruger. Information. Accessed May 12, 2016,
from https://www.information.dk/debat/2014/05/forbruger-medbruger
220 J.W. Meged and M.D. Christensen

Skytte, C. (2014b). Skal vi dele? Er deleøkonomien en del af løsningen eller en del af problemet?
Danmark: Skytsengel.
The Economist. (2015, January 3). The future of work. There’s an app for that. The Economist.
Accessed May 12, 2016, from http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21637355-freelance-
workers-available-moments-notice-will-reshape-nature-companies-and
Thorup, M. (2015). Freelance- og deleøkonomi udfordrer solidariteten. Information. Accessed
March 18, 2015.
Urry, J., & Larsen, J. (2011). The tourist gaze 3.0. London: Sage.
Valkonen, J. (2010). Acting in nature: Service events and agency in wilderness guiding. Tourist
Studies, 9(2), 164–180. doi:10.1177/1468797609360595.
Veijola, S. (2009a). Gender as work in the tourism industry. Tourist Studies, 9(2), 109–126. doi:10.
1177/1468797609360601.
Veijola, S. (2009b). Introduction: Tourism as work. Tourist Studies, 9(2), 83–87. doi:10.1177/
1468797609360748.
Weaver, A. (2005). Interactive service work and performative metaphors: The case of the cruise
industry. Tourist Studies, 5(1), 5–27. doi:10.1177/1468797605062713.
We-Economy. (2015). Er der solidaritet i deleøkonomien? Accessed May 12, 2015, from http://
we-economy.net/?p¼852
World Economic Report. (2014). Towards the circular economy: Accelerating the scale-up across
global supply chains Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey and Company. World
Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland. Accessed May 18, 2015, from http://www3.
weforum.org/docs/WEF_ENV_TowardsCircularEconomy_Report_2014.pdf
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters
of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201.
 Part III
Encounters and Communities
Embedding Social Values in Tourism
Management: Community Currencies
as Laboratories of Social Entrepreneurship?

Rita Cannas

Abstract This chapter explores the Sardex mutual credit system, a social enter-
prise operating in Sardinia (Italy) as part of the collaborative economy. Sardex is a
Local Exchange Trading System (LETS) that was used by local small businesses in
response to the economic crisis. The chapter discusses the strategic relevance and
contribution of the Sardex network. Based on a qualitative approach, including
observation and in-depth interviews with Sardex entrepreneurs, the chapter inves-
tigates how exchange mechanisms work among the 195 firms making up the
hospitality sector within the network. Beyond tangible and quantitative outcomes,
this study shows the intangible role of social values such as trust, reciprocity and
mutual support as a means to foster collaborative practices within Sardex firms. The
study enriches the debate about the disruptive and/or constructive impacts of the
collaborative economy by highlighting the collective social and economic role
played by the Sardex network as an innovative driver for local development and
community empowerment.

Keywords Social entrepreneurship • Collaborative economy • Tourism

consumption • Social values • Community currency • Sardex

1 Introduction: Theoretical Framework and Research

Design

The global financial and economic crises from 2008 onwards have generated new
business models based on sharing practices that have been presented as alternatives
to unsustainable consumption and industrial forms of capitalism (Heinrichs, 2013;
Ranchordás, 2015). These new business models within the collaborative economy
are capable of reshaping and disrupting existing tourism businesses in, for example,
the transport and accommodation sectors (e.g. Uber and Airbnb). Botsman and
Rogers (2010, 2011) elaborate the idea of collaborative consumption as a new

R. Cannas (*)
Dipartimento di Scienze economiche e aziendali, Universit
a degli Studi di Cagliari,
Baffi Building, Viale Sant’Ignazio 74, 09123 Cagliari, Sardegna, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 223

D. Dredge, S. Gyimóthy (eds.), Collaborative Economy and Tourism,
Tourism on the Verge, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-51799-5_13
224 R. Cannas

form of peer-to-peer sharing. The concept involves individuals exchanging,

redistributing, renting, sharing, and donating information, goods, and talent, either
by organizing themselves or via commercial organization on social media platforms.
The analysis presented in this chapter is inspired by the collaborative economy
description presented by Dredge and Gyimóthy (2015). In this description, the
exchange of gifts, goods, skills or time among people takes place in different
forms across the world. For instance, the mechanism of barter has existed for
millennia (Mauss, 1922/1990; Humphrey, 1985; Derrida, 1992), but the global
development and widespread uptake of Internet technologies has increased the
range of sharing activities, and has permeated the lives of people even though
they are not necessarily in geographical proximity. As a result, a broad meaning of
the collaborative economy has been adopted in this chapter. According to Dredge
and Gyimóthy (2015), the collaborative economy is not only a matter of consump-
tion and production, but it also allows connections between people facilitating
better use of skills and goods through Internet technologies (Stokes, Clarence, &
Rinne, 2014).
The intention of this chapter is to move beyond the “good” collaborative
economy [e.g., altruistic visions of the sharing economy expressed by Botsman
and Rogers (2010, 2011)] and the “bad” collaborative economy (critiqued by some
community activists and critical scholars as leading to inequality, marginalisation
and unfair labour practices). In particular, the chapter asks whether social technol-
ogies can unlock hidden wealth by using a community (collaborative) currency.
What is the social role of collaborative currencies in reshaping asymmetric market
relations towards more symmetric ones? Are there any social, economic and
environmental impacts of the sharing economy that emerge from a network of
small enterprises cooperating together?
The empirical case for exploring such questions is Sardex, a community cur-
rency system which involves 2900 small firms located in Sardinia (Italy), and which
is rapidly growing in terms of both members and revenue. The study investigates
the role of social values embedded in the Sardex system as a means of fostering
collaborative economy and innovative processes, and it pays particular attention to
Sardex tourism firms.
The theoretical framework for this study is located in the nexus between the
collaborative economy and social entrepreneurship. Particular attention is given to
the conceptualisation of social entrepreneurship and how the collaborative econ-
omy intersects with this growing sector. Three main research questions form the
focus of this study: (1) Is Sardex a social enterprise within the collaborative
economy? (2) To what extent are the mechanisms of the Sardex network modifying
firms’ missions and strategies to incorporate collaborative economy practices while
also bringing in and shaping entrepreneurs’ social values? (3) In which ways is the
Sardex network a sharing community based on collective and individual interests
aimed at achieving sustainable goals? By examining these questions, the chapter
adds theoretical and practical insights into the collaborative economy in general,
and community currencies as a form of collaborative economy, in particular.
Embedding Social Values in Tourism Management: Community Currencies as. . . 225

The research design is based on a literature review of both collaborative econ-

omy and social entrepreneurship in order to better contextualise the topic under
investigation. It adopts a qualitative exploratory approach to uncover the overlap
between the collaborative economy and social entrepreneurship. The field research
involved observations and in-depth interviews with representatives of the Sardex
company and tourism entrepreneurs who are members of the community currency
circuit. The field research was conducted in Sardinia, Italy, during the period
March–October 2015.
The chapter is broken into the following sections: First, a conceptual framework
of social entrepreneurship is developed. Second, the case study of Sardex is
introduced (the story; the creation of its social value; social innovation in entrepre-
neurship; creation of new markets/consumers; management implications; etc.) and
a focus on Sardex’ tourism entrepreneurs is adopted. In the conclusions, some key
observations about the contribution of Sardex within the collaborative economy are
highlighted.

2 The Multifaceted Meanings of Social Entrepreneurship

The topic of social entrepreneurship is becoming increasingly popular among

researchers, as Granados, Hlupic, Coakes, and Mohamed (2011) show in their
bibliometric analysis. Although literature on social entrepreneurship reveals several
attempts at definition (Dacin et al., 2010), there is wide acknowledgement that it is a
contested concept and no unifying theoretical framework has yet emerged (Choi &
Majumdar, 2014). In fact, as Dees (1998) points out, the concept of social entre-
preneurship means different things to different people, but the same claim can be
applied to the concept of entrepreneurship, which also lacks a unifying paradigm
(Shane & Venkataraman, 2000).
Within their attempt to conceptualise social entrepreneurship, Mair and Martı́
(2006) observe that one view is that social entrepreneurship involves not-for profit
initiatives in search of alternative funding strategies or management schemes, such
as those described by Austin, Stevenson, and Wei-Skillern (2003) and Boschee
(1998). A second perspective links social entrepreneurship to socially responsible
practices in commercial businesses engaged in cross-sector partnerships (e.g.,
Sagawa & Segal, 2000; Waddock, 1988). A third perspective, which is adopted in
this chapter, considers social entrepreneurship as a tool to alleviate social problems
and catalyse social transformation (Alvord, Brown, & Letts, 2004).
Mair and Martı́ define social entrepreneurship as:
. . .a process of creating value by combining resources in new ways (. . .) these resource
combination are intended primarily to explore and exploit opportunities to create social
values by stimulating social change or meeting social needs (. . .) and when viewed as a
process, social entrepreneurship involves the offering of the services and products but can
also refer to the creation of new organizations (Mair & Martı́, 2006: 37).
226 R. Cannas

While Mair and Martı́ (2006) stress the creation of social value and action for
social change/or addressing social needs, Peredo and McLean (2006: 64) state that:
. . .social entrepreneurship is exercised where some person or group: (1) aim(s) at creating
social value, either exclusively or at least in some prominent way; (2) show(s) a capacity to
recognize and take advantage of opportunities to create that value (“envision”); (3) employ
(s) innovation, ranging from outright invention to adapting someone else’s novelty, in
creating and/or distributing social value; (4) is/are willing to accept an above-average
degree of risk in creating and disseminating social value; and (5) is/are unusually resource-
ful in being relatively undaunted by scarce assets in pursuing their social venture.

Important in Peredo and McLean’s (2006) definition, is that it incorporates both

individual entrepreneurs/groups and teams of entrepreneurs, while earlier defini-
tions framed the social entrepreneur as an individual (e.g. Waddock & Post, 1995).
Social entrepreneurs are innovators just as other entrepreneurs. According to the
studies of their personality traits summarized in Peredo and McLean (2006), they
are also characterized by special traits (Drayton, 2002) including special leadership
skills (Thompson, Alvy, & Lees, 2000); a passion to realise their vision (Bornstein,
1998); and a “strong ethical fiber” (Drayton, 2002: 124). Social entrepreneurs place
attention upon the creation/sharing of social value that contributes to the welfare or
well-being of a given community (Peredo & Mclean, 2006), and they seek to
achieve this using either profit or not-for-profit goals.
Short, Moss, and Lumpkin (2009) move from the process of value creation in
entrepreneurship to extend the concept into the realm of social entrepreneurship.
They emphasize cross-disciplinary scholarly collaboration and underline the need
to establish clear boundaries in the social entrepreneurship framework through a
variety of established theoretical lenses. For instance, a conceptual improvement in
social entrepreneurship “may provide a context for integrating strategy and entre-
preneurship research by enhancing understanding of how organizations simulta-
neously create social value and achieve competitive advantages” (Short et al., 2009:
173).
Dacin et al. (2010) suggest the adaptation of theories from existing entrepre-
neurship literature. In their view, efforts to delineate social entrepreneurship as a
separate theoretical domain can downplay the potential benefits of drawing from a
wider entrepreneurship context. By gathering 37 definitions of social entrepreneur-
ship, Dacin et al. (2010) identify four key factors related to social entrepreneurship:
the characteristics of individual social entrepreneurs, their operating sector, the
process and resources used by social entrepreneurs, and the primary mission and
outcomes associated with the social entrepreneur. Regarding the characteristics of
the social entrepreneurs, in the view of these authors, there are many commonalities
with entrepreneurship, including types of actors, e.g. conventional agents [who act
under new ideas in order to create successful innovation (Schumpeter, 1934)];
institutional agents [who mobilise resources to influence or change institutional
rules, to support or destroy an existing institution or establish a new one (DiMaggio
and Powell, cited in Dacin et al., 2010)]; and cultural agents [who identify oppor-
tunities or act in order to create social, cultural or economic value (DiMaggio, 1982;
Wilson & Stokes, 2004)].
Embedding Social Values in Tourism Management: Community Currencies as. . . 227

In Dacin et al.’s (2010) perspective, significant traits that can help to understand
the distinctive nature of social entrepreneurs are mission, and processes and
resources. Briefly, the mission is based on the generation of social values in
which the primary goal consists of social change/well-being of shareholders or
stakeholders; processes and resources are seen in terms of relational, cultural and
institutional resources and associated tension, such as resistance to change. Rela-
tional resources, such as social capital and social skills, are the key elements of an
actor’s social network and these include abilities in social interactions, established
networks of formal and informal societal ties, and access to communication chan-
nels and networks (Robinson, 2006). An interesting specification that can provide
useful insights for the Sardex analysis is observation by Dacin et al. (2010) that:
. . .(t)he existence of a social network in and of itself might be considered valuable, but the
real value is created by the unique relationship formed between the social entrepreneur and
the network members. It is the interaction between internal organizational human resources
and culture and the elements of the social network that generates an advantageous resource
(p. 49).

Short et al. (2009) point out that in Peredo and Chrisman’s (2006) work there is
an interesting attempt to bring new meanings into the social entrepreneurship
domain by extending research to develop the concept of community-based enter-
prise (CBE). In fact, Peredo and Chrisman (2006) combine traits from commercial
entrepreneurship, anthropology and social network theory to explain how
community-based enterprises may differ from the standard definition of entrepre-
neurship. They define community-based enterprise as “a community acting corpo-
rately as both entrepreneur and enterprise in pursuit of the common good. CBE is
therefore a result of a process in which the community acts entrepreneurially to
create and operate a new enterprise embedded in its existing social structure”
(Peredo and Chrisman, 2006: 310). These authors focus on local communities
that create collective business ventures in which their own members act together
corporately and collaboratively to achieve social, economic, environmental and
cultural goals simultaneously. They see CBE as an unconventional form of entre-
preneurship based on collective and individual interests where considerable social
capital exists as a result of community culture and a process of social collective
learning. This community concept refers to an aggregation of people that share a
geographical location, common culture, and relational characteristics. Although
Peredo and Chrisman’s (2006) work is mainly focussed on the benefits of CBE
in less developed countries, the concept of community as enterprise may be
implemented in developed economies. It is here that the concept of CBE and
collaborative economy come together.
In addition to this brief overview on social entrepreneurship, there is a mean-
ingful point to take into consideration. Social entrepreneurship is more likely to
occur where there are significant socioeconomic, cultural or environmental prob-
lems that traditional markets have not been interested in addressing because there is
a lack of institutional support and/or individual interest in facilitating the develop-
ment of social ventures (Dacin et al., 2010; Peredo & Chrisman, 2006).
228 R. Cannas

In this chapter, social entrepreneurship is mainly inspired by the views of

Dacin et al. (2010). The case of the Sardex network (the company in itself, and
the network’s membership) is analyzed through the characteristics of individual
entrepreneurs; the process and resources used by them with particular emphasis on
relational resources; and their mission and outcomes. Drawing from from Mair and
Martı́’s (2006) conceptualization, it suggests the need to explore the social value
creation process within the Sardex network, and its contribution in terms of social
change. Although many authors stress the need for attention to the role of innova-
tion as a distinctive factor in entrepreneurship as well as in social entrepreneurship,
this research echoes Peredo and McLean’s (2006) suggestion to show the ways by
which innovation is employed in the case of Sardex.

3 The Case of Sardex.Net

Sardex is a system of mutual credit that mainly supports B2B interactions between
firms on the island of Sardinia (Dini & Kioupkiolis, 2014; Littera, Sartori, Dini, &
Antoniadis, 2014; Melis, Giudici, & Dettori, 2013). The system, is based on the
LETS model (see Table 1), and uses a complementary electronic currency named
sardex, where each sardex corresponds to one euro. Sardex is also the name of the
community currency company that was established in 2009 by a group of young
friends who grew up in a small village of Sardinia, Serramanna, where the company
set up its headquarters. In 2007, and while living and working in Germany, two of
the five core team of members of Sardex were favourably intrigued by the precursor
of LETS, the WIR model, an independent complementary currency managed by the
WIR Bank in Switzerland (see Table 1). They were attracted by the larger geo-
graphical reach and turnover of the WIR relative to other community currencies
examples that they had examined (Dini & Kioupkiolis, 2014). Their idea was to
implement a similar system in Sardinia as a tool to alleviate the impacts of the
financial crises that, in a few years, had deeply affected the Sardinian economy.
Before the case is outlined, it is essential to mention the main socio-economic
features of Sardinia. Sardinia has a land area of 24,000 km2, and a coastline of
almost 1900 km. It has a resident population of 1.6 million, resulting a low
population density of 68 inhabitants per km2. Politically and administratively,
Sardinia is one of the 20 regions of Italy, but it has its own culture, identity,
traditions and language that are substantially different from other regions (Cannas
& Giudici, 2015). Sardinia’s GDP (€17,700 per capita) is 30% less than the Italian
GDP (€26,500 per capita); the unemployment rate increased from 9.8% in 2008 to
18.6% in 2014 (CRENOS, 2015), and the youth unemployment rate is 54% whereas
the Italian rate is 40.5% (ISTAT, 2015) and the European Union rate is 20.4%
(Eurostat, 2015a). More critically perhaps, the issues threatening Sardinian social
capital and social sustainability include emigration of young people (11,000 left
Sardinia between 2009 and 2013 (CNA, 2015)), among them early leavers from
education and training: Sardinian indicator is 24.7% (CRENOS, 2015) while the
Table 1 Distinctions among types of community currencies
Origins Characteristics Source
WIR WIR was founded in 1934 by a small group of Swiss WIR operates like a bank. The unit of account of the Studer (1998)
entrepreneurs as a means to counteract the financial crisis WIR-franc is the Swiss franc: one WIR-franc equals the and Stodder
of the interwar period. WIR was initially named the value of one Swiss-franc (2009)
“Wirtschaftsring-Genossenschaft” (free economic circle WIR charges a 1% fee for each transactions
cooperative) until it changed its name to the WIR Bank in In WIR a member’s negative balance is a debt towards
1998. WIR aimed at reducing underutilised capacity the central credit clearing house (WIR Bank)
through a cashless barter system
Local Exchange LETS are community-orientated trading networks which LETS currencies have three distinctive features: (1) their Lee (1996),
Training System aim to develop and extend the exchange of goods and use is normally restricted to members of the local scheme; Pacione (1997),
(LETS) services within a group, re-localising the provision of (2) no interest is charged on debits, nor paid on credit; and Schraven
goods and services (3) the currency is created only through the exchange of (2000),
LETS was promoted by Michael Linton in the early goods or services, not issued by a central authority Schroeder,
1980s in Vancouver (Canada) as a response to the local In LETS a member’s negative balance is a debt towards Miyazaki, and
economic depression the community Fare (2011) and
Hundreds of LETS are spread around the world Aldridge and
Patterson
(2002)
Sardex.net Since 2009 Sardex is a LETS model located in Sardinia Sardex is modelled on the WIR but uses only an elec- Dini and
(Italy) aimed at pursuing economic and social goals. The tronic LETS-like system of credit and debt accounting for Kioupkiolis
members are around 2900 Sardinian SMEs. Sardex is any size transaction. Instead of charging a fee for trans- (2014), Melis
promoting new affiliated circuits in other eight regions of actions such as WIR, Sardex charges a yearly member- et al. (2013),
Italy ship fee that depends on the firm’s size Littera et al.
Sardex offers not only an internet platform for transac- (2014), and
Embedding Social Values in Tourism Management: Community Currencies as. . .

tion, but also a team of brokers available by phone, and Dini, van der
arrange periodic meetings with members. Frequent face- Graaf, and
to-face relationships is its own distinctive and successful Passani (2015)
modus operandi
229
230 R. Cannas

Italian percentage is 15% and 11.2% is the share in the European Union (Eurostat,
2015b). Although Sardinia is the second largest island in the Mediterranean, the
tourism industry lacks competitive products and effective branding strategies.
Tourism represents less than 9% of the Sardinian GDP, and the domestic seaside
market is still predominantly concentrated in coastal areas and in summertime.
Sardex is defined by Dini and Kioupkiolis (2014) as a company for-social-
benefit. As these authors explain, the model of a for-profit company was chosen
over a non-profit cooperative because the latter is perceived as “left-wing” in
Sardinia, and therefore risky in a region where politics is even more polarised
than in the rest of Italy. The founders felt that this could have hampered average
businesses in joining Sardex. The Sardex Ltd. bylaws dictate that all profit is to be
reinvested in the company.

3.1 Characteristics of Entrepreneurs

The Sardex founders thought that a complementary currency network could posi-
tively impact on the Sardinian economy. Their business idea was not only new in
Sardinia but also in the rest of Italy. The founders believed that something mean-
ingful, possibly in terms of a collective or community-like effort, had to be done.
The Sardex network is based on the social relations of the founders and their shared
vision; it is based in both kinship and childhood friendship, and they have worked
together on the business and in their political efforts. In this same spirit they
involved Sardex members. Among the founders, none had a background in eco-
nomics or computer science, nor did they have any training in finance: “the group of
arts students planned a new currency for their island. It seemed absurd: they had
little financial or IT experience, no MBAs and no investor, only the outline of an
idea”, says Posnett (2015) in the Financial Times. Looking back, the founders
believed that their lack of training helped them to be creative in developing their
business and in building their own knowledge. Only one of the four core members
had any previous experience in running a business, such as an advertising and
market consultancy (Littera et al., 2014). Therefore, the commitment to learning
was high and their attitude to learning remains a distinct trait in their modus
operandi.

3.2 Corporate Mission and Values

At the beginning of their activity, the Sardex’ founders had to face cultural barriers
to the business models represented by the LETS and WIR models (Blanc, 2011;
Collom, 2011; Schroeder et al., 2011; Williams, 1996) which are based on paying
for and receiving goods and services through a non-state currency system. It was
very difficult to break the wall of scepticism of local entrepreneurs, since trust is the
Embedding Social Values in Tourism Management: Community Currencies as. . . 231

backbone of the Sardex system. This critical issue has been acknowledged: “rather
than adopting the perspective of distant activists or outsiders that aim at social
change while never leaving their comfort zones, the whole team wanted to provide
a service through creating an employment opportunity for themselves and others”
(Littera et al., 2014: 4). Indeed they were determined to subvert the ancient spell
inherited from the time of Spanish rule that Sardinians are “few, crazy and
disunited” into a new motto: “many, smart and moving together”.
The Sardex corporate philosophy emerged clearly in the beginning of its start-up
phase where the social value footprint shaped the business’s creation. As the
founders point out “we studied so much and we saw that there were possibilities
to manage the credit system by the members’ behaviour based on values such as
reciprocity, mutual support, and human relationship, as the main push to creating
economic development”. Three years along, the Sardex team faced difficult obsta-
cles including the entrepreneurs’ own vision of what a network was: “they per-
ceived networks generally speaking as counterparts instead of part of each other.
They believed that the Sardex network should have instantaneously brought clients
without any effort, by just being in it”, said one founder.
Another critical issue they tackled regarded cooperative attitudes and the strength/
presence/absence of ties among entrepreneurs: “Sardinian people do not adopt col-
laborative working models, but we know that sharing attitudes pertain to small circles,
such as families, so that we decided to shape the Sardex network on a family based
model. Sardex is like a family that helps you [entrepreneurs] when you need help, and
we operate like parents who seek to bring their own kids together”. The founders
underline their attitude of being stubborn and resilient. They understood they have to
conquer entrepreneurs’ trust day-by-day, by spending time within the entrepreneurs’
working place at any time of the day. The topics of their conversations focused not
only on the mechanisms of the community currency and how the entrepreneurs might
interact with it, but also on entrepreneurs’ market strategies related to their own
business. The Sardex founders recognised that they needed time to identify the right
strategies to involve local entrepreneurs and build strong relationships with them,
which were, and still are, based on trust and human ties that often overcome the
boundaries of simple working connections. The model of Sardex as a cohesive family
network of small and medium enterprises confronted the credit crisis and the diffi-
culty of being insular entrepreneurs, transcended these issues, and became successful.
Sardex is also seen as a laboratory for innovation, a network that promotes
continuous improvements following the ability of social entrepreneurs to be
engaged in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning (Dees,
1998). The Sardex team organises an annual event named, Sardinian, “Mitzas”
(Springs for the change) which is much more than a simple 3-day workshop. By
adopting a talk‐ show formula, the Sardex team develops open dialogue among
academics, entrepreneurs, business consultants, and policy makers, aimed at engag-
ing discussions with different stakeholders and merging innovative ideas. Mitzas is
a well-known event that also represents a sort of network celebration for Sardex
members for sharing their pride and awareness about their achievements and future
activities.
232 R. Cannas

3.3 Resources and Process

As discussed above, Sardex is inspired by the WIR model, but uses only an
electronic (digital) LETS system of credit and debt for any transaction size. The
credit unit is not convertible into any other currency and it can only be spent and
acquired through economic participation in the network. Instead of charging a fee
for transactions, Sardex charges a yearly membership fee that depends on the firm’s
size (between €200 for small enterprises and €3000 for large companies). Opera-
tively speaking, the Sardex network is based on a digital platform. Since its
inception, the Internet has played a crucial role both in facilitating the exchange
of information and in providing the backbone of the circuit’s infrastructure. Sardex.
net is the online platform that mediates economic interactions and complements the
social face-to-face interactions, and enables the network to scale up to the whole
island. The network is also the means to support interactions between members who
do not know each other through other channels. By the network service provider,
Sardex delivers a wide range of services such as brokering, business networking
events, community management, online services, and helpdesk. As one founder
observed in the interview “Sardex offers for free the extension of its sales and
purchases unit to its members and this opportunity can change their entrepreneurial
organisational models... The small entrepreneur cannot bear the cost of
any marketing operator within its business, but thanks to Sardex this can be
possible”.
The circuit works along this simple mechanism: each firm has an account which
begins at zero, earning digital currency as it offers goods or services to others in the
network. Companies may go into debt but only up to a certain limit, determined by
what they can offer other participating firms. By using a centralised system the
Sardex administrators track member firms’ transactions, occasionally nudging the
network to ensure its stability: “we operate to rebalance the members’ accounts in
order to keep the circuit healthy and alive, as the stationary credits affect not only
the single entrepreneur, but also the whole community” says one founder. Often the
members are the main ambassadors of the circuit by bringing their own suppliers
into it and promoting the network’s development, because they really believe the
claim “you are the circuit”. The sentiment to which any individual feels part of the
whole community is quite diverse: “While buying in a shop, any customer who
shows their Sardex card to pay, immediately creates a bond with the seller, and then
they share information, and stories (. . .) Sardex is like a sharing world. The
entrepreneurs are now aware that only by practicing collaborative strategies can
they survive” say the founders.
The firm’s recruitment process for Sardex membership is mainly fostered by two
factors: (1) the marketing strategy of the Sardex team and (2) word-of-mouth
among entrepreneurs. The former adopt tools such as periodic meetings to gather
potential and actual members at the local level: “we understood we cannot only be a
virtual community provider based on Internet, but we needed face-to-face relations
by meeting with people in their own places” say the Sardex founders. The direct
Embedding Social Values in Tourism Management: Community Currencies as. . . 233

relations between the Sardex team and Sardex members is the backbone of the
Sardex.net’s success. The motto “in Sardex we trust” (Littera et al., 2014: 12)
illustrates members’ attitudes towards being the principle promoters of the circuit to
potential members through word of mouth.

3.4 From Goals to Outcomes

The founders set up the Sardex service provider, which is also a company and a
network of SMEs, to reach the following goals: to enable proximity-based and
trust-based relationship building; to foster economic empowerment in and of
Sardinia; to create a resilient community; and to define a more equitable envi-
ronment for trading (Littera et al., 2014). As Posnett (2015: 1) points out, “their
hope was that the project would give them a job in the place where they had
grown up. But six years later it has turned into a symbol of local action, spreading
to create a new network of thousands of businesses”. Until in 2010, hundreds of
Sardinian firms rejected the idea of joining the circuit, however, currently Sardex.
net includes around 2900 SMEs, which generated over €38 million in business
transactions in 2014. Sardex.net is also replicating similar systems in seven
regions of Italy, using local networks following the Sardex.net principles and
sharing the same software infrastructure and governance.
Sardex is not only a local/Italian phenomenon, but also a business model present
within other localities. Digipay4growth is a European project co-funded by the
European Commission (2014) that brings together Sardex and the Sardinian Gov-
ernmental Authority and other private and public bodies including Bristol in United
Kingdom and Catalan authorities in Spain. The project involves governments,
SMEs and consumers and expenditures are made through a digital payment system
that stimulates economic growth and job creation by increasing sales and access to
credits for SMEs.

4 Building Collaborative Entrepreneurship Within

the Sardex’s Tourism Firms

Currently there are 195 tourism firms listed in Sardex.net that generate around 15%
of Sardex’s transactions. Sardex’s tourism entrepreneurs are spread all over Sar-
dinia, with the highest concentration in the main Sardinian city, Cagliari. A panel of
ten tourism entrepreneurs who operate accommodation facilities (e.g., hotels and
bed and breakfast establishments), food and beverage outlets, cultural events, and
tour operator services were interviewed for this research (See Table 2). These
interviews explored the entrepreneurs’ characteristics, their values shared through
234 R. Cannas

Table 2 Sardex tourism Entrepreneurial activity N

firms per type of activity
Agritourism 13
B&B 12
Bar, gelateria, paninoteca 20
Restaurant 82
Hotel 51
Pizzeria 7
Residence 5
Pub 5
Total 195
Source: Sardex.net, Marketing & Communication Office,
November 2015

the circuit, the internal/external changes in businesses’ resources and processes that
occurred through their Sardex membership and their business outcomes.

4.1 Entrepreneurs’ Characteristics

The tourism entrepreneurs of see themselves as innovators, dreamers, and human

relations-oriented entrepreneurs. In fact, one of them said: “I am a dreamer, I like
realizing dreams. My business philosophy is to create development (. . .) What I
really like is creating innovative projects. I define myself as a man of relations”.
Another entrepreneur underlined his inclination to walk the unbeaten path: “I
approach any business in terms of continuous innovation, I seek to undertake
paths that are unusual. This is my philosophy”. Entrepreneurs enthusiastically
joined Sardex because they perceived the community network as an extension of
their own business, as well as of their relational sphere: “I have the sensation of
belonging to an amplified sharing network: if the circuits goes well and feels good,
then all of us feel well”, said one entrepreneur.
While interviewing Sardex entrepreneurs, an exploration was made of the
individual’s profile “before” and “after” joining the circuit. In other words, the
interview investigated the change occurring in entrepreneurs’ attitudes as a result of
their Sardex’s membership. Their answers were quite homogenous: they mirror
themselves in Sardex.net. In some cases, relationships that arose through the circuit
have directly impacted on their mindset by fostering new stimuli: “My business
group has grown up considerably. I graduated while working, and recently I became
student in business economics at the University of Cagliari. As I run many compa-
nies, and work with managers who are studying postgraduate courses, I need to
study too”, says one entrepreneur who runs accommodation facilities and restau-
rants employing 45 people in his group.
Embedding Social Values in Tourism Management: Community Currencies as. . . 235

Another interesting point regards the entrepreneurs’ attitudes to joining other

collaborative networks, such as World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms
(WWOOF) and Bartercard: one hotelier manager stated, “I cannot say that Sardex
changed my mind, but I found it absolutely coherent with my own philosophy”.

4.2 Sharing Values

Tourism entrepreneurs fully recognize the social value of Sardex.net. The commu-
nity currency was considered a community based on reciprocal help and character-
ized by friendly relationships: “When I have to go to bank I feel frustrated because
for bankers I am just a number not a person, and most of the time (I am) a nuisance;
on the contrary when I meet the Sardex team I feel comfortable as I meet friendly
people” observed one entrepreneur. The network is also seen as a co-working space
based on trust, honesty and loyalty values, and it is here that Sardex grounds its high
reputation.
There is a general agreement among the interviewees that Sardex membership is
driven to a large degree by economic and social reasons: “Sardex worked like an
oxygen tank amidst the asphyxiating financial crisis,” says a tourism entrepreneur.
Sardex membership was also a question of being dead or alive for such firms, but
thanks to Sardex they are still on the market. As one interviewee says, “I know
entrepreneurs who kept running restaurants just because they have been fished out
through Sardex”. As explained in the previous section, the Sardex philosophy is
based on supporting firms, and particularly those that experience difficulties (e.g.,
in cash shortage, decreases in sales, etc.).
Likewise, Sardex.net entrepreneurs adopt a philosophy of mutual help by
transacting within the firms’ circuit: every day, entrepreneurs organise meetings,
eat in restaurants, or they need accommodation for business reasons. Due to their
membership, they choose to purchase services in sardex within the Sardex network.
The lower costs rule is not the main reason which supports the Sardex’ transactions.
Sardex is not a “discount community currency”. Through the circuit, entrepreneurs
sell by the full price of goods/services they trade, as any other Sardex client/
supplier, but thanks to Sardex membership they gain extra money by increasing
clients, partners and turnover. More than this, Sardex membership incorporates
both economic and social benefits: “I choose Sardex restaurants, because I both
share relations and I help people like me to keep running their own businesses” says
one interviewee.
Participating in the Sardex network means to belong to a social community of
entrepreneurs who not only share similar problems, such as the banks’ refusal to
finance their efforts to improve or save their businesses, but also a communal sense
of pride. When Sardex gets visibility in national and international arenas, e.g., in
articles in the Financial Times (Posnett, 2015) or academic papers by the London
School of Economics (Dini & Kioupkiolis, 2014; Littera et al., 2014) and Yale
236 R. Cannas

University (Iosifidis, Charette, Littera, Tassiulas, & Christakis, 2015), each member
feels like they are taking part in a play on that same stage.

4.3 The Change in Resources, Processes and Outcomes

The Sardex community currency also activates an important process: each of the
2900 entrepreneurs exchange Sardinian products and services within the network.
In doing so, Sardinian entrepreneurs foster local businesses and reinforce the
regional economy. Within the Sardinian tourism sector one of the most critical
points is with regards to the lack of local/regional supply chains, for instance
between hoteliers and the food industry. Due to their Sardex membership, 195 tour-
ism firms embrace the same philosophy by establishing ties with other Sardinian
suppliers and customers, and partially reshaping their stakeholders’ portfolio: part
of their businesses is based on Sardex currency which implies that suppliers’ and
consumers’ choices are driven by community-based values.
The tourism entrepreneurs highlight that their business turnover has increased
thanks to Sardex, a fact also pointed out by Dini and Kioupkiolis (2014) who
estimated an average of þ10%. The reason suggested is because they acquired
new clients and new opportunities. One interviewee says “Thanks to Sardex I
increased customers, I get new distribution channels, and I pay workers in Sardex”;
another one says “Sardex gave me an extra arm, I carried out projects that I could
never accomplished such as the development of my product”. Due to the network’s
membership, tourism entrepreneurs who manage accommodation facilities
increased their domestic customers also during the low season. Although the
number of tourism firms is not so high (when this study started in March, there
were 150 firms in Sardex and seven months later there were 195), opportunities to
increase tourists may be derived through the other Italian networks. Put simply,
new, similar networks mean new potential markets, facilitated by the fact that
Sardinia is a well-known and desired destination particularly among Italian tourists.
Another point that has been highlighted during the interviews is with regards
to the crucial role of intangible elements, such as the relations generated by
Sardex.net. Tourism entrepreneurs are fully conscious of the opportunities that
have arisen as a result of the network in which people, and social capital more
accurately, are the main wealth. Explicitly or implicitly, Sardex.net activates
relationships among entrepreneurs. It goes beyond monetary transactions by devel-
oping and sharing new concepts not only for business purposes but also by social
value creation. For example, an entrepreneur who manages restaurants and accom-
modation facilities is developing alternative forms of payments for his restaurant,
and in the near future his customers will pay by barter. He says “If you eat in my
restaurant you might pay me in goods instead of money. The most beautiful thing in
doing business, is to develop relationships (. . .) What I really like in Sardex is the
fact that the circuit commits you to care for your suppliers and customers, because if
you do poor work, the circuit works badly as a consequence. You do not think in the
Embedding Social Values in Tourism Management: Community Currencies as. . . 237

same way if you transact by euro”. Being an innovation that mixes sharing economy
and a community-based value system, Sardex stimulates a non-monetized form of
exchange that brings together economic and social needs. In other words, as
explained by interviewees, Sardex combines “sharing and caring” (Ranchordás,
2015).

5 Conclusions

The Sardex community currency is a collaborative economy innovation built on a

foundation of social entrepreneurship. It is based on social values such as trust,
reciprocity, mutual support and human relationships wherein the culture of collab-
oration among members plays a crucial role. The Sardex entrepreneurs trade in
products and services among themselves through a virtual coin which is more than a
simple monetary tool. In certain ways, Sardex exemplifies community-based entre-
preneurship in which members share similar visions and aims that go beyond pure
commercial purposes. They cooperate together against the effects of financial
crises, such as the lack of money for lending; they aim to create new jobs and
preserve employment; and they ensure that local people can live and grow up with
their children in the small towns of Sardinia, which, until this point, have been
seriously affected by out-migration. As a result, the Sardex community can also be
considered as an agent of social action and change.
The Sardex community currency also operates and affects tourism activity. By
adopting collaborative strategies among the tourism entrepreneurs local ties are
created and consolidated. Not only is extra revenue generated but this exchange
system also has positive socio-economic effects on the Sardinian community. In
fact, the Sardex network promotes local supply chains between hoteliers, restaura-
teurs and other tourism operators, and it creates virtuous circles of trust among
entrepreneurs. As a tangible effect, Sardex generates a significant volume of trans-
actions within Sardinian businesses, with regards to both supply and demand. In
relation to the former, Sardex promotes local consumption by promoting local
Sardinian supply chain relationships, such as in the agribusiness, and it implements
shorter supply chain practices. With regards to consumption, Sardex also contrib-
utes to capturing new opportunities derived by growth in domestic tourism. Con-
sidering its more intangible effects, Sardex promotes connections among dispersed
entrepreneurs who enhance their own businesses and create new ones through
non-hierarchical relationships. Generating relationships and stimulating social
cohesion are precious values on an island like Sardinia, characterized by
unsustainable socioeconomic conditions including the loss of social capital due to
the emigration of young and skilled people.
Although a collaborative community currency like the Sardex is not a panacea
against international financial crises or Sardinia’s socio-economic problems, it
offers clear support to small businesses that fight every day to survive. By adopting
social technologies, asymmetric market relations are being reshaped including, for
238 R. Cannas

example, bank-customer relations, as well as tourism relationships between Sar-

dinia and the rest of Italy. Moreover, Sardex is expanding its business model to the
Italian peninsula, so that new affiliate community currencies will be opening soon,
and it is collaborating with other European organisations to develop broader
economic perspectives.
Contrary to potential criticisms that sharing economy practices fall into the
‘invisible’ economy, Sardex is monitored by the Bank of Italy and the Inland
Revenue Authority. No critical issues have emerged regarding tax evasion because
Sardex’ transactions are trackable, and the circuit fully respects the law. Although
the Sardex community currency presents features that demonstrate many positive
effects of a collaborative tourism economy based on social entrepreneurship,
further investigation is required to extend understandings of the benefits of sharing.
For example, more research is needed on the co-marketing strategies, or new
business creation processes that have arisen within the tourism enterprises of
Sardex and those of similar circuits in the rest of Italy.
Furthermore, considering that face-to-face relationships are one of the key
success factors of the Sardinian circuit, this may be altered by the growth of the
business and its extension to the rest of Italy. For example, while the leadership
team is still made up of the five founders, the growth of Sardex could potentially
affect the ‘sharing and caring’ ethos that is the cornerstone of the initiative. Another
challenging point regarding the expansion and upscaling of a very local business
model into a national one is that the Sardex founders are local—they are fully
integrated within their socio-economic context in which they work and they share
common values. Through Sardex they have shaped a distinctive business model in
which knowledge and social capital are essential. They have created the new
circuits of commerce for Sardinia, by tightly interlinking local communities and
their own social values. Maintaining this could be a future challenge.

References

Aldridge, T. J., & Patterson, A. (2002). LETS get real: Constraints on the development of local
exchange trading schemes. Area, 34(4), 370–381.
Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal
transformation. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(3), 260–282.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2003). Social entrepreneurship and commercial entre-
preneurship: Same, different, or both? Working paper series no. 04–029, Harvard Business School.
Blanc, J. (2011). Classifying CCs: Community, complementary and local currencies, types and
generations. LEFI (Laboratoire d’économie de la firme et des institutions), Lyon University.
Bornstein, D. (1998). Changing the world on a shoestring. Atlantic Monthly, 281(1), 34–39.
Boschee, J. (1998). Merging mission and money: A board member’s guide to social entrepreneur-
ship. Retrieved from http://www.socialent.org/pdfs/MergingMission.pdf
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). Beyond Zipcar: Collaborative consumption. Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2010/10/beyond-zipcar-collaborative-consumption/
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2011). What’s mine is yours: How collaborative consumption is
changing the way we live. New York: Harper Collins.
Embedding Social Values in Tourism Management: Community Currencies as. . . 239

Cannas, R., & Giudici, E. (2015). Tourism relationships between Sardinia and its islands:
Collaborative or conflicting? In G. Baldacchino (Ed.), Archipelago tourism: Policies and
practices (pp. 67–81). Farnham: Ashgate.
Choi, N., & Majumdar, S. (2014). Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening
a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 29, 363–376.
CNA (Confederazione Nazionale Artigiani) (2015). Sesto rapporto sulle imprese artigiane della
Sardegna. Cagliari, Italy: CNA.
Collom, E. (2011). Motivations and differential participation in a community currency system: The
dynamics within a local social movement organization. Sociological Forum, 26(1), 144–168.
CRENOS (Centre for North South Economic Research). (2015). Economia della Sardegna. 22

Rapporto 2015. Cagliari, Italy: CUEC.
Dacin, P., Dacin, M. T., & Matear, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a new
theory and how we move forward from here. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 37–57.
Dees, J. G. (1998). The meanings of “social entrepreneurship”. Stanford University, Draft Report
for the Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, 6 pp.
Derrida, J. (1992). Given time I. Counterfeit money. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
DiMaggio, P. J. (1982). Cultural entrepreneurship in nineteenth-century Boston. Media, Culture
and Society, 4, 33–50.
Dini, P., & Kioupkiolis, A. (2014). Community currencies as laboratories of institutional learning:
Emergence of governance through the mediation of social value. Conference Item, LSE (London
School of Economics and Political Science). Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/59307/
Dini, P., van der Graaf, S., & Passani, A. (2015). Socio-economic framework for BOLD stake-
holders. OpenLaws.eu Deliverable D2.3.d1, European Commission. Retrieved from http://
eprints.lse.ac.uk/62819/
Drayton, W. (2002). The citizen sector: Becoming as entrepreneurial and competitive as business.
California Management Review, 44(3), 120–132.
Dredge, D., & Gyimóthy, S. (2015). The collaborative economy and tourism: Critical perspectives,
questionable claims and silenced voices. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(3), 286–302.
European Commission. (2014). Digipay4Growth. Project funded by CIP Competitiveness and
innovation framework programme (CIP) (2007–2013). Retrieved from http://cordis.europa.eu/
project/rcn/191828_en.html
Eurostat. (2015a). News release euro indicators, 174/2015. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat/documents/2995521/6976371/3-01092015-AP-EN.pdf/
Eurostat. (2015b). Early leavers from education and training by sex. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.
eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab¼table&init¼1&language¼en&pcode¼t2020_40&plugin¼1
Granados, M. L., Hlupic, V., Coakes, E., & Mohamed, S. (2011). Social enterprise and social
entrepreneurship research and theory A bibliometric analysis from 1991 to 2010. Social
Enterprise Journal, 7(3), 198–218.
Heinrichs, H. (2013). Sharing economy: A potential new pathway to sustainability. GAIA, 22(4),
228–231.
Humphrey, C. (1985). Barter and economic disintegration. Man, 20, 48–72.
Iosifidis, G., Charette, Y., Littera, G., Tassiulas, L., & Christakis, N. (2015, September 23). Network
analysis of the Sardex Community currency. Yale University, Day of Data, Paper 4. Retrieved
from http://elischolar.library.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article¼1066&context¼dayofdata
ISTAT (Italian Institute of Statistics). (2015). Noi Italia. Youth unemployment rate. Retrieved
from http://noi-italia2015.istat.it/index.php?id¼7&user_100ind_pi1%5Bid_pagina%5D¼192&
P¼1&L¼0
Lee, R. (1996). Moral money? LETS and the social construction of local economic geographies in
Southeast England. Environment and Planning A, 28, 1377–1394.
Littera, G., Sartori, L., Dini, P., & Antoniadis, P. (2014). From an idea to a scalable working
model: Merging economic benefit with social values in Sardex. Conference paper, LSE
(London School of Economics and Political Science). Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/
59406/
240 R. Cannas

Mair, J., & Martı́, I. (2006). Social entrepreneur research: A source of explanation, prediction and
delight. Journal of World Business, 41, 36–44.
Mauss, M. (1922/1990). The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. London:
Routledge.
Melis, C., Giudici, E., & Dettori, A. (2013). Revitalizing the Barter: The case of Sardex.Net. In
P. Spagnoletti (Ed.), Organizational change and information system (pp. 129–136). Berlin:
Springer.
Pacione, M. (1997). Local exchange trading systems as a response to the globalisation of
capitalism. Urban Studies, 34(8), 1179–1199.
Peredo, A. M., & Chrisman, J. J. (2006). Toward a theory of community-based enterprise.
Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 309–328.
Peredo, A. M., & Mclean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship. A critical review of the concept.
Journal of World Business, 41, 56–65.
Posnett, E. (2015, September 18). The Sardex factor. Financial Time Magazine, Retrieved from http://
www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/cf875d9a-5be6-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html#axzz3rI6oZeym
Ranchordás, S. (2015). Does sharing mean caring? Regulating innovation in the sharing economy.
Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/
abstract¼2492798
Robinson, J. (2006). Navigating social and institutional barriers to markets: How social entrepre-
neurs identify and evaluate opportunities. In J. Mair, J. Robinson, & K. Hockerts (Eds.), Social
entrepreneurship. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sagawa, S., & Segal, E. (2000). Common interest, common good: Creating value through business
and social sector partnership. California Management Review, 42(2), 105–122.
Schraven, J. (2000). The economics of local exchange and trading systems: A theoretical perspec-
tive. International Journal of Community Currency Research, 4, 1–8.
Schroeder, R. F. H., Miyazaki, Y., & Fare, M. (2011). Community currency research. An analysis
of the literature. International Journal of Community Currency Research, 15A, 31–41.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. London: Oxford University Press.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research.
Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.
Short, J. C., Moss, T. W., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2009). Research in social entrepreneurship: Past
contributions and future opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3, 161–194.
Stodder, J. (2009). Complementary credit networks and macroeconomic stability: Switzerland’s
Wirtschaftsring. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 72, 79–95.
Stokes, K., Clarence, E., & Rinne, A. (2014). Making sense of the UK collaborative economy.
Nesta Report. London: Nesta. Retrieved from http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/mak
ing_sense_of_the_uk_collaborative_economy_14.pdf
Studer, T. (1998). WIR in Unserer volkwirtschaft. Basel: WIR. Translation: Beard, P.H. (trans.),
2006.WIR and the Swiss National Economy. Rohnert Park, CA: Sonoma State University.
Available as e-book at http://www.lulu.com/content/301348
Thompson, J., Alvy, G., & Lees, A. (2000). Social entrepreneurship—a new look at the people and
the potential. Management Decision, 38, 328–338.
Waddock, S. A. (1988). Building successful partnerships. Sloan Management Review, 29(4),
17–23.
Waddock, S. A., & Post, J. E. (1995). Catalytic alliances for social problem solving. Human
Relations, 48(8), 951–972.
Williams, C. C. (1996). The New Barter economy: An appraisal of Local Exchange and Trading
Systems (LETS). Journal of Public Policy, 16(1), 85–101.
Wilson, N. C., & Stokes, D. (2004). Laments and serenades: Relationship marketing and legiti-
mation strategies for the cultural entrepreneur. Qualitative Market Research: An International
Journal, 7(3), 218–227.
Improvising Economy: Everyday Encounters
and Tourism Consumption

Gunnar Thór Jóhannesson and Katrı́n Anna Lund

Abstract As a part of the rising collaborative economy tourism entrepreneurs are

faced with increasing demand of providing opportunities of authentic experiences.
Tourist experience has always rested on co-creation and everyday encounters and
we argue that the collaborative economy can be seen to include multiple rational-
ities, manifested in improvised tourism encounters. We contend that by following
some of the often mundane encounters between visiting guests and the attraction
they visit, it is possible to shed light on how interfering rationalities and multiple
levels of collaboration affect the growth of tourism economies. The chapter focuses
on improvised encounters between a particular entrepreneur, Siggi, who is the
director of the Icelandic Museum of Sorcery and Witchcraft and his guests. It is
argued that the value of collaboration and sharing in present day tourism economies
is about more than economic transaction and needs to be critically examined
as such.

Keywords Collaborative consumption • Co-creation • Tourism encounters •

Entrepreneurship • Iceland

1 Introduction

It had been quite a busy day at the Museum of Icelandic Sorcery and Witchcraft,
which is located in Hólmavı́k, a small town in the Strandir region, Iceland. The
director, Siggi, and his assistant that day, who happened to be one of the authors of
this article, Katrı́n, had just finished cleaning after closing time and were sitting by
one of the tables outside waiting for a phone call from the restaurant in the next
street to inform them that their well-deserved pizza was ready for collection. The
phone rang, but at the very moment Katrı́n stood up to run for the pizza, a car
stopped outside the Museum and a young woman with a large rucksack, tent and
dreadlocks climbed out of the back. “Is the Museum closed?” she called out

G.T. Jóhannesson (*) • K.A. Lund

Department of Geography and Tourism, Faculty of Life and Environmental Science,
University of Iceland, Askja v/Sturlug€
otu, 101 Reykjavı́k, Iceland
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 241

D. Dredge, S. Gyimóthy (eds.), Collaborative Economy and Tourism,
Tourism on the Verge, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-51799-5_14
242 G.T. Jóhannesson and K.A. Lund

anxiously and when Siggi answered that it was, she replied, “No, it is the second
time I have tried to visit and then it was also closed, I have always wanted to see this
Museum!” Katrı́n rushed for the pizza and did not hear any more of the conversa-
tion or how it continued but a minute or two later she saw the car that the young
woman had arrived in drive away. When she came back with the pizza, Siggi was
standing outside and said, “I allowed her to go into the Museum”. He explained that
she had been hitch-hiking around Iceland and a dream of visiting the Museum was
the only reason she had stopped in the village; this was her only chance to see the
Museum as she had to continue her travels, leaving on the early morning bus the
following day.
The woman gave herself plenty of time to explore the exhibits and the pizza had
been finished when she came out. She was fascinated by the Museum and had many
questions to ask Siggi about the history of witchcraft in Iceland. When he had
answered her, it was his turn to ask where she came from and where she had been
travelling. She said that she was from Poland and this was her second time in
Iceland. She had originally intended to stay for the whole summer undertaking
voluntary work for farmers in exchange for food and accommodation in different
parts of the country. Unexpectedly, however, just before she left for her visit to
Iceland, she met a new partner, which resulted in her reducing her visit to only
one month. This meant that she was trying to see as much of Iceland as she could
but in a much shorter time.
As the conversations continued, it started raining and suddenly, what seemed to
be a light shower, turned into a downpour. All three went inside and Siggi told the
young woman that as the forecast was for continual rain throughout the night, she
could sleep on the Museum floor rather than going to the campsite. She said she
would be fine with putting her tent up but Siggi would not take no for an answer. In
the end she stayed the night on the floor of the Museum and when Siggi and Katrı́n
came to work early next morning she had a cup of coffee with them before leaving
on the bus.
Although this may count as an exceptional offer to a visitor at the Museum it was
certainly not the first time that overnight shelter had been offered due to circum-
stances affecting travel plans. Indeed this is just a one example of how an exhibition
dedicated to witchcraft and sorcery has expanded its function since 2000, both
temporarily as well as on a long term basis (Lund, 2015a). In the long term because,
although generally called the Witchcraft Museum by locals, it has since 2009 added
and developed its services as a restaurant and since 2010 as a tourism information
centre for the whole Strandir region (Fig. 1).
Strandir is a peripheral region in Iceland, sparsely populated and like most places
in the country, the economy has been based on agriculture and fisheries. During the
last 15 years the Museum of Icelandic Sorcery and Witchcraft has slowly become
the main tourist attraction in the area and as such, a clear marker of a general
societal change in rural areas in the Nordic countries manifested by a burgeoning
service economy. The story of the Museum and how it has cemented its place as the
centre of tourism activities in the area can be interpreted in multiple ways. One
version points to a group of three clever entrepreneurs from the area that effectively
Improvising Economy: Everyday Encounters and Tourism Consumption 243

Fig. 1 Map of the Strandir region

made use of a sudden interest by the Icelandic authorities in cultural tourism to

muster support to develop their vision of the first (and only) museum of witchcraft
in the country (Gunnarsdóttir & Jóhannesson, 2014). Another storyline emphasises
244 G.T. Jóhannesson and K.A. Lund

their life-style motives and their genuine will to create more interesting job oppor-
tunities for themselves and others than were available at the time of the Museum’s
establishment, underlining the social embeddedness of entrepreneurship (see
e.g. Førde, 2009). In fact, the ethos of collaboration has been central in the
development of the Museum, which from the outset was organised at least as
much as a project of cultural empowerment and lifestyle entrepreneurship as a
business venture. Extensive social networking within the region, as well as on a
national level, has secured the Museum’s existence and extension both through
creating a positive reputation and securing funds, especially in the first years of
business. In this chapter we will highlight the collaborative element of the
Museum’s story, focusing on everyday tourism encounters and the way in which
they affect the development of the Museum. Our objective is thereby to open up and
explore the collaborative ecologies underpinning the Museum of Icelandic Sorcery
and Witchcraft as a tourist attraction. Tourist experience has always rested on
co-creation and everyday encounters and we argue that the collaborative economy
can be seen to include multiple rationalities, manifesting in improvised tourism
encounters. We contend that by following some of the often mundane encounters
between visiting guests and the attraction they visit, understood as an assemblage of
heterogeneous relations, it is possible to shed light on how interfering rationalities
and multiple levels of collaboration affect the growth of tourism economies. In the
context of this book, our account questions the novelty and limitations of the
sharing or collaborative economy.

2 Everyday Encounters and Improvisation

Tourism is all about encounters. Traditionally, tourism encounters have often been
thought of as a clash between separate orders, be it hosts and guests, processes of
production and consumption or the ordinary and the extraordinary. Tourism is
viewed here as a more or less unified external force affecting places and people
often in quite drastic ways, with local producers selling the tourist experience and
with more ‘global’ or cosmopolitan tourists buying it (Crick, 1989; Shepherd,
2002). It has however become increasingly clear that the ‘economic’ is far from
being pure or external to social and cultural processes (Callon, 1998; Latour, 1993).
When describing the emergent cultural economy, du Gay and Pryke wrote quite a
while ago:
Many of the old certainties—both practical and academic—concerning what makes firms
hold together or markets work seem less clear-cut and our knowledge of them feels less
secure. Yet among these proliferating uncertainties has emerged—or, better, re-emerged—
a belief that something called ‘culture’ is both somehow critical to understanding what is
happening to, as well as to practically intervening in, contemporary economic and organi-
zational life (du Gay & Pryke, 2002, p. 1).

Studies in tourism related to ‘the performance turn’ (Bærenholdt, Haldrup,

Larsen, & Urry, 2004; Edensor, 2000, 2001; Larsen, 2005) and the ‘mobility
Improvising Economy: Everyday Encounters and Tourism Consumption 245

paradigm’ (Haldrup, 2004; Hannam, Sheller, & Urry, 2006; Sheller, 2006; Sheller
& Urry, 2004) have further illustrated the blurring of conceptual boundaries that
have guided much of tourism research (Minca & Oakes, 2014).
The concept of collaborative consumption seeks to grasp the interplay between
different kinds of rationalities involved in economic transaction. As such it is open
to the idea that the encounter between “producer” and “consumer” or “host” and
“guest” involves more than economic motives and a simple exchange of services
for money. Belk has suggested that it is useful to think of a continuum of trans-
actions where market exchange of commodities lies at one end “and sharing at the
other, with gift giving somewhere in the middle” (Belk, 2007, p. 127). It is possible
to think of instances where these forms come about in pure ways. Most of us share
things and space with our close family; we take part in ritualised gift giving a
number of times over the year, both as givers and receivers and we hardly escape
being involved in impersonal market exchanges during the course of the day. The
literature on collaborative consumption often highlights how it is different from
more “traditional” modes of business transactions and even marks a new and more
just or sustainable rationality of production and consumption (Dredge & Gyimóthy,
2015). Collaborative consumption is thus aligned to the sharing-end of the contin-
uum rather than the business-as-usual end with its explicit focus on consumption. In
practice, different “shades of sharing” interfere and Belk has argued that many of
the activities dubbed as sharing are in fact pseudo-sharing, that is “practices
masquerading as sharing” but which are commodity exchange (Belk, 2014, p. 10).
Belk’s description of a continuum ranging from a pure sphere of cultural trans-
actions to a pure sphere of economic transactions is useful in that it assists in
defining particular types or constellations of collaborative economic activities, not
only related to consumption that can be identified in tourism and other spheres of
the economy (Dredge & Gyimóthy, 2015). We argue that it is equally important to
follow the ways in which the collaborative economy is organised and enacted and
how more generally collaborative ecologies emerge through relational practices
and co-creation. Instead of taking either sharing or market exchange as a starting
point, we begin from tourism encounters and seek to follow the processes, connec-
tions and entanglements through which moments of collaborative economy are
created (Ren, van der Duim, & Jóhannesson, 2015).
Thereby we approach tourism encounters in relational terms with a focus on how
tourist practices entangle with other activities and co-constitute the social (Van der
Duim, Ren, & Jóhannesson, 2012). This view dissolves tourism into a multitude of
relational practices and orderings (Franklin, 2012). Instead of thinking of tourism as
a sector with relatively clear boundaries, as a “matter of fact”, tourism becomes
multiple and appears always a “matter of concern” (Latour, 2004; Ren et al., 2015).
The focus then moves away from definitions of separate variables or classifications
towards following the enactment and shaping of what we are used to identifying as
distinct categories. In the present context, this involves for instance tracing how
guests relate to attractions and take part in weaving together their experience in
space and time along with other actors, human and more-than human.
246 G.T. Jóhannesson and K.A. Lund

Stating that tourism experiences are accomplished through a process of

co-creation, underlines that tourism economies are done and enacted. It may be
questionable however how much room there is for creativity when it comes to
tourism performances. Tourism is indeed often a carefully staged and
choreographed activity (Edensor, 2000, 2001; Larsen, 2005; Urry, 1990). Attrac-
tions and destinations are scripted (Gregory, 1999) to a different degree in order to
organise the ‘tourist gaze’ (Urry, 1990) and control the movements and interactions
of tourists and hosts, thus creating a stable environment for running and managing
business. As managers of every destination management organisation are probably
well aware, tourism destinations are never ordered once and for all but are contin-
uously created through practices of multitude of actors (Van der Duim et al., 2012).
Any destination is as such constantly in the making; it is an event of
‘throwntogetherness’ (Massey, 2005) of heterogeneous parts and multiple
trajectories.
By focusing on the encounters through which tourist experience is created, the
work needed to create and sustain tourism destination is highlighted
(Jóhannesson, Ren, & van der Duim, 2015). Tourists and hosts are key actors
in the assemblage through which tourism experiences are created but all sorts of
materials, emotions and natural forces can also interfere in the process, ‘through
which the place in question is created both in the mind of the tourist as well as in
its matter’(Grit, 2014; Lund & Jóhannesson, 2016). This relational heterogeneity
of tourism makes it extremely volatile. Every order is constantly in danger of
breaking down; failure in communication leads to misunderstandings: the weather
suddenly changes and becomes hostile and demands a change of travel plans; a
credit card is cancelled and creates moments of anxiety and even suspicion; or the
car breaks down.
If we accept that tourism is constantly in the state of becoming, we might
usefully refer to it as a meshwork of interwoven lines of becoming, rather than a
network of interconnected points (Ingold, 2011). The tourism encounter is thereby
not a clash between two separate entities or orders but the coming together of
multiple lines that entangle. One of the implications of this understanding of
tourism is that together with ordering and organisation, “doing” tourism in the
widest sense of the word, is also very much about improvisation, uncertainties,
surprises and disorientation. Ingold and Hallam describe improvisation as rela-
tional, as it ‘goes on along “ways of life”’ that are entangled and mutually
responsive (Ingold & Hallam, 2007, p. 7). To improvise is to recognize that there
is no script; ‘no system of codes, rules and norms that can anticipate every possible
circumstance’ (Ingold & Hallam, 2007, p. 2) but it is important to note that it is not
without rules or limits. Indeed there is a plan or future vision of the Museum’s
development and past decisions and actions affect possible practices today. Plans
however, only go so far. At the end of the day, efforts to improve the tourist
experience at the Museum of Icelandic Sorcery and Witchcraft have often been
improvised and triggered by everyday encounters and conversations with guests
that by themselves demand flexibility and improvisation.
Improvising Economy: Everyday Encounters and Tourism Consumption 247

We will begin the next section with a brief description of the Museum and its
history. In the narrative we will stay close to Siggi, the Museum’s Director, as he is
usually in the midst of the ‘action’ at the Museum and we will follow improvised
encounters between him and his guests.

3 Consuming Witchcraft

It can truly be stated that the Museum of Icelandic Sorcery and Witchcraft has from
its inception been ordered in a process of improvisation and co-creation. To cut a
long story short, during the late 1990s ethnology student, Jón Jónsson, born and
bred in the region, was finishing a report for his Master studies exploring the
possibilities of initiating cultural tourism in the region. He did this by collecting
ideas from local people and listening to what they thought might be interesting
topics to pursue. Almost at the end of the report a vague idea appeared about the
possibility of using the region’s history of witchcraft and sorcery as an instrument
for crafting out cultural element for the region, as the region was notorious for these
matters in the seventeenth century (Gunnarsdóttir & Jóhannesson, 2014; Lund,
2015a, 2015b; Lund & Jóhannesson, 2016). At this time the Icelandic authorities
were encouraging economically weak regions to strengthen their economic sustain-
ability, not least by developing new directions for the local economy to explore,
including tourism. Jón, now equipped with ideas, conversed with a local historian,
Magnús, and also Siggi, who had purely out of interest and passion, been studying
witchcraft and magic; together they received funding to open the Museum. They
engaged a professional stage designer to install the Museum, which is located in a
low rising building that previously served as a warehouse for fishermen and Siggi
was hired as its Director. Jón and Magnús are still at least partially involved with the
Museum, Jón as the cultural administrator for the constituency and Magnús as a
researcher specialising in the history of the region, with an emphasis on the
seventeenth century. His publications are sold at the Museum shop and sometimes
he also installs special side exhibitions at the Museum (in co-operation from Siggi),
resulting from his research. Daily operation of the Museum is undertaken by Siggi
and it can be argued that he has, for many, become an inseparable part of the
Museum and even part of its attraction.
Siggi’s responsibility as the Museum’s Director has been influenced by his
passion for the period of sorcery and witchcraft in the region and also his ambitions
for sharing his passion with the community as well as making guests feel welcome.
Hence, the Directorship is about much more than simply running a museum or a
business. On occasions it is about putting on the Sorcerer’s garment and acting out
magical spells for groups of visitors, or to be photographed or filmed for advertising
and introductory material in brochures and on the internet. It is also about story-
telling, which is one of Siggi’s talents, and if required he takes people on tours
during which he narrates the history and folklore in the surrounding landscape
(Lund, 2015a, 2015b). Furthermore, he often sets up events such as concerts and
248 G.T. Jóhannesson and K.A. Lund

poetry reading in the Museum. Much of the work takes place on the internet via the
homepage of the Museum and increasingly social media outlets such as Facebook
and Twitter, where he promotes the Museum often in person (http://www.
galdrasyning.is/). It is also possible to pursue material from the Museum’s shop
through the internet which is one way to keep in touch with visitors (which he
sometimes does), but which has also proved to be a source of income. We could
continue listing all the different activities involving the Directorship, but what is
more important is to illustrate how these undertakings, in combination with every-
day encounters with visitors, have expanded the operation of the Museum to
additionally serve as the regional information office for tourists as well as a
restaurant, called ‘Café Magic’.
It was in 2009 that the tourist information office opened in an unused extended
part of the building which also houses the Museum. The opening was a decision
negotiated between the local authorities and Siggi. The office had previously been
located at the top of the village, by the main road, which meant that tourists did not
need to go into the village in search of information. The Museum, on the other hand,
is located near the harbour, in the heart of the old village, so re-locating the
information centre meant that tourists would actually go into Hólmavı́k, not just
pass by, possibly visiting the Museum at the same time.
Siggi began developing the restaurant in 2009, simply as an experiment. He had
for some time been aware that after mid-August, or at the end of the high-season,
tourists continued to arrive, many of whom were looking for something to eat, but
the only restaurant in the town had closed down. Siggi, as a caring host, started to
serve these visitors by making fish soup, which was a great success. He also
discovered a new personal passion: food and the preparation of it. He soon decided
to try serving food the whole year around, beginning by serving fish soup, from
which a menu based mainly on seafood has developed with a mussel platter as the
central course (Lund, 2015b).
Although Siggi plays a central role in these two events of the Museum’s
expansion he is clearly not acting alone. From a relational approach, both instances
can be read as effects of improvised encounters where different entities and
energies combine. These include local politics, municipal leaders and the perceived
need to service tourists when it comes to finding a convenient place for the tourist
information centre in the village and also the presence of an unused extension of the
Museum building. The launching of the restaurant is a continuation of Siggi’s
improvisation that is on-going as it requires regular menu changes, sourcing the
best ingredients and discovering new recipes, partly to keep up with visitors’ wishes
and responses but also to continue to carve out the special trade of the Museum as
an attraction.
The expansion of the Museum also further extends the space of improvisation
through collaborative consumption, or shall we say co-creation. The inventiveness
is not merely directed towards expanding business but is rather consequential as
ideas and thoughts emerge from interactions taking place amongst the multiplicity
of actors; complex and messy entanglements. It is in these entanglements that
diverse rationalities become manifested in practice. In this case, aspects of care
Improvising Economy: Everyday Encounters and Tourism Consumption 249

and caring relations emerge as the essential elements in the encounters and the
associated improvisations. As Heuts and Mol (2013, p. 141) write, ‘the term “care”
suggests enduring work that seeks improvement but does not necessarily succeed.
[. . .] it is a matter of calling on strengths and tinkering with weaknesses’. In the
present case we find the notion of care helps us, together with improvisation, in
by-passing dualistic notions of altruistic sharing and pure economic rationality and
guides us along the collaborative ecologies of tourism encounters at the Museum.
An example of this is how Siggi decided to open a restaurant at the Museum
since nobody else was catering for tourists in the village during the low season. He
wanted to do this because in his opinion tourists matter. However, another motive
was clearly to encourage guests to stay a bit longer in the village and spend more
money during their stay. The restaurant was thereby also a potential business
opportunity for the Museum and one means for enhancing its reputation and
securing its economic survival.
Visitor accounts from Trip Advisor provide another example of how caring is
manifested in tourism encounters:
I was led to the Museum by accident, literally—my vehicle had blown a tire in the
mountains the previous evening and Hólmavı́k was the closest settlement I could limp to
on a dicey spare. By the time I would leave I felt I’d been guided there by the spirit of
Strandabyggð, the area which claims Hólmavı́k, and that there may have been good cause
for the earlier settlers of Strandabyggð to have been moved to sorcery, witchcraft and
divination. In its harsh beauty the region itself inspires reverence and awe (indeed, it’s the
Helm of Awe painted on the newer exterior of the Museum that alerted me to its existence).

Early on a Saturday morning the only sign of life in Hólmavı́k was a light in the Museum’s
door, which when opened yielded the scent of seafood cooking and an elven-looking man
patting his pockets. Sigurður looked up and bid me welcome in Icelandic, then, realizing I
didn’t speak it, switched to excellent English and asked if I had a match. I felt immediately
like family.

At first I thought I’d stumbled into just a cafe (through which, it turns out, one passes to get
to the Museum), but Siggi asked first if I’d come to see the Museum. I said “not exactly”
and told him of my misfortune, which he took immediately in hand, examining my little
Renault and running through the small list of possible solutions available in rural Iceland on
a Saturday. There were few. Undeterred, Siggi bade me spend my morning in the Museum
and he would conjure something to get me on my way again.

In this example, care is strongly linked to the help that Siggi provides in his
efforts to sort out the visitor’s misfortune. He leaves his task at the restaurant to
examine the car before setting out to search for a repair for the tyre, acting now in
the role of assistant at the information office and going far beyond what might be
expected of him. At the same time he sells the visitor an entrance to the Museum so
that he can kill time whilst his car is being sorted out. The boundaries between
encounters of care and doing business blur. Siggi’s responses to the visitor’s
problem hints at hospitality that is both spontaneous and genuine and which is
consistent with what Lugosi refers to as meta-hospitality, ‘existential in nature and
emotional in essence’ (Lugosi, 2008, p. 19). However, it is seemingly the most
mundane incident that cements the positive interaction when Siggi asks for a match,
250 G.T. Jóhannesson and K.A. Lund

making the visitor feel like part of a family. This is experienced as a moment
suffused with a hint of magic which is in line with how the attraction, the Museum
of Sorcery and Witchcraft, is scripted, having the helm of awe painted on its
exterior and inside it an ‘elven-looking man’ who appears to be an inseparable
part of the interior, as well as exterior, decoration. A snippet from a newspaper
interview with Siggi plays on this image of him as well and states:
The Museum’s manager . . . prefers to go by the title ‘sorcerer’. This seems fitting with his
glinting eyes and unruly hair—often constrained by a peculiar woollen cap—one wouldn’t
be surprised if he suddenly started chanting and waving around pieces of wood with
magical stave carving (Guðmundsdóttir, 2015).

No matter if Siggi is described as an elf or a sorcerer, what matters is that his

appearance is in line with visitors’ expectations regarding a museum of witchcraft
and sorcery. His identity emerges in relation to how the visitor improvises his or her
own steps as they explore the settings in their different ways and, for at least some
of them, Siggi is indivisible from the attraction, increasing its perceived authentic-
ity. This encounter becomes an event of co-creation or a moment of collaborative
consumption. As Tanggaard points out creativity is a collective act and can even be
‘conceptualized as dialectical opposites in tension’ (Tanggard, 2012, p. 28 and see
McLean, 2009). This act is partly improvised, simply because tourism encounters
cannot be planned or managed to include every detail. Siggi’s bodily appearance
has an important agency in creating not only himself as a sorcerer or an elven-like
man, but also the sense for the space of the Museum (e.g. Lugosi, 2014). This is not
merely an unconscious creation which is revealed in the newspaper interview when
he answers the question if he has adopted his appearance to fit the Museum, ‘. . .with
this job, being odd certainly helps’.
Other examples of creative and improvised tourism encounters at the Museum
give further insight into the emergent collaborative ecologies underpinning the
museum:
We visited the museum and Hólmavik in March 2013. There is very little else to see in the
town itself, which was fine by us because it is truly an oasis of calm. The museum itself was
atmospheric and very informative. It gives one a fantastic glimpse into Iceland’s dark past.
The owner of the museum was incredibly welcoming. You must try the mussels provided.
They were excellent. Thank you Siggy and I hope you enjoyed sharing our Baileys! This
was certainly one of our best experiences in the whole country. You really mustn’t miss
it (Visited March 2013).

Another says:
Many many thanks to the staff who listened to my daughter’s stories about every cat she has
ever known while we continued to soak in the exhibits. I repeat. . ..the staff at the museum
are truly magical (Visited June 2013).

An important part of the short examples mentioned above is that there seems to be
time available for Siggi to invest in the emotional labour necessary to realise such
moments of collaborative consumption. To improvise through tourism encounters
indeed takes more time than to follow a script of ‘functional hospitality’ (Lugosi,
2008). To hold the balance between connecting to people visiting the Museum and
Improvising Economy: Everyday Encounters and Tourism Consumption 251

simply providing efficient service to all visitors is a huge challenge for Siggi. While
the genuine hospitality seems to play an important part in the image of the Museum
being a special, friendly and even mythical place to visit one may ask how far this
process of commodification of improvised encounters can go until it begins to
deteriorate both Siggi’s personal health and well-being. Siggi admits that during
periods of heavy traffic to the Museum things are difficult. He says: ‘When you
don’t have the time to talk to people, then I get tired and wasted’. These periods are
common during the high season, in fact, the Museum’s staff often look up at the end
of the day and all they can say to reflect on it is, ‘this was a strange day’. A strange
day is a day that just seems to disappear as Katrı́n, whilst working/doing fieldwork
at the Museum, often experienced. Once, after a four hour period of Siggi preparing
and serving food and Katrı́n waitressing, as well as selling entry to the Museum and
providing information to tourists, they sat down and after staring at each other for a
while Siggi said, ‘what happened?’ and then they burst into laughter. Both felt their
communication with tourists had been somewhat superficial and in some cases a
hint of irritation had influenced their exchanges due to the differing needs of the
tourists. However, by doing their best to service an excellent product, the Museum
and what it offers, all grievances were put aside and all visitors left happy; they all
had, in one way or another, encountered some kind of magic. Nevertheless, this
describes a situation that with the popularity and increasing promotion of the
Museum, has become the reality during the high season and for Siggi, as he says,
‘this is no fun anymore’.
On the other hand being able to talk to the visitors, connect to their life-
trajectories even only for a little while, “re-charges his batteries”. He also notes:
“You also feel when it is enough, when you cannot give more”.

4 Improvising Economy

To draw the discussion to an end we will return to the beginning of the chapter, with
the arrival of the Polish woman just after the Museum had closed for the day. She
expresses her frustration because she had always wanted to visit it and this was her
only chance to do so. Siggi appreciates her interests. The Museum is his creation
and he is proud of it so he lets her in. When she has finished her tour, they engage in
mutual conversations of cultural exchange; the young woman wants to know more
about the history of sorcery in the region and Siggi is eager to listen to her talking
about her travels. The exchange brings forth an element of care when he allows her
to make a bed in the Museum to shelter from the rain. However, her visit could have
been very different. Imagine if she had arrived in the middle of the day during the
high season described above. She would probably been sold entrance to the
Museum by Katrı́n and possibly never even seen Siggi since her style of travel
was such that she would rather not eat at restaurants so he would not have served her
food. Katrı́n might then have directed her to the bus, and even if she had wanted to
find out more about the Museum, there would have been insufficient time for this
252 G.T. Jóhannesson and K.A. Lund

kind of discussion. A completely different experience; however there is no need to

assume that she would not have left happy, as she did actually manage to visit the
Museum. Her visit was only improvised due to a particular set of events.
Depending on circumstances, not least the time available to Siggi to spend with
visitors, the tourist encounter is improvised in different ways. Sometimes it takes
the form of an almost automatic commodity exchange, while at other times it
becomes a moment of personal contact and engagement based on the mutual
interest of guests and Siggi. Other instances are mediated via the Museum’s
homepage or its presence on social media and sites such as Trip Advisor. It is
however extremely difficult to categorise every encounter. It is not as if encounters
are either closed relations of commodity exchanges or open events of altruistic
hospitality. Each tourist encounter is a moment of collaboration, a becoming space
of co-creation that can turn out in different ways (Lugosi, 2014). Siggi’s challenge
as a host is to manage the constant fluidity of tourism encounters. When should he
open up and engage with visitors and when to draw the line and play the role of the
disengaged but professional service worker? There is no straight forward answer to
that—it has to be improvised.
Where does this leave us? In this chapter we have moved through the collabo-
rative ecologies underpinning the Icelandic Museum of Sorcery and Witchcraft.
Approaching tourism encounters in relational terms allows us to open up the
process of transaction, allowing space for the uncertain and unpredictable as well
as more nuanced valuations of the collaborative economy. The account above
underlines that collaborative economy involves multiple rationalities that cannot
be easily boiled down into a single or one dimensional strategy for economic
success. The value of collaboration and sharing in present day tourism economies
is not only about platform capitalism or monetised digitised market exchange
(dubbed as sharing). In Siggi’s case, responsibility and care are in constant play
in every tourism encounter. In order to critically grasp the potentialities and
limitations of the collaborative economy, researchers have to be conscious about
their position and agency in the midst of the complex entanglements that tourism
encounters manifest. It is important to slow down and attend to the everyday
happenings of tourism. Such positionality allows for a glimpse into the network
of collaborative ecologies that are always improvised and never completely
ordered.

References

Bærenholdt, J. O., Haldrup, M., Larsen, J., & Urry, J. (2004). Performing tourist places. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Belk, R. (2007). Why not share rather than own? The Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, 611, 126–140. doi:10.1177/0002716206298483.
Belk, R. (2014). Sharing versus pseudo-sharing in web 2.0. Anthropologist, 18(1), 7–23.
Callon, M. (Ed.). (1998). The laws of the markets. Oxford: Blackwell.
Improvising Economy: Everyday Encounters and Tourism Consumption 253

Crick, M. (1989). Representations of international tourism in the social sciences: Sun, sex, sights,
savings, and servility. Annual Review of Anthropology, 18, 307–344.
Dredge, D., & Gyimóthy, S. (2015). The collaborative economy and tourism: Critical perspectives,
questionable claims and silenced voices. Tourism Recreation Research. doi:10.1080/
02508281.2015.1086076.
du Gay, P., & Pryke, M. (Eds.). (2002). Cultural economy: Cultural analysis and commercial life.
London: Sage.
Edensor, T. (2000). Staging tourism: Tourists as performers. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2),
322–344.
Edensor, T. (2001). Performing tourism, staging tourism: (Re)producing tourist space and practice.
Tourist Studies, 1(1), 59–81.
Førde, A. (2009). Creating ‘The Land of the Big Fish’: A study of rural tourism innovation. In
T. Nyseth & A. Viken (Eds.), Place reinvention: Northern perspectives (pp. 93–109).
Farnham: Ashgate.
Franklin, A. (2012). The choreography of a mobile world: Tourism orderings. In R. Van der Duim,
C. Ren, & G. T. Jóhannesson (Eds.), Actor-network theory and tourism: Ordering, materiality
and multiplicity (pp. 43–58). London: Routledge.
Gregory, D. (1999). Scripting Egypt: Orientalism and the cultures of travel. In J. Duncan &
D. Gregory (Eds.), Writes of passage: Reading travel writing. London: Routledge.
Grit, A. (2014). Messing around with serendipities. In S. Veijola, J. Germann Molz, O. Pyyhtinen,
E. H€ockert, & A. Grit (Eds.), Disruptive tourism and its untidy guests: Alternative ontologies
for future hospitalities (pp. 122–141). London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Guðmundsdóttir, R. (2015). In Strandir: Sorcery and tourism [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://
grapevine.is/travel/2015/07/30/in-strandir-sorcery-and-tourism/
Gunnarsdóttir, G. Þ., & Jóhannesson, G. T. (2014). Weaving with witchcraft: Tourism and
entrepreneurship in Strandir, Iceland. In A. Viken & B. Granås (Eds.), Destination develop-
ment in tourism: Turns and tactics (pp. 95–112). Farnham: Ashgate.
Haldrup, M. (2004). Laid-back mobilities: Second-home holidays in time and space. Tourism
Geographies, 6(4), 434–454. doi:10.1080/1461668042000280228.
Hannam, K., Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). Editorial: Mobilities, immobilites and moorings.
Mobilities, 1(1), 1–22. doi:10.1080/17450100500489189.
Heuts, F., & Mol, A. (2013). What is a good tomato? A case of valuing in practice. Valuation
Studies, 1(2), 125–146. doi:10.3384/vs.2001-5992.1312125.
Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movment, knowledge and description. London:
Routledge.
Ingold, T., & Hallam, E. (2007). Creativity and cultural improvisation: An introduction. In
T. Ingold & E. Hallam (Eds.), Creativity and cultural improvisation (pp. 1–24). Oxford: Berg.
Jóhannesson, G. T., Ren, C., & van der Duim, R. (2015). Tourism encounters, controversies and
ontologies. In G. T. Jóhannesson, C. Ren, & R. van der Duim (Eds.), Tourism encounters and
controversies: Ontological politics of tourism development (pp. 1–19). Farnham: Ashgate.
Larsen, J. (2005). Families seen sightseeing: Performativity of tourist photography. Space and
Culture, 8(4), 416–434. doi:10.1177/1206331205279354.
Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern (C. Porter, Trans.). Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern.
Critical Inquiry, 30, 225–248.
Lugosi, P. (2008). Hospitality spaces, hospitable moments: Consumer encounters and affective
experiences in commercial settings. Journal of Foodservice, 19, 139–149. doi:10.1111/j.1745-
4506.2008.00092.x.
Lugosi, P. (2014). Mobilising identity and culture in experience co-creation and venue operation.
Tourism Management, 40, 165–179. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2013.06.005.
254 G.T. Jóhannesson and K.A. Lund

Lund, K. A. (2015a). Just like magic: Activating landscape of witchcraft and sorcery in rural
tourism, Iceland. In S. Brunn (Ed.), Changing world religion map: Sacred places, identities,
practices and politics (pp. 767–782). New York: Springer.
Lund, K. A. (2015b). Magic mussels: Ingredients for improvising a tourism destination. Journal of
Gastronomy and Tourism, 1(1), 19–31. doi:10.3727/216929715X14298190828831.
Lund, K. A., & Jóhannesson, G. T. (2016). Earthly substances and narrative encounters: Poetics
of making a tourism destination. Cultural Geographies, 23(4), 653–669. doi:10.1177/
1474474016638041.
Massey, D. (2005). For Space. London: Sage.
McLean, S. (2009). Stories and cosmogonies: Imagining Creativity Beyond “Nature” and
“Culture”. Cultural Anthropology, 24(2), 213–245. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1360.2009.01130.x.
Minca, C., & Oakes, T. (2014). Tourism after the postmodern turn. In A. Lew, C. M. Hall, &
A. Williams (Eds.), The wiley blackwell companion to tourism (pp. 294–303). Malden, MA:
Wiley Blackwell.
Ren, C., van der Duim, R., & Jóhannesson, G. T. (2015). Postscript: Making headways, expanding
the field and slowing down. In G. T. Jóhannesson, C. Ren, & R. van der Duim (Eds.), Tourism
encounters and controversies: Ontological politics of tourism development (pp. 239–244).
Farnham: Ashgate.
Sheller, M. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38(2), 207–226.
doi:10.1068/a37268.
Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (Eds.). (2004). Tourism mobilities: Places to play, places in play. London:
Routledge.
Shepherd, R. (2002). Commodification, culture and tourism. Tourist Studies, 2(2), 183–201.
doi:10.1177/146879702761936653.
Tanggard, L. (2012). The sociomateriality of creativity in everyday life. Culture and Psychology,
19(1), 20–32. doi:10.1177/1354067X12464987.
Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Van der Duim, R., Ren, C., & Jóhannesson, G. T. (Eds.). (2012). Actor-network theory and
tourism: Ordering, materiality and multiplicity. London: Routledge.
Community and Connection: Exploring
Non-monetary Aspects of the Collaborative
Economy Through Recreation Vehicle Use

Anne Hardy

Abstract This chapter explores recreational vehicle users’ (RVers) non-monetary

transactions and tribal behaviour to broaden our understanding of collaborative
consumption. The chapter uses a neo-tribal lens to study RVers and their alignment
with the collaborative economy. Using an ethno-methodological approach, it argues
that there are functional and affective dimensions that underpin non-monetary trans-
actions. Functional dimensions relate to a desire to ensure that RV travellers are able
to achieve their travel goals. The affectual dimensions give RVers a sense of
belonging, fellowship within a group, and ultimately an opportunity to realise the
freedom they seek to experience through RVing. The chapter suggests that the heavy
emphasis given to the Internet as the conduit for the collaborative economy to occur
may not always be relevant for all styles of travellers. Moreover, it adds depth to
previous research into the collaborative economy by demonstrating that
non-monetary collaborative transactions can build a sense of belonging, fellowship
and shared sentiment.

Keywords Non-monetary Transactions • Recreational Vehicle Users • Neo-Tribes •

Collaboration • Tourism • Sharing Economy

1 Introduction

This chapter contextualizes the collaborative and tribal nature of non-monetary

transactions within the collaborative economy. It begins with a literature review of
the collaborative economy, focussing on the historical and current role of
non-monetary transactions. Following this, the chapter argues that recreational
vehicle users (RVers) provide a context through which non-monetary transactions
and tribal behaviours that occur within the collaborative economy may be explored.
Using an ethno-methodological approach the chapter then analyses the
non-monetary transactions of RVers and their alignment with the collaborative

A. Hardy (*)
Tasmanian School of Business and Economics (TSBE), University of Tasmania, Private Bag
84, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 255

D. Dredge, S. Gyimóthy (eds.), Collaborative Economy and Tourism,
Tourism on the Verge, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-51799-5_15
256 A. Hardy

economy. In doing so, it contextualises the collaborative nature of travelling within

a cultural-historical lens. A significant contribution of this chapter is that it builds
upon the positive outcomes of collaborative economy and in doing so, presents an
alternative valuing of the non-monetary transactions that take place within the
collaborative economy.
In the first chapter of this book it was established that the term collaborative
consumption was first coined by Felson and Spaeth (1978, p. 614) as:
. . .those events in which one or more persons consume economic goods or services in the
process of engaging in joint activities with one or more others.

Since then, there has been a small yet highly influential body of work that has
emerged in this space, much of which putting heavy emphasis on monetary trans-
actions (e.g. Belk, 2007, 2014) as well as on transactional definitions of the
collaborative economy involving sharing, bartering, trading and swapping. This
chapter argues that an over-emphasis on the monetary aspects of the collaborative
economy runs the risk of omitting the broader “sharing turn” characterised by col-
laborative communities and tribal behaviour.
The case of recreational vehicles users (RVers) will be used to demonstrate this
issue. For the purposes of this chapter, RV use has been defined as:
. . .a form of tourism where travellers take a camper trailer, van conversion, fifth wheel,
slide-on camper, caravan or motorhome on holiday with them, and use the vehicle as their
primary form of accommodation (Hardy & Gretzel, 2011, p. 194).

RVers have long been described as highly social, collaborative community builders
(Counts & Counts, 2004; Mattingly, 2005). Their highly mobile, yet tribal behav-
iour is built upon notions of altruistic sharing and trust (Hardy & Robards, 2015)
and has been conceptualized using neo-tribal theory. Neo-tribes were first defined
by Maffesoli (1996: 98), then more recently conceptualised as:
. . .networks of heterogeneous persons. . ..who are linked by a shared passion or emotion; a
tribe is capable of collective action, its members are not simple consumers, they are also
advocates (Cova and Cova, 2002, p. 602).

The characteristics of a neo-tribe have been defined as a grouping that is fluid and
ephemeral and based on a state of mind and a lifestyle rather than long-standing
involvement (Maffesoli, 1996). Muniz and O’Guinn (2001, p. 414) argued that:
. . .they form, they disperse, they re-from as something else, reflecting the constant shifting
identities of postmodern consumers.

Hardy, Wickham, and Gretzel (2013b) propose that neo-tribes can be identified
as possessing two characteristics: symbolic and behavioural elements. Symbolic
elements include a sense of sharing a lifestyle and being part of community of
emotionally connected people. A communal ethic dominates along with a sense of
fellowship. The behavioural aspects that define neo-tribes include a physical shar-
ing of space, meeting and performative spaces (Hughson, 2007) and scenes (Ben-
nett, 2011) where individuals group together because of a shared taste. Behavioural
Community and Connection: Exploring Non-monetary Aspects of the. . . 257

characteristics of neo-tribes also include rituals (Hardy et al., 2013b) and signifiers
such as goods which may be consumed (Cova and Cova, 2002).
Arguably, RVers’ highly mobile lifestyle and social practices represent a
neo-tribe. They have been documented as having a strong sense of belonging,
fellowship and sense of worth (Counts & Counts, 2004; Hardy, Hanson, & Gretzel,
2013a; Hardy et al., 2013b; Hardy & Robards, 2015). Moreover, and significantly
for this study, the social practices of sharing suggest that RVers are a neo-tribe with
non-monetary collaborative consumption at its core. Counts and Counts (2004)
argued that RVers’ sharing habits are often a necessity, as they allow them to
maintain their independence, particularly when on the road for extended periods of
time, or in remote regions with few services or facilities. Resources which are
shared include information on campsites and sharing of information or physical
tools in order to perform repairs while on the road. This non-monetary form of
sharing differs from economic activities as it also includes sharing that has emo-
tional outcomes; studies have illustrated that the social glue of this highly mobile
neo-tribe give RVers a sense of belonging as well as safety (Hardy & Robards,
2015). Despite the location and nature of RVers’ non-monetary sharing practices
having undergone changes since the development of Web 2.0, there are still
significant performative spaces where sharing has occurred for many years and
continues to do so.

2 Exploring the Historical Drivers for the Collaborative

Economy

There is a persuasive argument for the collaborative economy being a new and
technologically facilitated consumption phenomenon. Its rapid and recent growth,
particularly in an online context, has been articulated by Owyang (2013) as being
the result of three contemporary drivers: (1) societal changes, such as increasing
population density and a subsequent desire for sustainability; (2) economic drivers,
such as a desire to make money from excess infrastructure or unused/idling assets
that one may own, such as property; and (3) technology, such as the development of
social media and networking which have largely been a result of the development of
mobile Internet devices including tablets and smart phones. Importantly however,
there are also other drivers, which include a desire to travel more sustainably and to
reduce negative impacts on the environment (Tussyadiah, 2015), and a desire to feel
a sense of belonging to a community of like-minded people (Albinsson & Perera,
2012; Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Galbreth, Ghosh, & Shor, 2012; McArthur, 2015;
Närvänen, Kartastenpää, & Kuusela, 2013; Tussyadiah, 2015). Dredge and
Gyimóthy (2015) add that the rapid uptake of the collaborative economy is a
consequence of the recognition of problems inherent in the traditional tourism
industrial system. These include unused assets; barriers to investment; large
amounts of regulation; high transaction costs; and the use of social media combined
258 A. Hardy

with a desire for personalised and alternative forms of tourism and authentic
experiences (Botsman & Rogers, 2010). The use of social media has recently
received so much attention that the collaborative economy has been defined as
denoting the:
. . .use of Internet technologies in an effort to connect distributed groups of people to make
better use of skills, goods and other useful things (Stokes, Clarence, & Rinne, 2014, p. 10).

Similarly, Belk (2014) also emphasised the importance of technology and

argued that sharing and collaborative consumption have two aspects in common:
(1) their use of temporary access non-ownership models of utilizing consumer
goods and services and (2) their reliance on the Internet, particularly websites
that allow users to communicate and share content with each other (Carroll &
Romano, 2011). This heavy reliance on the Internet as a conduit through which the
collaborative economy occurs has also been advocated by Hamari et al. (2015, p. 3),
who defined collaborative economy as:
. . .peer-to-peer activity of obtaining, giving, sharing or gaining access to goods and
services, coordinated through community-based online services.

Indeed, Grassmuck (2012) argues that the Web 2.0 era has facilitated what may be
defined as the ‘sharing turn.’
However, while there is no doubt that the Internet has resulted in the formation
of a variety of new ways of monetary based sharing, the Internet has also facilitated
older forms of non-monetary sharing on a larger scale (Belk, 2014) such as
bartering and the trading of information. These forms of sharing are evident in
ancient guidebooks that make suggestions of the best places to visit and the
practices of hosting guests in one’s home. They do not involve the Internet or an
exchange of money and as such may be considered significant antecedents to the
modern collaborative economy. Importantly, these historical antecedents suggest
that engagement is not just about money. More recently the sharing of photographs
and experiences upon one’s return from their vacation, serve not only as a tool for
recounting adventures and activities, but also allow travellers to share their new-
found knowledge of regions and traveller resources.
Non-monetary exchanges have also allowed travellers to actively avoid capital-
ist systems. The counter-cultural hippies in Amsterdam in 1970s have been
documented as gathering in groups, so as to escape the norms of society, institutions
and rules. These young travellers from different walks of life coalesced for short
periods of time in Amsterdam to share their desire to escape from their routine life
at home. Their exchanges of goods, where money was tight and drugs were highly
valued, were recorded as being non-monetary and akin to being ‘hunter-gatherer-
like’ (ten Have, 1974). Bartering and exchanges were recorded as well as social
engagement (ten Have, 1974). Significantly, this early research concurs with
research that reveals similar motivational factors for engaging in the collaborative
economy, including economic motivations such as a desire to save money (Bardhi
& Eckhardt, 2012; M€ohlmann, 2015; Tussyadiah, 2015) or to ‘buck the capitalist
system’ (McArthur, 2015). Moreover, it appears that at the core of these
Community and Connection: Exploring Non-monetary Aspects of the. . . 259

collaborative interactions was a desire to socialise, identify with like-minded

travellers and experience a sense of belonging—all akin to the concept of the
neo-tribe.
Recently, non-monetary exchanges within the collaborative economy have been
explored by McArthur (2015) who argued that economic explanations for the
growth of sharing behaviour are inadequate for explaining the success of platforms
where no money changes hands. Similarly, Tussyadiah (2015) suggested that the
collaborative economy is not just about money but rather people desiring a new
mode of travel. However, what both authors demonstrate is an ahistoric view of
collaborative consumption. The historical existence of non-monetary transactions
within the tourism industry suggests that travellers have engaged in sharing and
altruistic behaviour for many years. The neo-tribal lens, which suggests that
neo-tribes have affective outcomes (Hardy & Robards, 2015) such as sense of
fellowship, belonging and being part of a community of like-minded individuals,
provides a cogent lens through which the reasons for engagement in the collabora-
tive economy may be explored. The provision of a contextualised understanding of
the collaborative economy will arguably provide rich socio-historical insights into
its recent surge in popularity.

2.1 Conceptualising the Recreational Vehicle Market

Recreational vehicle users (RVers) have been defined as highly mobile travellers
who are motivated by the desire to experience freedom from the routine of their
home life (Counts & Counts, 2004; Fjelstul & Fyall, 2015; Hardy & Gretzel, 2011;
Mings & McHugh, 1995; Onyx & Leonard, 2005). In Europe, Australia and the
United States, RVers are stereotypically regarded as retirees, called Grey Nomads
in Australia or Snowbirds in North America, who travel for extended periods of
time (Counts & Counts, 2004; Onyx & Leonard, 2005). However, other groups also
exist, including the family market, and those who travel in Caravan or RV club
groups and stay only in free or low cost destinations (known as Boondockers in
North America and Freedom Campers in Australia). What differentiates this form
of travel from others is that the accommodation remains the same for the duration of
the vacation and is pre-purchased when the RV is bought. This in itself differenti-
ates the economic structure of this market from others. Consequently, once on the
road the expenditure of RVers on ‘accommodation’ such as campsite fees, appears
minimal in contrast to other tourism sectors. This is accentuated by the fact that
RVs are now commonly equipped with toilets, showers, grey and black water
storage. This facilitates traveller’s ability to free camp in locations that have no
campsite fee, such as roadside pullovers, national parks and public reserves.
Consequently, the RV market is often mistakenly regarded as low income and
given a low priority by many local, regional, state and even national tourist
organisations. Perhaps for this reason information for these travellers is sparse,
260 A. Hardy

particularly considering the size of the RV market. In the United States, it is

estimated that 8.9 million households now own an RV and the industry is worth
$37 billion (Recreational Vehicle Industry Association, 2014). Similarly in
Australia, whose entire population is 23 million, there were 528,869 caravan and
campervan registrations at January 2013 (BDO, 2014).
Fellowship that transcends societal status, along with an aspiration for a trans-
formative journey, has been documented as being an essential affective outcome of
RVing by researchers (Gretzel, Formica, & Fesenmaier, 2005; Hardy & Robards,
2015; Holloway, 2007; Onyx & Leonard, 2005; White & White, 2004; Hardy &
Gretzel, 2011; Viallon, 2012). RVers as a collaborative neo-tribe has been exam-
ined in both North America and Australia, both in the pre- and post- Internet era
(Counts & Counts, 2004; Guinn, 1980; Mattingly, 2005; Mings & McHugh, 1995;
Onyx & Leonard, 2005; Wu & Pearce, 2014). RVers have been noted for their
highly collaborative nature such as their daily practices of ‘Happy Hour’ around the
campsite at approximately 5 p.m. and their attendance at rallies and social func-
tions. Their desire to socialise and share experiences, their willingness to help those
in need of assistance with their vehicle, and their reliance on sharing information
regarding campsites has also been noted (Counts & Counts, 2004; Guinn, 1980;
Mings & McHugh, 1995). Prior to the Internet and even at the time of writing, this
was done through various channels such as word-of-mouth, different forms of radio
including citizens band (CB), club magazines and publications. Word-of-mouth in
this community is also paramount; the swapping of information is a social transac-
tion that results in friendships and a spectrum of relational bonds being established
but also has a practical role in terms of enhancing RVers safety while on the road
(Counts & Counts, 2004; Hardy & Robards, 2015). To date however, it appears that
RVing has not been explored as a form of collaborative consumption.
Arguably, the introduction of the Internet has resulted in the highly collaborative
nature of RVing becoming far more visible to the outsider. The extent of Internet
use by RVers is often misunderstood due to assumptions that Grey Nomads and
Snowbirders are older, non-technologically savvy travellers (Hardy & Gretzel,
2011). The reality, however, is that Grey Nomads, Snowbirders and RV club
members in particular, are highly connected via web based medium such as
GeoWikis, Chat Forums and most recently, sharing platforms such as Park-Sleep,
Camplify and My Caravan. Explorations of this market and its reliance on
non-monetary transactions provide an opportunity to explore the value of
non-monetary transactions that occur within this collaborative economy.

3 Methods

The empirical research that will be presented in this study is the result of four
studies derived from ethno-methodological fieldwork that was carried out over the
past 9 years (2007–2014) in Canada and Australia on the RV market. Consisting of
Community and Connection: Exploring Non-monetary Aspects of the. . . 261

four major studies (two in Canada in 2006 and 2007 and two in Australia in 2012,
2013 and 2014), the data presented in this research was collated following 50 -
in-depth interviews of RVers in Canada in 2007, 22 in 2006, 22 in Australia in 2011
and 50 in 2013. The Canadian data collection methods included 50 interviews of
RVers at Dawson Creek in Northern British Columbia. This township marks the
start of the famous Alaska Highway, which is a famous landmark for North
American RVers. The interviews were semi-structured in nature and were carried
out at three RV overnight stops, including two commercial RV parks and one free
camping site.
The Australian data set included semi structured interviews that were conducted
at three RVing destinations on the East Coast of Tasmania, Australia. Like the
Canadian research, differing campgrounds were selected as study sites to reflect the
variety of overnight RV sites and styles. Thus, interviews were conducted at one of
the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service camping grounds, located within
Freycinet National Park, a free camping site maintained by the Tasmanian Parks
and Wildlife Service, and a low cost overnight camping area comprising one sports
field in a small town.
In addition to interviews, netnographic research (Kozinets, 2010) was conducted
to gain further insights into the culture of RVing with pets. Using the principles
outlined by Kozinets, two popular RVing forums used by RVers were selected for
Canada and Australia: Good Sam’s (http://www.goodsamclub.com/forums/) for
Canada and the Caravaners Forum (http://caravanersforum.com/) for Australia. In
Australia, the Caravan and Motorhome on Tour forum (http://www.candm.com.au/
forum/) was used and explored RVers’ discussions regarding the iconic outback
road, called the Oodnadatta Track, in South Australia.
In all stages of research, the essence of collaborative consumption in the context
of RVing was explored. In particular, the elements of sharing and distribution were
given focus. While the notion of collaborative economy did not form the original
reason for the data collection, the themes that emerged from the transcriptions and
subsequent analysis through NVivo clearly demonstrated that RVing is a highly
mobile form of tourism that has had a significant and long standing practice of
non-monetary collaboration. It was this observation that formed the basis for the
current chapter.

4 Findings

In order to explore the value of non-monetary transactions, the data analysis first
explores the collaborative spaces and platforms (physical and virtual) where trans-
actions occur and then discusses their value to RVers.
262 A. Hardy

4.1 Performative Spaces for Collaboration

At the campgrounds in North America and Australia where the research was
conducted, collaboration was clearly evident at certain times of the day. Most
evident was around 5 p.m., when Happy Hour would begin. Happy Hour is a
tradition amongst RVers that has been documented by numerous authors (Counts
& Counts, 2004; Hardy & Robards, 2015). Around 5 p.m. RVers would assemble
outside their RV and have a pre-dinner drink or snack. It is during this time that high
levels of socialisation would occur within and between groups of travellers. RV
specific language was evident during this time; terms such as rigs (the RV),
boondocking (the name for free camping in North America), sani dumps (waste
disposal stations) and hook ups (where RVs can source electrical power) could be
heard. During this time, it was commonplace to hear RVers comparing and eval-
uating campsites, sharing their stories of different destinations, and recommending
attractions to visit which have easy access for their RVs. Rituals of introduction
were also evident; some participants in our research explained they used number
plates as a point from which to start an introductory conversation.
Outside of Happy Hour, the sharing inherent within RVing was also evident at
other locations throughout the campground. As RVers passed each other when
walking to the amenities block, when cooking their barbecue on the common
barbecues, or when meeting each other while filling their water or disposing of
their waste, it was commonplace to witness socialising. These encounters provided
the opportunity for collaborative exchanges to occur and acted as opportunities to
consolidate relational ties.
Motorhome User (Canada): I meet a lot of people at RV parks . . . Everywhere we go, I find
somebody to talk to. Most of them are the same kind of people I am. We mostly chat—see
where they are from, what occupation they have done in the past. We try to find some stuff
in common—road, weather or fishing trip.

In addition to face-to-face collaboration, our research established the online

environment as an additional site of collaborative performance. There are now
countless websites, discussion boards, blogs and books that are dedicated to this
activity (Caldicott, Scherrer, & Jenkins, 2014; Counts & Counts, 2004; Hardy et al.,
2013a). In Australia this information was evident on the Oodanadatta Track Forum.
This virtual space was a location where RVers could gather and share information
that would assist in their planning. RVers would post to reflect back on their
journey, or ask specific questions to assist in their planning.
In addition to face-to-face and online sharing, collaboration within the RVing
community also takes place via radio. In Australia and North America, it was not
unusual to find RVs that have CB radios. These radios were installed near the
dashboard of the RV and could be operated at any time. CB radio utilises channels
and RVers would commonly display the channel that they used on the back of
their rig.
Community and Connection: Exploring Non-monetary Aspects of the. . . 263

4.2 Why Non-monetary Collaboration Occurs

When exploring the different performative spaces of collaboration, it became

evident that there were different reasons why non-monetary transactions occurred.
One set of reasons was related to the function and the practicalities of RVing such
as information exchange. The other reasons were related to affective needs, such as
a desire to experience a sense of belonging. Thus, the results suggested that the
collaborative RVing economy was driven by more than just utilitarian exchange.
Moreover, it appeared that different platforms were used to satisfy the differing
reasons for collaboration. These will now be explored.
Functional Reasons for Collaboration: Safety The desire of RVers to feel safe
and care for their fellow RVers, was determined as an important reason for their
collaborative behaviour and was evident at all three performative spaces. Prior to
leaving on a new journey RVers relied heavily on the Internet. The Oodanadatta
Track Forum (the Oodanadatta Track is an iconic RV route that follows unsealed
roads) had many examples of RVers seeking information from fellow travellers in
order to assist with their planning. The motivation for these discussions was often
expressed as a desire to feel safe and secure in Outback Australia, and a desire to
access basic facilities such as food and water.
Caravanner (Internet Forum): We stayed at Leigh Creek (filled the water tanks there from
their excellent dam water) and then overnighted at William Creek and then onto Kulgara
(on the Sturt north of Marla). Had one of the best Porterhouse steaks ever at William Creek.

In addition to heat, a great concern to RVers was the possibility of rain, which can
result in slippery treacherous, driving conditions. As a consequence, the
Oodanadatta Track forum users were regularly seen to be giving advice such as this:
Tent Trailer User (Australia): Avoid it if wet or chance of rain as sections of it can become
very slippery. Recently graded corrugations are not too bad and many sections are quite
good gravel road. Just before you travel give a few of the local spots a call to check latest
conditions e.g. Maree, William Creek pubs.

During their travels, RVers used CB Radio channels to share information that
would enhance safety. In some instances collaboration would extend beyond
RVers, to drivers of other types of large vehicles such as trucks:
Caravanner (Australia): We have a CB radio to communicate with trucks and other
travellers as a safety feature.

The function of these radios was to share information about road conditions,
weather and other aspects that may affect the RVing experience.
The campground also acted as a performance space where the sharing of
important information related to safety, such as weather, road conditions or other
aspects affected by seasonality would occur. This performative space allowed
RVers to share tips on places they had recently travelled to and those that they
considered should be avoided if they recently had become unsafe.
264 A. Hardy

Functional Reasons for Collaboration: Equipment Maintenance

and Repair Like safety, collaboration was evident amongst RVers through their
sharing of information regarding RV equipment, ongoing maintenance, and on the
road-repairs. These functional interactions appeared to be driven by a deeper need
to consolidate and build their sense of being a part of the neo-tribe. RVers would
discuss how to plan for on the road repairs which may be necessary during travel
and what equipment to take on particular journeys. Discussions would regularly
centre on the necessary equipment that was required to undertake demanding
routes, such as tyres, suspension and even appropriate RV types for differing routes:
Caravaner (Australia): I am wanting your thoughts. We are thinking of towing our 20 ft
Heritage Jayco van with our 100 series 1999 Landcruiser down the Oodnadatta Track next
year, and would like to hear from anyone who might have done it and survived, or not
survived. Also open to your thoughts. I drive for pleasure no rip doodoo and bust driving, as
we enjoy travelling this great country. Awaiting your replies.

And a reply from a fellow Caravaner, Australia: I noted that you had a Jayco Heritage and
would suggest that you invert the axles (put the axles under the springs) if you have not
already done so to give you better ground clearance, have good quality A/T light truck tyres
and have a dust vent in your roof of the van to stop the dust getting in.

And a further reply from a Caravaner (Australia): We recently fitted Kumho AT tyres and
have just done the Strzeleki, Birdsville and Oodnadatta tracks—all road conditions plus a
bit of sand work without the van on. The tyres are great: good grip, quiet, no chipping on
rough stone roads. I got them for $300 each in Sydney, fitted and balanced (17 inch rims).
This was $100–200 lower cost than MT, BFG etc.

At the campsite, we noted collaboration related to equipment, maintenance and

repair. RVers would share information on the different gear they had purchased.
Non-monetary transactions and trading was also evident if something went wrong.
It was not uncommon to see one RVer assisting another whose vehicle or equipment
was faulty. And bartering, trading and the practice of ‘paying it forward’ were also
evident amongst RVers:
Motorhome User (Canada): Last night we met three couples, two from Canada and one
from Florida. We started talking and another couple stopped by. Eight of us pulled out
chairs and sat around fire and it got late before we even realized it. I asked a guy what he
was doing while he was fixing the RV and we learned something. You can learn a lot of
things from people. Sharing on the road is an everyday thing. I learned some time ago how
to unhook the car and a few days ago I passed that knowledge on to some other RVer. Last
night we were from four different corners of our continent. We keep in touch. We visited a
lady we met earlier. There’ll be a lot more Christmas cards this year.

This research established that the CB radio was commonly mentioned as a perfor-
mative space where collaboration regarding equipment maintenance and repair
occurred. Again, this fora enhanced a sense of tribal belonging amongst this highly
mobile group of travellers.
Functional Reasons for Collaboration: Sharing Travel Information This
research established that the three major performative spaces provided
Community and Connection: Exploring Non-monetary Aspects of the. . . 265

opportunities for collaboration, albeit for different reasons. The online forum
played a significant role for RVers to share information on their experiences and
assist others with their planning in order to ensure they felt safe. RVers would post
questions and these would be answered. It was an asymmetric relationship as some
RVers appeared to answer many more questions than they asked themselves.
However, once on the road, a more reciprocal exchange was evident, where up to
date information on roads, campsites and facilities was shared amongst RVers at
Happy Hour and around the campsite.
Caravanner, Canada: You meet a lot of people from all over the place—pleasant friendly
people. We chat about road conditions or traffic. You talk about places that they’ve been
and you haven’t. They tell you about road conditions and things like that.

Additionally, while on the road, CB radio allowed real time information to be

traded on current road conditions and weather events with fellow RVers or truck
drivers.
Functional Reasons for Collaboration: To Save Money and Live
and Alternative Lifestyle In recent years, motorhomes and caravans have
grown in size and are increasingly self-contained, such that they can store their
own water and waste. For large motorhomes, flat ground, wide access and room for
turning circles, plus the ability for RVs to avoid having to reverse are common
requirements. Access to this information is not always readily available, so the
‘bush telegraph’ or face-to-face sharing of information was found to be functionally
important for these travellers. It also allowed them to share information on free or
low cost campsites, that were often not promoted by local visitor information
centre.
In addition, this research also revealed that a motivator for collaboration may
also be a desire to live an alternative lifestyle. With RVers, this manifested as a
desire to escape the norms of society and expectations to retire and leave a routine
life. Previously recognised by Counts and Counts (2004) and Hardy and Gretzel
(2011), this was evident in the interviews:
Motorhomer (Canada): I mean we work. So, we typically do that for 20–30 years. We don’t
move much. . . . I want to experience the people and I want to experience the life outside of
my comfort zone if you will and everything I have there.

Motorhome (Australia): I hate regulation, love freedom.

The desire of these RVers to “buck the system” has synergies with the collaborative
economy literature that details participants’ desire to live alternative lifestyles and
experience alternative, less consumerist experiences (McArthur, 2015). The sharing
that they engaged in, either online, in person or via CB radio, allowed them to
realise their desire.
The research was conducted prior to the introduction in 2014 and 2015 of
sharing communities for RVers, such as Camplify.com and MyCaravan.com.
However it did identify a small cohort of travellers in campsites who collaborated
266 A. Hardy

to co-purchase a RV in order to be able to afford to purchase an RV and make it

more economically feasible and to avoid the idling of assets.
Caravaner (Australia): We own this [van] in partnership with some friends.

The rationale for these families engagement into an informal collaborative econ-
omy was clearly to save money. This has synergies with motivations for engaging
in the collaborative economy, as articulated by Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012),
M€ohlmann (2015) and Tussyadiah (2015).
Affective Reasons for Collaboration: To Experience a Sense of Freedom
and Self Actualisation Non-monetary collaboration was found to not only assist
in achieving functional outcomes, but it also assisted RVers in achieving affective
outcomes. Through all forms of our research, a reoccurring theme was RVers’
motivation to experience a sense of freedom through RVing. Sharing and collab-
oration was seen by them as necessary as it helped RVers to be as independent as
possible and escape what many regarded as the shackles of everyday life and
routine, and to realise their goals to travel and leave their daily lives behind.
Caravanner (Australia): Free and easy is me.

Motorhome (Canada): Freedom, it is my turf. I want to go where I want and when I want.

For RVers, socialisation and the sharing that came with this interaction provided
them with the opportunity to meet likeminded people from different walks of life
and affirmed their sense of belonging.
Affective Outcomes from Non-Monetary Collaboration: A Sense of Belonging
and Being Amongst like Minded People This research concurred with that of
others, that RVers derive a great sense of belonging to a large group of like-minded
people when on the road (Hardy & Robards, 2015). A reoccurring theme was that
RVing was perceived as an activity that resulted in travellers feeling a sense of
freedom.
Caravan owner (Canada): When I travel in my RV I feel free-spirited, alive and excited.

RVers were aware that they shared sentiment and derived a sense of from being
with like-minded people. They were both aware and proud of their tribe and its
inclusive membership.
Motorhome (Canada): I think the biggest thing I like is, when you pull into a Walmart, or
any campground and you stay, you meet people and you all have the same likes. So,
everybody is friends. Automatically you have friends.

The sense of belonging that was so strong amongst many RVers concurs with
arguments that the desire to feel a sense of belonging is a central motivator for those
who engaging in the collaborative economy (Albinsson & Perera, 2012; Botsman &
Rogers, 2010; Galbreth et al., 2012; McArthur, 2015; Närvänen et al., 2013;
Tussyadiah, 2015). This aspect is entirely non-monetary and demonstrates the
importance of affective outcomes for participants within the broader collaborative
economy.
Community and Connection: Exploring Non-monetary Aspects of the. . . 267

5 Discussion

This chapter has argued that those who engage in the collaborative economy do so
in forms that stretch beyond monetary exchanges. Recently, literature on the
collaborative economy has focused on the economic and technological aspects of
this rapidly growing phenomena (Botsman & Rogers, 2014; Hamari et al., 2015).
However, using the example of Recreational Vehicle Users (RVers) this chapter
posits that non-monetary collaboration is highly significant and may be categorised
as having both functional and affective dimensions. Functionally, RVs are now
commonly equipped with toilets, showers and grey and black water storage.
Consequently, they demonstrate a high propensity to free camp and as such, often
spend relatively little on accommodation. For these travellers, non-monetary col-
laboration is of significant value because it allows them to share travel tips, source
desirable and cost efficient campsites, enhance their sense of safety, and share ideas
on equipment, maintenance and repairs, which are necessary when travelling in
remote and regional environments. These non-monetary collaborative exchanges
present an opportunity to undertake alternative transactions to those that exist in
capitalist systems, none of which can be quantitatively measured.
In addition to non-monetary transactions having an important functional value,
this research revealed that non-monetary transactions have affective dimensions
such as giving participants a sense of belonging, fellowship within a group, and
ultimately an opportunity to realise the freedom they seek to experience through
RVing. RVers have been documented as neo-tribes (Hardy & Robards, 2015) and
this has synergies with Botsman and Rogers’ (2010) claim that trust is a key
determinant for active participation in the collaborative economy: RVers in this
study were found to place great value upon the sense of trust, meaning making,
reciprocity and belonging that they gained from being in a large mobile community.
The exploration of the value of non-monetary transactions within the collabo-
rative economy revealed that collaboration occurs in a number of different fora,
including RV campgrounds, online sites and also on CB Radio. Interestingly, these
transactions take place in the public sphere, away from visitor information centres,
or government funded websites. Particularly when planning their trips, this chapter
demonstrated that RVers are heavy users of the Internet. In the case of remote and
potentially dangerous routes, such as the Oodnadatta Track in Australia, forums and
websites devoted to sharing information play a vitally important function, particu-
larly in the planning phases of RVers’ travel. This concurred with literature that the
Internet plays a highly important role within the collaborative economy (Belk,
2014; Carroll & Romano, 2011; Hamari et al., 2015).
However, the Internet was not the only significant forum for non-monetary
collaborative transactions. Face-to-face communication was found to play an
equally important role in the collaborative economy of RVers. The use of word-
of-mouth communication was evident in campsites, meetings places such as petrol
stations and roadside stops. Communication during this time provided RVers with
268 A. Hardy

information on campsites, road conditions and destinations, as well as reassured

them that they belonged to a neo-tribe of like-minded people.
While driving on the highway, a third mode of non-monetary collaborative
transactions were found to be of great importance to RVers. Despite the rise of
the Internet, CB radio remains a common method of communication where infor-
mation on road conditions and campsites is often shared. The reasons for this
continued use of this communication method is likely to be related to a lack of
Internet access in remote areas and RVers desire to feel safe and reduce their risks
where possible.
The findings pertaining to collaboration suggest that the heavy emphasis given to
the Internet as the conduit for the collaborative economy to occur (Belk, 2014;
Carroll & Romano, 2011; Hamari et al., 2015) may not always be relevant for all
styles of travellers. Significantly, the use of CB radio and face-to-face communi-
cation at campsites and meeting places challenges Grassmuck’s (2012) proposition
that the Web 2.0 era has facilitated a ‘sharing turn’, as it demonstrates that sharing
has existed amongst travellers for many years prior to and following the Web
2.0 era.
Moreover, the research adds depth to the work of Dredge and Gyimóthy (2015)
by demonstrating that non-monetary collaborative transactions can build a sense of
belonging, fellowship and shared sentiment. These are some of the potentially
positive aspects of the collaborative economy that previously have been
overlooked.
While writing this chapter, several new sharing websites have opened for RVers,
using similar models to platforms such as Airbnb. RVers who are not using their rig
are encouraged to rent them out. Other sites advertise areas suitable for RVers to
camp at with minimal cost and have been developed for owners to utilise their
unused assets. The implications of this are that RVers can now converge and
collaborate on multiple online platforms, which may affect their social and tribal
dynamics in the future. Further research is now needed to decipher whether these
sites have reinforced, enhanced or changed the nature of non-monetary
collaborations.
To conclude, this chapter has broadened the discussion of collaborative econ-
omy by exploring of the character of non-monetary and non-digital collaborative
transactions. It argues that non-monetary transactions play important roles within
the collaborative economy and may even lie at the very heart of this phenomenon.
Moreover, neo-tribal formations may adopt these collaborative platforms, thus
reinforcing the already strong bonds that exist their community.

References

Albinsson, P. A., & Perera, B. Y. (2012). Alternative marketplaces in the 21st century: Building
community through sharing events. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(4), 303–315.
Community and Connection: Exploring Non-monetary Aspects of the. . . 269

Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. (2012). Access based consumption: The case of car sharing. Journal of
Consumer Research, 39, 881–898.
BDO. (2014). Caravan and campervan data report: August 2014. Unpublished report produced
for the Caravan, Industry Association of Australia. Stafford Heights, Queensland: Caravan
Industry Association of Australia.
Belk, E. (2007). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(5), 715–734.
Belk, E. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption line.
Journal of Business Research, 67, 1595–1600.
Bennett, A. (2011). The post-subcultural turn: Some reflections 10 years on. Journal of Youth
Studies, 14(5), 493–506.
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours: How collaborative consumption is
changing the way we live. New York: Collins.
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative
consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1595–1600.
Caldicott, R., Scherrer, P., & Jenkins, J. (2014). Freedom camping in Australia: current status, key
stakeholders and political debate. Annals of Leisure Research, 17(4), 417–442.
Carroll, E., & Romano, J. (2011). Your digital afterlife: When Facebook, Flickr and Twitter are
your estate, what’s your legacy? Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
Counts, D. A., & Counts, D. R. (2004). Over the next hill: An ethnography of RVing seniors in
North America (2nd ed.). Peterborough: Broadview Press.
Cova, B., & Cova, V. (2002). Tribal marketing: The tribalisation of society and its impact on the
conduct of marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 36(5/6), 595–620.
Dredge, D., & Gyimóthy, S. (2015). Tourism and the collaborative economy: Critical perspectives,
questionable claims and silent voices. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(3), 286–302.
Felson, M., & Spaeth, J. (1978). Community structure and collaborative consumption: A routine
activity approach. The American behavioural Scientist, 21(4), 614–624.
Fjelstyl, J., & Fyall, A. (2015). Sustainable drive tourism: A catalyst for change. International
Journal of Tourism Research, 19(5), 460–470. doi:10.1002/jtr.2013.
Galbreth, M. R., Ghosh, B., & Shor, M. (2012). Social sharing of information goods: Implications
for pricing and profits. Marketing Science, 31(4), 603–620.
Grassmuck, V. (2012). The sharing turn: Why we are generally nice and have a good chance to
cooperate our way out of the mess we have gotten ourselves into. In W. Sützl, F. Stalder,
R. Maier, & T. Hug (Eds.), Cultures and ethics of sharing. Inssbruck: Innsbruck University
Press.
Gretzel, U., Formica, S., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2005). Tribal marketing for destination websites: A
case study of RV enthusiasts. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Travel and Tourism Research
Association Conference. Boise, Idaho: Tourism and Travel Research Association.
Guinn, R. (1980). Elderly recreational vehicle tourists: Motivations for Leisure. Journal of Travel
Research, 19(9), 9–13.
Hamari, J., Sjoklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2015, July). The sharing economy: Why people
participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science
and Technology. doi:10.1002/asi.23552.
Hardy, A., & Gretzel, U. (2011). Why we travel this way: An exploration into the motivations of
recreational vehicle users. In D. Carson & B. Prideaux (Eds.), Drive tourism: Trends and
emerging markets (pp. 194–223). London: Routledge.
Hardy, A., & Robards, B. (2015). The ties that bind: Exploring neo-tribal theory’s relevance to
tourism. Tourism Analysis, 20(4), 443–454.
Hardy, A., Hanson, D., & Gretzel, U. (2013a). Travelling neo-tribes: Conceptualising recreational
vehicle users. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 11(1–2), 48–60.
Hardy, A., Wickham, M., & Gretzel, U. (2013b). Neglected stakeholder groups: The pitfalls of
tourism policy development. Journal of Corporate Ownership and Control, 11(1), 348–359.
Holloway, D. (2007). See Australia and die: Shifting discourses about gray nomads. Tourism,
Culture and Communication, 7, 161–168.
270 A. Hardy

Hughson, J. (2007). A tale of two tribes: Expressive fandom in Australian Soccer’s A-league.
Culture, Sport, Society, 2(3), 10–30.
Kozinets, R. V. (2010). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. London: Sage.
Maffesoli, M. (1996). The time of the tribes. London: Sage.
Mattingly, G. A. (2005). Individualistic roamers or community builders? Differences and bound-
aries among RVers. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Mississippi State University.
McArthur, E. (2015). Many-to-many exchange without money: Why people share their resources.
Consumption, Markets & Culture, 18(3), 239–256.
Mings, R., & McHugh, K. (1995). Wintering in American sunbelt: Linking place and behaviour.
The Journal of Tourism Studies, 6(2), 56–61.
M€ohlmann, M. (2015). Collaborative consumption: Determinants of satisfaction and the likeli-
hood of using a sharing economy option again. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14(3),
193–207. doi:10.1002/cb.1512.
Muniz, A., & O’Guinn, T. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4),
412–432.
Närvänen, E., Kartastenpää, E., & Kuusela, H. (2013). Online lifestyle consumption community
dynamics: A practice-based analysis. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12(5), 358–369.
Onyx, J., & Leonard, R. (2005). Australian grey nomads and American snowbirds: Similarities and
differences. Journal of Tourism Studies, 16(1), 61–68.
Owyang, J. (2013). The collaborative economy: Products, services and market relationships have
changed as sharing startups impact business models. A Market Definition Report. Altimeter.
Retrieved August 31, 2016, from http://www.slideshare.net/Altimeter/the-collaborative-
economy
Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA). (2014). RVIA news release: New RVIA
research shows record level of RV ownership. Retrieved August 31, 2015, from http://www.
rvia.org/?esid¼trends
Stokes, K., Clarence, E., & Rinne, A. (2014). Making sense of the UK collaborative economy.
Retrieved August 31, 2016, from http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/making-sense-uk-col
laborative-economy
ten Have, P. (1974). The counter culture on the move: A field study of youth tourists in
Amsterdam. Mensch en Maatschappi, 49, 297–315 http://rjh.ub.rug.nl/MenM/article/
viewFile/13341/10840.
Tussyadiah, I. (2015). An exploratory study on drivers and deterrents of collaborative consump-
tion in travel. In I. Tussyadiah & A. Inversini (Eds.), Information and communication tech-
nologies in tourism, Proceedings of the international conference in lugano, Switzerland
(pp. 817–830). Legano: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14343-9_59.
Viallon, P. (2012). Retiree snowbirds. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(4), 2073–2091.
White, N. R., & White, P. B. (2004). Travel as transition: Identity and place. Annals of Tourism
Research, 31, 200–218.
Wu, M., & Pearce, P. (2014). Chinese recreational vehicle users in Australia: A netnographic study
of tourist motivation. Tourism Management, 14(10), 22–35.
Collaborative Economy in Tourism in Latin
America: The Case of Argentina, Colombia,
Chile and Mexico

Helene Balslev Clausen and Mario Alberto Velázquez Garcı́a

Abstract This chapter addresses collaborative economy in four Latin American

countries: Argentina, Colombia, Chile and Mexico. It challenges one of the taken
for granted assumptions about the collaborative economy that it creates a more
equal society with a fairer, more inclusive economic model (Botsman and Rogers,
Harvard Business Review, 2010). The chapter argues that the collaborative econ-
omy is underpinned by fundamentally different rationales and structures in Latin
America compared to Western societies. The chapter’s Latin American perspective
suggests limitations in existing conceptualizations of the collaborative economy. In
Latin American societies, digital collaborative economy is adopted into a sociocul-
tural, political and economic context and has become an extension of well-
established and social embedded historical practices of collaborative production
and consumption. It has often replicated old patterns of privileged access for some
and denial for others. Even though the digital collaborative economy has increased
significantly, and Latin America is characterized by a solid information technology,
it becomes clear that the informal sector keeps playing a pivotal role in the
understanding of practices related to collaborative economy.

Keywords Collaborative economy • Latin America • Sharing economy •

Exchange • Informal economy

1 Introduction

The collaborative economy has been characterised as a worldwide phenomenon

with distinct features aligned with equality and accessibility. It is also claimed to be
a more inclusive economic model assumed to be valid across all cultural and

H.B. Clausen (*)

Department of Culture and Global Studies, Aalborg University, A.C. Meyers Vænge 15,
Copenhagen 2450, DK, Denmark
e-mail: [email protected]
M.A. Velázquez Garcı́a
Colegio de Estado de Hidalgo, Pachuca, Mexico
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 271

D. Dredge, S. Gyimóthy (eds.), Collaborative Economy and Tourism,
Tourism on the Verge, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-51799-5_16
272 H.B. Clausen and M.A. Velázquez Garcı́a

geographic contexts. This chapter argues that, in Latin American societies, prac-
tices of exchange in the collaborative economy are underpinned by fundamentally
different rationales and structures than in Western societies. For centuries in Latin
America a range of economic, sociopolitical and cultural practices have been
intimately linked to what Western societies are now calling the collaborative
economy. Acknowledging the importance of Web 2.0, this chapter will discuss
how digital technologies have brought about new collaborative consumption pat-
terns and we address the question of whether the technology-induced collaborative
economy has created new economic and sociocultural settings or if it reproduces
already existing ones.
In this chapter, we conceptualise the collaborative economy in relation to an
old economic model of collaboration that has historically existed in Latin
America. This framing provides us with an understanding beyond the current
collaborative economy in Western post-industrial societies. To define collabo-
rative economy in Latin American societies, we first need to recognise that
relations established in the exchange of goods and services are tied in some way
to historical, spatial and sociocultural conditions linked to the informal econ-
omy, social inequality and exclusion. We assert that the digitalised collaborative
economy is reproducing collaborative practices that are intimately linked to
marginalisation and social exclusion, which remain societal challenges despite
the region’s economic growth (World Bank, 2016a, b). For reasons of scope, this
chapter focuses on four countries representing the largest economies and most
important tourism destinations in the Spanish speaking part of Latin America:
Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Mexico. We emphasise how shared societal
features and challenges (e.g. inequality, exclusion and informal economy) play
out in digitalised collaborative consumption in ways that are substantially
different from the Western world.

2 Collaborative Economy

Our interpretation of collaborative economy is inspired by Felson and Spaeth

(1978) who define acts of collaborative consumption as “those events in which
one or more persons consume economic goods or services in the process of
engaging in joint activities with one or more others” (1978, p. 614). Additionally,
Belk’s definition draws attention to the motivation of compensation: “people
coordinating the acquisition and distribution of a resource for a fee or other
compensation” (2014, p. 1597). Sharing is also characterised by the collective
strength of often very weak ties according to Granovetter (1973), wherein individ-
ual collaborative action accumulates in collective results. The distinction between
offline and online collaborative exchange also warrants discussion, since inequity
and exclusion can be present in both digital and non-digital spheres. In studies of
the collaborative economy, Cammaerts (2008, 2011) found that digital technologies
cannot be treated as separate to the economic, political and cultural realities of the
Collaborative Economy in Tourism in Latin America: The Case of Argentina. . . 273

traditional, offline world but are very much entangled. Instead, digital technologies
offer new opportunities for economic participation by providing an extended
network and new avenues for exchange. However, digital technologies also go
hand-in-hand with exclusion and control, reinforcing power relations and
hegemonies.
Collaborative consumption can be understood as a form of economic exchange
whereby the use of idle goods and services not only benefits the owner or service
provider, but also a wider community. The very existence of the exchange
network extends a set of relational ties that makes a collective, and this collective
or community has future potentials beyond the simple exchange between giver
and receiver. For instance, Botsman and Rogers (2010) identify idle capacity as a
key characteristic of the collaborative economy, e.g. a car owner using digital
platforms such as “BlaBlaCar” or “Tripda” to connect with and offer seats in a car
to persons who want a ride to the same destination. This type of exchange is
reinventing not only what is consumed but also how we consume it. It also
redefines the practices that are taking place in diverse areas ranging from the
financial world to technological and educational worlds. One stated benefit of
these practices is to create a fairer, more inclusive and equitable economic model
(Botsman and Rogers, 2010).
In industrial and post-industrial societies, technology has contributed to the
commodification of culture. For example, the Internet and rapid expansion of
digital technologies have fed collaborative consumption. Increasing access to the
Internet on mobile devices has scaled up sharing quite radically; it takes place in a
context of (very) weak ties, often across international boundaries, and on a global
scale. It is not only the scope of sharing that has increased exponentially as a result
of digital technologies, but also the breadth of what is available to be shared or
traded online.
Increased access to and interconnectedness between different actors enable new
exchange opportunities, although emphasise that these technologies are appropri-
ated in different ways. Arguably, the term “network” denotes a new social mor-
phology of informational capitalism in which communication technologies such as
the Internet facilitate the decentralisation of transactions. Castells emphasises that
digital technologies do not necessarily bring old practices of power to an end but
allow for new forms of control to emerge. They also have the potential to generate
more democratic and egalitarian practices. This is in line with a World Bank report
(2016a, b) that argues that access to information and communication infrastructure
is by no means the miracle solution to social inclusion and social cohesion. Digital
technologies require knowledge, skills and a commitment from government in
terms of education and communication programs.
The concept of “the digital divide”, which is a term originally coined to describe
the disparities in Internet access in the United States, might be useful to understand
the existing inequalities between those with access to digital technologies and those
without access. The ability of an actor, be it a company, individual, government or
other organization, to form part of, and participate in, the network is determined by
the degree to which they can contribute to the goals of the network. Individuals who
274 H.B. Clausen and M.A. Velázquez Garcı́a

cannot access and/or use new technologies are those with nothing to offer the
network and are therefore excluded (Cammaerts, 2008). For instance, even though
the above-mentioned World Bank report (2016a, b) states that Latin America has
solid investment in information technology infrastructure, production and knowl-
edge, it flags concerns that governments are not seeking to close the digital gap. For
instance, Mexico has 68 million people without access to the Internet, 61.8% of the
total population of 110 million (World Bank, 2016a, b).
Digital technologies connect individuals, groups or collaborative economy busi-
nesses and create different mechanisms, such as reputational measures, feedback
forums and ratings, to increase trust and address informational asymmetries in the
exchange process. However, social media trades on cultural homogeneity and
established social networks both online and in real life (Munar, Gyimóthy, & Cai,
2013). Whenever new connections are built, it often replicates old patterns of
privileged access for some and denial for others. Cultural encounters are likely to
occur between like-minded and privileged members of the creative middle class,
rather than within low-income communities or across a broader spectrum of
consumers (Stokes, Clarence, Anderson, & Rinne, 2014). Further, the benefits of
the collaborative economy do not necessarily trickle down to the needy, and there
are some who partake in sharing out of necessity (Kassan & Orsi, 2012) as seen
during the recent financial crisis in Spain, Portugal and Greece.

3 The Informal Sector in Latin America

This chapter challenges one of the taken for granted assumptions about the collab-
orative economy that it creates a more equal society with a fairer, more inclusive
economic model (Botsman & Rogers, 2010). As already stated, scholars have
demonstrated that new digital technologies do not necessarily generate greater
equality. In Latin American societies with a significant informal sector, we argue
that the inclusion of the informal sector is pivotal in assessing the impacts of the
collaborative economy. Often however, the informal economy is disregarded
because data on the informal economy are often unreliable by virtue of the fact
that it is hidden and operates in a grey zone outside official record keeping.
However, as a tentative picture of its relevance, this sector makes up 52% of
employment in Latin America. As such, the informal economy constitutes a
structural condition of Latin American societies, and it has consequences for
accessing goods and services in the regulated economic market.
There are also contradictions in the different forces at work that make it difficult
to understand the collaborative economy as a formal-informal phenomenon. Under
a modernisation agenda (an agenda historically pursued by global organisations
such as the World Bank), the informal sector is depicted in decline everywhere,
being replaced by structured, systematic approaches to production and consump-
tion. Digital innovation, as represented by the collaborative economy, is encour-
aged for its innovation and is perceived as a way of expanding markets and growing
Collaborative Economy in Tourism in Latin America: The Case of Argentina. . . 275

the economy. Conversely, under globalization, the economy is depicted as univer-

sally growing as a deregulated, frictionless global economy (e.g. Portes & Haller,
2005). Globalisation, as it takes form in collaborative economy peer-to-peer trans-
actions, appears to promote and even accelerate informal transactions occurring
outside the formal economy. A significant part of the activities embedded in the
concept of the collaborative economy is hitherto part of the informal sector (Hart,
1973).
In a context-bound understanding of collaborative economy, we must acknowl-
edge particular economic, environmental, social and institutional factors influenc-
ing exchange in a given society. This suggests that the informal economy is the
product and driver of advanced capitalism and the site of the most entrepreneurial
aspects of the urban economy in the Global South. For instance, exchanges outside
the formal economy can be understood as a response to the regulated, normative
market as well as a set of behavioural practices in communities that resist, are
opposed to, or excluded from participating in regulated formal markets for a variety
of reasons (Portes & Haller, 2005). Ghezzi and Mingione (2003, 2007) argue that
the informal sector is not a marginal element of the service economy in Southern
economies. On the contrary, new patterns of employment that encourage flexible
jobs lead to increasing job opportunities within the informal sector (World Bank,
2016a, b). This change in employment patterns does not occur in isolation but is
also part of broader changes taking place that reflect the legal and cultural
revalorisation of the informal economy. Flexibility and some of the informal
sector’s practices, such as certain types of micro-entrepreneurship and individual
or group initiatives, are gaining acceptance in this new economic sphere even
though they were considered illegal before. These micro-entrepreneurships are set
up, for instance, at the tianguis or flea markets, and these collaborative practices are
mediated by digital technologies that legitimise and reinforce existing social
practices.

4 Inequality and Exclusion

For some sectors of the Latin American population, the collaborative economy is a
collective strategy to generate jobs and purchase goods, where the latter is partic-
ularly related to new technologies. The scope of the collaborative economy is
intimately linked to societal conditions such as inequality and to political, econom-
ical, cultural and social exclusion, which in turn create the drivers for seeking
alternatives outside the regulated market to solve basic needs. In the Global North,
the collaborative economy has been mooted as a strategy to address market failures
such as overconsumption and overuse of resources, to unlock the economic poten-
tial of idle resources, to supplement incomes, and to reduce transaction costs for
example, which are all arguments related to formal economic exchange.
However, in Latin American countries the collaborative economy is more
appropriately understood as a societal structure and set of practices related to the
276 H.B. Clausen and M.A. Velázquez Garcı́a

unregulated or informal economy (Schneider, Buehn, & Montenegro, 2010). In this

perspective, the collaborative economy becomes yet another visible manifestation
of societal and structural challenges. Due to the lack of opportunities to integrate
into the established social and economic systems, or a lack of belief in the
institutionalised formal economy, certain social groups adapt to and participate in
the collaborative economy. In Latin America in 2012, the total population was
575 million of which 167 million (29%) lived in poverty and 66 million (11.5%) in
extreme poverty. In 2013, 68% of the population in the region was identified as
‘lower class’, with the ‘middle class’ 30% and 2% classified as ‘upper class’
(Latinobarómetro, 2013). As Table 1 shows the presence of poverty in the overall
population of Argentina, Chile, Columbia and Mexico, illustrating that despite the
region’s progress in fighting poverty and inequality over the last two decades it still
remains a central and urgent problem (World Bank, 2016a, b).
Building upon the above picture of the region, Table 2 illustrates that Latin
America is one of the most unequal regions in the world. In 2014 the richest 10% of
the people in Latin America has amassed 71% of the region’s wealth (World
Economic Forum, 2015). In 2009 taxes and transfers reduced the income inequality
in 19 Gini points in Europe, whereas in Latin America it was 2 Gini points
(OXFAM, 2014a, b).
Despite strong economic performance in Latin America over the last decade,
its vibrant economic growth and significant reduction in poverty and inequality,
approximately 20 million young people between the ages of 15 and 24 are
neither studying nor working. The integration of this group, known as “ninis”
(from the Spanish phrase “ni estudia ni trabaja”), is a persistent challenge for
governments. One of the main groups of protagonists for the collaborative
economy is the youth, which is estimated to be 140 million young people.
39% of this group (more than 54 million individuals) live in poverty and 10%
in extreme poverty. Only 35% of working youth have health insurance, 32% are
enrolled in a pension system, and of those working only 10% have a regular job.
As a group, youth are characterised by increasing education levels and they also
have access to social media platforms for exploring alternative ways to gain
access i.e. to work or social networks.
In developing societies, digital technologies divide those who have access to a
wider range of social and economic opportunities and those who do not. This
digital gap tends to open along generational and educational lines: the younger
generations generally enjoy greater use of digital technologies, and the higher
the educational level, the greater the use of digital technologies (World Bank,
2016a, b). Globally, there is a trend towards an increase in the actual value added
by the information technologies in the services sector (World Bank, 2016a, b).
However, despite increased access to technologies in developing countries, this
has not necessarily led to an increase in uptake of digitalised platforms (World
Bank, 2016a, b) such as Uber, Airbnb or Touristlink. As noted above, one of the
key points of difference between Western and Latin American societies is the way
capitalism operates: in developing countries inequality, exclusion, and the informal
sector are contributing to structural problems and alternative economic practices that do
Collaborative Economy in Tourism in Latin America: The Case of Argentina. . . 277

Table 1 Poverty ratio (in %) 1990 2000 2010 2013

in the population of
Argentina S/D+ S/D 7.6 S/D
Argentina, Chile, Colombia
and México Chile 38.59 20.22 14.1 14.4
Colombia S/D S/D 44.9 28.5
México S/D 41.1 49.6 53.2
Source: Cepal (2013)
+S/D, No information available

Table 2 Ginia index in 2000 2005 2010 2013

Argentina, Chile, Colombia
Argentina 51.1 49.3 44.5 42.3
and México
Chile 55.3 S/D S/D 50.5
Colombia 58.7 55 55.5 53.5
México 51.7 51.1 48.1 S/D
Source: World Bank http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.
GINI/countries/1W-CN BR?display¼default
a
A Gini index of 0 represents perfect equality, while an index of
100 implies perfect inequality

not exist to the same extent in Western economies. This leads to a set of rather different
rationales of participation in the digital collaborative economy in developing countries
to those operating in Western societies. As discussed below, rather than being a
response to a financial crisis and a driver to supplement formal incomes as seen in
Greece, Spain and Portugal, the collaborative economy in Latin America reinforces and
synthesises the existing power asymmetries, unequal distribution of resources and
knowledge gaps.

5 The Historical Context of Collaborative Economy:

Tianguis and Flea Markets

Understanding Latin America’s setting for collaborative consumption activities

requires an understanding of the flea markets or tianguis. In the tianguis, exchanges
of goods and services take place in an unregulated, informal market system and
provide the local population (lower and middle classes) access to a variety of
products and services otherwise outside their reach. In recent studies by
Olavarrieta, Manzur, Hidalgo, and Farı́as (2008), the flea markets in Chile
expanded considerably in the 1980s due to the country’s severe economic crisis.
By 2003 the country had 6000 outlets and attracted over two million visitors a year.
In the 1990s Argentina suffered yet another economic crisis, which led to a
considerable increase in not only second hand markets but also illegal/copy-
merchandise markets. Currently in Buenos Aires more than 100 markets of this
type exist. La Salada, a market in the city of Buenos Aires emerged in 1991. It was
278 H.B. Clausen and M.A. Velázquez Garcı́a

originally organised by Bolivian immigrants with only a few stalls, but now it has
approximately 40,000 small stalls selling different products (El Paı́s, 2015a, b).
Another significant redistributive market given its size, history and cultural
significance is Tepito in Mexico City. It comprises of an enormous area and is
intimately linked to trade in the pre-Hispanic times. At the end of the Mexican
Revolution (1910–1920), the area became known for its production of shoes, which
in the 1970s transformed into a marketplace for the distribution and exchange of
illegally imported goods and services (in Spanish, fayuca). The emergence of this
type of market provided the local population (middle class and lower middle class)
access to products and services that would otherwise be unavailable. In 2001,
approximately 12,500 sellers worked in this market and were linked to 64 different
trading organisations (Najar, 2001). Several federal and local Mexican govern-
ments have tried to regulate and even close this market, however the population has
created a whole range of different social practices, internal organisations and
strategies of negotiation with external actors (i.e. local and federal authorities),
which have paved the way for the market to gain relative independence. Conse-
quently, the failure of several attempts by local and federal authorities to take
control of the market cannot be understood simply in terms of the capacity of the
market to organise itself and advocate its interests. Rather it is about tolerance from
and complicity with authorities (Olavarrieta et al., 2008; Najar, 2001; El Paı́s,
2015a, b; La Nación, 2014).
These populations have created an array of social and cultural practices, internal
organisations and strategies of negotiation to control and manage the tianguis or
flea markets. Consequently, these negotiated spaces are seen as the failure of
authorities to take control and they also represent opportunities to gain access to
new technologies and forms of consumption (e.g. cell phones, computers, software,
films, music) which otherwise would have been impossible to access for the
marginalised segments of the population due to the existing structural barriers
discussed above (Velázquez & Clausen, 2017, forthcoming). For instance, in
2005 the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) ranked Mexico as the
fourth in the world for selling pirated products and goods, surpassed only by Russia,
China and Italy (Posada, 2007). These older forms of collaborative economy are
historically embedded sociocultural practices in the exchange of goods and ser-
vices. They are also connected to the digital collaborative economy in unique ways.

6 The Informal Economy in the Digital Era

The informal and non-institutionalized spaces of collaborative economy have not

only open new avenues to access goods and services for marginalised and excluded
segments of the population, but have also generated unique consumption patterns.
Contrary to Western consumer societies wherein digital technology devices
(e.g. smartphones, tablets and computers) have a short lifespan, in all four Latin
American societies described in this case the flea markets or tianguis have
Collaborative Economy in Tourism in Latin America: The Case of Argentina. . . 279

developed specialised businesses in which they repair hardware or install copies of

software. Computers or cell phones which are discarded in the US or European
markets are repaired or re-used as parts to repair other devices. This brings about a
kind of sustainable re-use and environmentally beneficial practice and it also
represents a novel business sector generating new job opportunities albeit in the
informal economy.
These flea markets provide the opportunity to stage collaborative consumption
in spatially-fixed, but highly socialised platforms and they are integrated into some
of the must-see sites and principal tourist attractions of Buenos Aires, Mexico City,
Santiago de Chile and Bogota. Contrary to the Western ideas of collaborative
economy these social platforms are face-to-face exchanges of goods and services,
which also represent the integration of economic, political and social reality with
digital technologies (as opposed to being mediated by digital technologies). These
sites play a significant economic role in the informal sector. The Argentine Cham-
ber of Commerce calculated a 55.9% increase in the sale of such products from
2013 to 2014 in Buenos Aires (La Nación, 2014). In March 2015 the Argentina
Chamber of Commerce counted a total of 2659 illegal stalls, which represent an
increase of 21.4% compared to 2014 (CAC, 2015). Turning to Colombia the sale of
illegal products generated in 2013 a surplus of 720 million US, which corresponds
to approximately 1.3 trillion Colombian pesos. The lost revenue of illegal products
in Mexico is considered to be 200,000 million Mexican pesos. The most affected
market sectors are the production of music and software (El Paı́s Colombia, 2014).
Even though these markets have turned into strategically significant spaces of
commerce, these markets also reproduce existing societal structures of exclusion
and inequality.

7 Digital Gap in Latin America

As has already been stated, in Latin America there is a deep divide between people
with and without access to digital technologies, and this divide is exacerbated by
generational differences (World Bank, 2016a, b). In Latin America, only a small
proportion of the population has access to or knowledge about new digital technol-
ogies. Not one of the countries in the region is listed among the top 30 countries that
have managed to reduce the digital divide (World Economic Forum, 2015). The gap
persists in spite of economic growth in the region. For instance, Chile leads the
region with 61% of its population enjoying access to Internet whereas in Columbia
it is 49% and in Argentina it is 56% (Latin American Science, 2016). To participate
in and benefit from the digital collaborative economy, access is required to new
technologies, particularly in relation to financial systems (e.g. banking and credit
card systems). Even though the Latin American market has been one of the fastest-
growing regions for card payment volume in recent years, cash payment still
remains the most prevalent form of payment accounting for more than half of the
region’s total consumer payment transactions (Euromonitor, 2015).
280 H.B. Clausen and M.A. Velázquez Garcı́a

Several studies argue that technological progress will increasingly enable the
poor to afford and use digital financial services. However, the population’s ability
to reap the dividends from these investments will be largely determined by the
state’s capability to provide supporting policies such as educational and technical
programs about how to use the Internet. Moreover in Latin America the new
technologies automate many tasks but for workers not possessing the skills that
technology augments, the outcome will be greater inequality rather than greater
efficiency. Poor regulation, little competition and a historically volatile currency
has prompted consumers to move to the informal or unregulated economy, making
access to established financial systems (e.g. credit cards and loans) difficult.
Consequently, access to and use of digital collaborative economy platforms such
as Uber and Airbnb are inaccessible to a large proportion of the population both as
producers and consumers. It is noteworthy that, for example, in Mexico a sharing
service such as Uber is only available in the major cities of Mexico City, Monterrey,
Ensenada and Guadalajara. In other words, as revolutionary as these new technol-
ogies may be, participation is bound by both the local sociocultural context,
political realities and histories of marginalisation and exclusion that characterise
these societies.

8 The Collaborative Economy in Tourism in Latin

America

Despite the impediments outlined above, Latin America has witnessed the estab-
lishment of digital collaborative economy companies such as Uber and AirBnB.
Airbnb, for example, has access to 7000 properties in Argentina and 8000 in
Mexico (Herrera, 2014). A large number of Latin American platforms have also
started up (see Table 3).
In a Latin American context, Uber is a very successful company with an
increasing customer base since 2013. The constant growth of this company is
explained by the lack or inadequacy of transportation services provided by tradi-
tional taxi companies in this region, and issues relating to service quality and safety
and security issues including taxis in poor condition, too expensive, the waiting
time to get hold of taxis, rude or unlicensed taxi drivers etc. In Colombia, Uber
reported that hundreds of thousands of people have benefitted from their service and
have further generated jobs for five thousand people according to the acknowledged
newspaper El Paı́s (2015a, b). The Colombian government hesitated to intervene
but has recently announced certain measures to regulate this service which might
even be to close it down due to the providers’ unwillingness to pay taxes (El Paı́s,
2015b). In Mexico, Uber also has exhibited strong growth in the major cities as
Mexico City, Monterrey, Guadalajara and Tijuana. The service has enjoyed broad
acceptance, however consumers are from the upper and middle classes with access
to digital sharing platforms and credit cards (El Universal, 2015a, b).
Collaborative Economy in Tourism in Latin America: The Case of Argentina. . . 281

Table 3 Collaborative economy businesses in Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Mexico

Service areas Foreign entrepreneurs International businesses
Accommodation Airbnb
Zukbox
Segundohogar
Homeaway
Mobility Autocompartido (Ecuador, Perú y Colombia) Uber
CompartoCoche (Argentina) BlaBlaCar
Coviajero (Argentina) Carpling
ADedo (Chile)
Aventones
SincroPool (Argentina)
DameUnAventon (México)
Rutear
Ecobicy (Argentina and Mexico)
Bikla (México)
EnCicla (Colombia)
CiciLasCondes (Chile)
Tasks/Services Zolvers (Argentina and Mexico) Nubelo
Others MercadoLibre UrbanStation
Alamaula TicketBis
Gratiferia (Argentina, Chile y Mexico) Entrusters (Argentina)
BioEcon (Argentina) TrocaFone (Argentina)
TuOla (México)
HackerGarage (México)
MandarinaHub (México)
Centraal (México)
NoblezaObliga (Argentina)
Eventdoo (Argentina)
La Fulana (Argentina)
QuieroAyudar (Argentina)

9 Concluding Considerations and Reflections

In this chapter we have discussed how the collaborative economy in Latin America
responds very differently to the needs and interests of two segments of the popu-
lation: (1) the marginalized and excluded groups; and (2) the middle and upper
classes. In the four countries examined, the collaborative economy represents an
alternative model for the production of goods and services, and for employment of
marginalised and excluded segments of the population. This especially counts for
the youth who do not have access to the educational system or job opportunities
within the formal economic system. However, the collaborative economy is not
only about job opportunities or acquiring products. It also provides a lens to
understand how specific segments of the population are excluded from the regu-
lated economic market.
Even though the expansion of digitalized collaborative initiatives related to
tourism consumption has increased significantly, and Latin America is character-
ized by a solid information technology: infrastructure, production and knowledge
282 H.B. Clausen and M.A. Velázquez Garcı́a

according to the World Bank’s latest report (2016a, b), it also becomes clear that the
informal sector keeps playing a pivotal role in the understanding of practices related
to collaborative economy. It might be yet another way for the populations to express
their critique in a non-violent way of the existing political and economic model
implemented by the governments in this region. Marginalised and poor people
depend on the spatial fixed tianguis and flea markets in Latin America to access the
world of new technologies and products which otherwise would be out of reach.
These spaces are turning the sector of collaborative consumption into a more
sustainable alternative by re-using and repairing goods and products
e.g. computers and cell phones. However, for the middle and upper classes, these
new digital technologies are an additional tool providing access to an international
arena representing and constituting new forms and practices of economic, socio-
cultural and political integration with their national as well as international peers.
The above-discussed Latin American perspective suggests limitations in existing
conceptualizations of the collaborative economy offered by Botsman and Rogers
(2010). In Latin American societies, digital collaborative economy is adopted into a
sociocultural, political and economic network. As such, it becomes an extension of
well-established and social embedded historical practices of collaborative produc-
tion and consumption, that replicates old patterns of privileged access for some, and
denial for others.
In this chapter we have aimed to advance conceptualisations of the collaborative
economy by reflecting on structures, rationales and practices in countries
characterised by high levels of equality, exclusion and large sectors of informal
economic activity. In this way, we have demonstrated that there is a deeply
historical collaborative economy that operates outside the formal sphere and that
bears little resemblance to the new digital collaborative economy described by
contemporary Western protagonists. That said, the contemporary digital economy
manifested by global platforms such as Airbnb and Uber is growing rapidly in Latin
America, propelled by the middle and upper classes. However, as is the case in
countries where this digital collaborative economy is driven out of necessity (such
as Italy, Greece and Spain), in Latin America it is not necessarily taking place on
digitalized platforms (World Bank, 2016a, b). In Latin America it would appear that
the marginalized and informal workers remain unable to access this form of
economic exchange because they lack both skills and access to digital capabilities
as well as access to creditworthiness to become either producers or consumers. It
seems reasonable to conclude that the new digital technologies might provide new
avenues of change however we do not think we are witnessing a dramatic shift to
more equality, to a fairer and more equal economic model based on the collabora-
tive economy’s principles rather these collaborative practices are to be understood
and bound up on the sociocultural and political realities in a Latin American
context.
Collaborative Economy in Tourism in Latin America: The Case of Argentina. . . 283

References

Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online.
Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595–1600.
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). Beyond Zipcar: Collaborative consumption. Harvard Business
Review. Accessed May 1, 2016, from https://hbr.org/2010/10/beyond-zipcarcollaborative-
consumption/
Cámara Argentina de Comercio (CAC). (2015). Informe de venta ilegal Callejera y Piraterı́a en la
Ciudad de Buenos Aı́res. Accessed May 1, 2015, from http://www.cac.com.ar/documentos/22_
VI_Ab15.pdf
Cammaerts, B. (2008). Critiques on the participatory potentials of web 2.0. Communication,
Culture & Critique, 1(3), 358–377.
Cammaerts, B. (2011). Disruptive sharing in a digital age: Rejecting neoliberalism? Continuum:
Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 25(1), 47–62.
Cepal. (2013). Panorama social de América Latina. Naciones Unidas. Version digital. Accessed
March 14, 2015, from http://www.asocamerlat.org/CEPAL_PanoramaSocial2013_
AmericaLatina_diciembre2013.pdf
El Paı́s. (2015a). La salada, el gran mercado negro de Latinoamérica. Periódico. Accessed March
14, 2015, from http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2015/03/13/actualidad/
1426276499_218087.html
El Paı́s. (2015b). El Gobierno de Colombia lanza una ofensiva contra Uber. Accessed March
14, 2015, from http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2015/03/14/actualidad/
1426303113_247877.html
El Paı́s Colombia. (2014). Piratería en Colombia dej o pérdidas por $1,3 billones en 2013.
Accessed June 17, 2015, from http://www.elpais.com.co/elpais/economia/noticias/pirateria-
colombia-dejo-perdidas-por-13-billones-2013
El Universal. (2015a). Guadalajara, Tijuana y Monterrey, contra Uber. Accessed May 30, 2016,
from http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/estados/2015/impreso/guadalajara-tijuana-y-monterrey-
contra-uber-99149.html
El Universal. (2015b). Edomex no permitir a operacion de Uber. Accessed May 28, from http://
www.eluniversal.com.mx/ciudad-metropoli/2015/edomex-no-permitira-operacion-de-uber-
1103345.html
Euromonitor. (2015). Consumer payments 2015: Trends, developments and prospects
(Euromonitor International Report). London. Accessed January 3, 2016, from http://www.
euromonitor.com/
Felson, M., & Spaeth, J. (1978). Community structure and collaborative consumption. A routine
activity approach, American. Behavioral Scientist, 21(4), 614–624.
Ghezzi, S., & Mingione, E. (2003). Beyond the informal economy. New trends in post-fordist
transition. In J. Friedman (Ed.), Globalization, the state and violence (pp. 87–106). New York,
NY: Altamira.
Ghezzi, S., & Mingione, E. (2007). Embeddedness, path dependency and social institutions an
economic sociology approach. Current Sociology, 55(1), 11–23.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6),
1360–1380.
Hart, K. (1973). Informal income opportunities and urban employment in Ghana. Journal of
Modern African Studies, 11(1), 61–89.
Herrera, C. (2014). Airbnb takes a local approach in Latin America. Pulso Social. Accessed May
20, 2015, from http://pulsosocial.com/en/2014/05/20/airbnb-takes-local-approach-latin-
america/
Kassan, J., & Orsi, J. (2012). Legal landscape of the sharing economy. The Journal of Environ-
mental Law & Litigation, 27(1), 1–20.
284 H.B. Clausen and M.A. Velázquez Garcı́a

La Nación. (2014). La venta ilegal callejera y la piraterı́a registraron un récord en. Buenos Aires.
Accessed December 8, 2015, from http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1750560-la-venta-ilegal-
callejera-y-la-pirateria-registraron-un-record-en-buenos-aires
Latin American Science Organization. (2016). Accessed April 12, 2016, from http://
latinamericanscience.org/2014/05/latin-americas-digital-divide/
Latinobarómetro. (2013). Informe 2013. Accessed June 2, 2015, from http://www.
latinobarometro.org/documentos/LATBD_INFORME_LB_2013.pdf
Munar, A. M., Gyimóthy, S., & Cai, L. (2013). Critical digital tourism studies. In A. M. Munar,
S. Gyimóthy, & L. Cai (Eds.), Tourism social media: Transformations in identity
(pp. 245–262). Emerald: Bingley.
Najar, A. (2001, August 5). Retrato de un barrio agónico. Tepito por dentro. La Jornada. Accessed
March 12, 2015, from http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2001/08/05/mas-tepito.html
Olavarrieta, S., Manzur, E., Hidalgo, P., & Farı́as, P. (2008). Un análisis a los atributos relevantes
de los mercados de las pulgas para los compradores: Evidencia desde América Latina. Revista
de Ciencias Sociales. Universidad del Zulia, XIV(3), 468–478.
OXFAM. (2014a). Gobernar para las elites. Secuestro democr atico y desigualdad econ omica.
Accessed March 12, 2015, from https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp-work
ing-for-few-political-capture-economic-inequality-200114-es.pdf
OXFAM. (2014b). Justifica fiscal para reducir la desigualdad en Latinoamérica y el Caribe.
Accessed March 12, 2015, from https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attach
ments/justicia_fiscal_para_reducir_la_desigualdad_en_latinoamerica_y_el_caribe_.pdf
Portes, A., & Haller, W. (2005). The informal economy. In Smelser and Swedberg (Ed.),
Handbook of economic sociology (pp. 403–425). London: Russell Sage Foundation.
Posada, M. G. (2007). México, cuarto lugar mundial en la venta de piraterı́a y contrabando. La
Jornada. Accessed July 4, 2015, from http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2007/07/04/index.php?
section¼economia&article¼027n1eco
Schneider, F., Buehn, A., & Montenegro, C. (2010). New estimates for the shadow economies all
over the world. International Economic Journal, 24(4), 443–461.
Stokes, K., Clarence, E., Anderson, L., & Rinne, A. (2014). Making sense of the UK collaborative
economy. Collaborative lab. London: NESTA. www.nesta.org.uk.
Velázquez, M., & Clausen, H. (2017). Tianguis and collaborative consumption in Latin American
societies, Pasos, 15 (forthcoming).
World Bank. (2016a). Accessed 20 September 20, 2016, from https://openknowledge.worldbank.
org/handle/10986/22349
World Bank. (2016b). Digital dividends. World Bank group. Accessed January 15, 2016, from
http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016
World Economic Forum. (2015). Conozca los 10 países latinamericanos major ubicados en el
ranking TIC del FEM. Accessed August 30, 2015, from http://tecno.americaeconomia.com/
articulos/conozca-los-10-paises-que-lideran-el-ranking-tic-del-foro-economico-mundial-en-
latina
Peer-To-Peer Accommodation: Drivers
and User Profiles

Juho Pesonen and Iis Tussyadiah

Abstract The tourism industry is currently dealing with the impacts of collabora-
tive consumption, with tourists increasingly using peer-to-peer (P2P) services such
as Airbnb and Uber. This study aims to extend our knowledge of why P2P
accommodation services are not just succeeding, but thriving, from the consumer
perspective, and it contributes to an understanding of the reasons for the popularity
of P2P accommodation services and how consumer heterogeneity affects consumer
choices. In this study, the drivers of P2P accommodation services are examined in
order to better understand consumer characteristics and behaviour. Based on a
survey of Internet users in Finland, the major drivers affecting the use of P2P
accommodation services are the age of consumers, active use of the Internet and
online technologies, and the frequency of international travel. Cluster analysis
identified two user profiles corresponding to consumer motivations for using P2P
accommodation services. The first consumer group uses P2P accommodation
services to make their trips more convenient, while the second uses them mostly
for social reasons.

Keywords Peer-to-peer accommodation • Segmentation • Motivations • Sharing

economy • Drivers • Collaborative economy

1 Introduction

Collaborative consumption is becoming more prevalent in many industries and

having a profound impact on consumer behaviour. With more and more con-
sumers using peer-to-peer (P2P) services such as Uber and Airbnb, collaborative
consumption is becoming increasingly important and is expected to transform the

J. Pesonen (*)
Centre for Tourism Studies, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland
e-mail: [email protected]
I. Tussyadiah
University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, United Kingdom
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 285

D. Dredge, S. Gyimóthy (eds.), Collaborative Economy and Tourism,
Tourism on the Verge, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-51799-5_17
286 J. Pesonen and I. Tussyadiah

tourism industry in the coming years. However, information regarding who the
consumers are, why they are attracted to these services and what their scale of use
is remains unclear. Indeed, Sigala (2015) has called for more international
research on the numerous personal and contextual factors that influence collabo-
rative consumption, highlighting the need for a better understanding of the
increasing popularity of this consumption behaviour and the drivers behind
it. Additionally, Guttentag (2013) has specified several topics of importance for
future research regarding Airbnb, including the demographic and psychographic
characteristics associated with its use. P2P accommodation services can be
regarded as a type of collaborative consumption in which anyone can rent out
their property (e.g., houses, apartments, cabins, rooms) for guests to stay in. With
this definition, the focus is on a market-mediated sharing economy, one which
involves the monetary element (i.e., renting) in collaborative consumption. This is
congruent with Belk’s (2014, p. 1597) definition, which states that “collaborative
consumption is people coordinating the acquisition and distribution of a resource
for a fee or other compensation”.
Marketing literature regards segmentation and customer profiles as one of the
cornerstones of understanding consumer behaviour (Pesonen, 2013). Consumers
are heterogeneous in their behaviour, characteristics, motivations, needs and
wants; different people prefer different things for different reasons. In particular,
motivations have been regarded as an efficient way to analyse and understand
consumer behaviour in travel and tourism (Bieger & Laesser, 2002; Park & Yoon,
2009; Pesonen, 2013). Therefore, researchers assume that those engaged in
collaborative consumption are not a homogenous group and that the reasons for
using P2P services differ from one person to the next. However, while attempts
have been made to better understand consumer motivations for engaging in
collaborative consumption (e.g., Hamari, Sj€oklint, & Ukkonen, 2016; Tussyadiah,
2015), the users of P2P services are typically regarded as a homogenous group.
Several recent studies have sought to explain in more detail consumer heteroge-
neity within the sharing economy. Ozanne and Ballantine (2010) identified four
groups of toy library users who share different characteristics. Stokes, Clarence,
Anderson and Rinne (Stokes, Clarence, Anderson, & Rinne, 2014) found regional
and socio-demographic differences between users and non-users of sharing ser-
vices. Finally, Tussyadiah and Pesonen (2015) identified minor differences with
respect to the drivers of P2P accommodation use between consumers in Finland
and the United States. Due to the limited findings presented in previous research,
there still exists a gap in the field with regard to market heterogeneity as well as
the factors influencing the use of collaborative consumption services. To that end,
this study compares users and non-users of P2P accommodation services and
identifies how they differ from each other, especially in terms of the personal and
behavioural factors that drive collaborative consumption. Furthermore, this study
explores further the profiles of P2P accommodation users to uncover the different
reasons for participating in collaborative consumption among different user
profiles.
Peer-To-Peer Accommodation: Drivers and User Profiles 287

2 Literature Review

2.1 Drivers of Collaborative Consumption

Collaborative consumption services are growing fast and becoming more and more
popular all over the world. This phenomenon is driven by a large number of
different factors: societal, economic and technological factors (Owyang, 2013).
The societal drivers of collaborative consumption identified in the literature include
consumer concerns about sustainability and social relations. According to Botsman
and Rogers (2010), people are becoming more and more aware of the negative
impacts of their consumption habits and are starting to shift their preferences
towards more eco-friendly consumption patterns. The sharing economy makes
efficient use of existing resources and reduces the need to invest in buying new
products or building new infrastructure, such as hotels, thus reducing the environ-
mental impact of travel. This, in turn, also allows for cost savings. Indeed, Belk
(2014) has identified consumer attitudes towards consumption as one of the major
drivers of the sharing economy. Buying and owning are losing importance as
technology enables more and more efficient sharing. Consumers are willing to
pay for temporal access to goods and services instead of buying and owning them
outright (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012). The increased financial flexibility that
non-ownership provides is the primary economic driver of the sharing economy
(Owyang, 2013). Finally, technology is regarded as the third major driver behind
the sharing economy. Mobile technologies, online communications, social media
and developments in ICT, including payment systems, have all made possible the
wider adoption of a sharing economy on a global scale (Belk, 2014).
Some scholars have argued that people do not participate in the sharing economy
just for the sake of sharing, but for the benefits it provides. The benefits that
consumers receive from consumption have been identified as a major driver of
their consumption choices (Haley, 1995). However, in many cases the benefits are
inseparable from or else very hard to distinguish from motivations (Pesonen, 2012).
The very question that motivations and benefits aim to answer in this case is why
consumers are using P2P accommodation services instead of other options. In this
study, the benefits that a consumer receives and the motivations that drive a
consumer to seek such benefits are treated as one and the same.
While the extant literature on the sharing economy generally suggests these
three drivers—economic, societal and technological (Owyang, 2013)—there is
limited information on the relative importance of each driver. For example, Hamari
et al. (2016) studied the adoption of collaborative consumption services and
identified factors such as sustainability, enjoyment of the activity and economic
gains as motivations for using collaborative consumption services. Their results
also suggest that sustainability is not an important motivation for everyone, but
those for whom ecological consumption is important are more likely motivated by
288 J. Pesonen and I. Tussyadiah

the sustainability aspect of collaborative consumption. Tussyadiah and Pesonen

(2015) examined how the social and economic appeal of P2P accommodation
services contributes to changes in the travel patterns of tourists due to the use of
such services. They found that both social and economic factors have a significant
influence on increases in the length of stay, participation in various activities,
selecting from a wider range of destinations and the frequency with which people
travel. Despite becoming a prominent research field, there needs to be more
empirical research to confirm and estimate the effects of different drivers of
collaborative consumption, including how they affect the use of P2P accommoda-
tion services.

2.2 Choice of Accommodation and Reasons for Choosing

P2P Accommodation

Contemporary tourists have a wide range of accommodation types available to

them, including hotels, hostels, friends and relatives, chalets and cottages, or free
accommodation services such as Couchsurfing. With all these different options
available, it is important to better understand the reasons for why P2P accommo-
dation services such as Airbnb are thriving in a marketplace with a high level of
competition. Tourists are looking for variety when choosing between different
types of accommodation and some selection factors are more important than others.
In terms of hotel choice, the topic has been relatively well researched, with a
number of studies explaining the different factors influencing accommodation
selection (see, e.g., Kim & Perdue, 2013; Sohrabi, Vanani, Tahmasebipur, &
Fazli, 2012). For example, Wong and Chi-Yung (2002) identified price, quality,
location, brand and room type as the most significant factors affecting hotel
selection. However, these studies focus on why consumers choose one hotel over
another instead of why they prefer hotels over other accommodation options.
Guttentag (2013) states that the demand for P2P accommodation services such
as Airbnb is not a given, as Airbnb lacks many benefits that traditional options such
as hotels provide, including service quality, brand reputation and security. How-
ever, guests in P2P accommodations benefit from better prices, amenities, local
experience and the possibility to stay in a ‘non-touristy’ area. Indeed, one of the
growing tourism trends is the search for authenticity (Wang, 1999; Yeoman, Brass,
& McMahon-Beattie, 2007). There is less and less space to accommodate mass
tourism in the modern world. Tourists are increasingly seeking genuine, authentic,
local, unique and, especially, memorable experiences (Cohen, 2010; Sims, 2009;
Tung & Ritchie, 2011). Ritzer (2007) argues that commercial hospitality is inhos-
pitable because commercial advantage is driving hospitable behaviour instead of
genuine motives such as a desire to please and welcome others. Tourists want
human contact that is both local and real (Yeoman et al., 2007). Indeed, Week
Peer-To-Peer Accommodation: Drivers and User Profiles 289

(2012) analysed individuals who view themselves more as travellers than (tradi-
tionally defined) tourists, individuals who desire more local and authentic travel
experiences. P2P accommodation services can provide tourists with authentic
experiences by creating opportunities to form meaningful relationships with local
hosts. Furthermore, P2P accommodation services enable tourists to tap into desti-
nation resources through the local hosts. These meaningful host-guest interactions
are what make P2P accommodation services unique compared to other types of
accommodation.
The literature also recognises sustainability as an important factor for consumers
when making accommodation decisions and that consumer concerns about the
environment are become more and more important (Han, Hsu, & Sheu, 2010;
Kalafatis, Pollard, East, & Tsogas, 1999). For example, the green marketing of
hotels has been a topic of interest in hospitality literature in the last decades (Han &
Kim, 2010; Kim & Han, 2010; Lee, Hsu, Han, & Kim, 2010; Manaktola & Jauhari,
2007). Researchers have suggested that consumers are increasingly placing greater
levels of importance on sustainability and, consequently, considering the potential
environmental impacts of their travels when making accommodation choices.
Indeed, sustainability, as one of the drivers of collaborative consumption, manifests
itself in the form of reselling, renting, co-owning or gifting practices (Owyang,
2013), all of which reduce the need to invest in new products, facilities and
infrastructures.
P2P accommodation services require interaction between hosts and guests,
implying that the culture of each plays a central role in the creation of customer
experience. Plog (1974) presented a tourist typology based on motivations, dem-
onstrating that some tourists prefer exotic experiences whereas others prefer more
familiar destinations. Thus, some tourists might avoid P2P accommodation services
when travelling internationally (i.e., to minimise interactions with unfamiliar cul-
tures), but use them when travelling domestically. On the other hand, others might
prefer P2P accommodation services in international travel precisely because they
want to experience new cultures and local customs. Prior travel experiences influ-
ence a person’s degree of familiarity with particular tourist destinations. Tourists
who often travel internationally, and who are exposed to different cultures, might be
more familiar with and interested in local customs in faraway destinations. There-
fore, travel frequency might be reflected in the use of P2P accommodation services.
This suggests that the novelty of the host culture could be one of the drivers of
(or barriers to) P2P accommodation services.
In previous studies, P2P accommodation users are often regarded as a homog-
enous group of people. For example, Guttentag (2013) has suggested that the users
of P2P services are often young, technology savvy, budget conscious consumers
because of the unique attributes of P2P accommodation services and reservation
process, which involve lots of interaction with the host. Likewise, Stokes et al.
(2014) have stated that people who are employed either full-time or part time,
managerial, professional and administrative workers, and people with children in
the UK are more likely to take part in the online collaborative economy than others.
290 J. Pesonen and I. Tussyadiah

Tussyadiah and Pesonen (2015) have also identified differences between consumers
in Finland and the US in terms of how P2P accommodation services ultimately lead
to changes in travellers’ behaviour. However, as researchers obtain more informa-
tion about the users, it is becoming obvious that different motivations and reasons
for using P2P accommodation services are important for different people. Specif-
ically, motivations are often used to segment and profile tourists since they provide
a stable and actionable base for marketing purposes (Pesonen, 2015). In the context
of P2P accommodation services, consumer motivations can provide an excellent
base for user profiling (e.g., Tussyadiah, 2015).

3 Aim of the Study

Based on the literature review, we identified two central themes for research. First,
the drivers of collaborative consumption need to be examined in order to establish
what particular factors drive the use of P2P accommodation services in general.
Then, to challenge the assumption that those who use P2P accommodation services
comprise a homogenous group, we provide a more detailed examination of the
users of P2P accommodation services. Assessing the various groups of people who
use P2P accommodation services allows us to understand heterogeneity in the
market place and how the drivers of collaborative consumption are manifested in
the different market segments. This study analyses at a deeper level the factors that
drive user participation in collaborative consumption and, therefore it contributes to
our understanding of the adoption and use of P2P accommodation services from a
user perspective.

4 Data and Methods

To achieve the goals of this study, an online survey was created to solicit responses
from Internet users in Finland. To examine the reasons for using P2P accommoda-
tion services, items prepared by Tussyadiah (2015) and Tussyadiah and Pesonen
(2015) were used. These survey items were derived from relevant previous studies
in the existing literature (see Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Gansky, 2010; Guttentag,
2013; Kohda & Matsuda, 2013; Owyang, 2013) and reflect the motivations and
benefits for consumers to use these services (see Fig. 1). The items were measured
using a 5-point scale with agree–disagree anchored statements (ranging from
2,
“Disagree Completely”, to 2, “Agree Completely”). Additionally, nine items were
used to measure respondents’ opinions of the environment, use of the Internet and
travel behaviour. The items were part of a larger study on Finnish lifestyle choices
and were based on studies conducted by Mustonen and Lindblom (2013). The
measurements were deemed valid for the purpose of this study via principal
component analysis (Table 1). The questions were also presented in a similar
Peer-To-Peer Accommodation: Drivers and User Profiles 291

Drivers of Collaborative Consumption Motivations for Staying in a P2P

(General) Accommodation (Guests)
Source: Owyang 2013 Source: Tussyadiah and Pesonen 2015

Societal Drivers: • Obtain insider tips about local

• Increasing population density attractions
• Drive for sustainability • Meaningful interactions with hosts
• Desire for community • Know people from local
• Generational altruism neighbourhoods
• Sustainable business model

Economic Drivers: • Saves money

• Monetise excess or idle • Reduces travel costs
inventory • Supports local residents
• Increase financial flexibility • Obtain higher quality
• Access instead of ownership accommodations at less cost
• Influx of venture capital funding • Not supporting hotel enterprises

Technology Drivers: • Saves time on searching for an

• Social networking accommodation
• Mobile devices and platforms • Enjoy finding a rental
• Payment systems

Fig. 1 Reasons for using P2P accommodation based on collaborative consumption drivers

5-point Likert scale. Personal annual income was measured using seven categories,
and respondents were also asked to state how often they take domestic and
international holidays per year on average.
First, we collected a representative sample of Finnish residents using an online
panel survey (N ¼ 1026). The sample represents Finnish consumers both in terms of
geographic location and gender. Also, different age groups among the population
are well represented, but the mean age of the sample was higher than the mean age
of the Finnish population (50 years in the sample compared to 41.5 for the general
population). This data was used to respond to the first research question about the
drivers motivating the use of P2P accommodation services among the general
population in Finland. Since only 70 users were captured in the first survey,
additional data were collected using the same panel survey and targeting only
those who had used P2P accommodation services before. The additional survey
was conducted by directing the survey at the national population and asking
whether or not people had previously used P2P accommodation services. All of
the respondents who agreed with the statement were regarded as P2P accommoda-
tion users. This resulted in an additional 220 responses just from the P2P accom-
modation users.
Data analysis was divided into two parts. To obtain more knowledge about the
drivers of P2P accommodation services among the general public, a principal
component analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation was conducted using all of the
collected data on the lifestyle items, including travelling, Internet use, and envi-
ronmental friendliness. PCA identifies the underlying shared dimensions of the
292 J. Pesonen and I. Tussyadiah

Table 1 Principal component analysis of lifestyle items

Principal component and Variance Cronbach
items Mean S.D. Loading Eigenvalue explained α
Environmental friendliness 3.256 36.181 0.882
Environmental reasons 2.87 10.78 0.890
have reduced my
consumption
Environmental reasons 2.71 10.67 0.875
have affected the choices I
make during trips
I take environmental fac- 3.08 1.004 0.829
tors into account when
making consumption
choices
Environmental reasons 2.45 1.045 0.815
have reduced my travelling
Active use of the Internet 1.596 17.731 0.642
I do daily grocery shopping 1.61 1.022 0.808
online
I actively follow blogs 2.20 1.227 0.774
Travelling 1.354 15.048 0.596
Travelling is an important 3.42 1.154 0.817
way for me to spend my
leisure time
I am interested in culinary 3.43 1.131 0.804
cultures in other countries

various constructs and group items based on participant responses (Hair, Black,
Babin, & Anderson, 2010). Regression scores of each principal component were
saved for further analysis, with the aim being to compare the importance of these
principal components. Then, we used discriminant analysis to explain the differ-
ences between users and non-users of P2P accommodation services in terms of
three consumption behaviour factors identified via PCA. During this particular
phase of the analysis, only one sample from the first round of data collection was
used (n ¼ 1026). Additional responses collected just from P2P accommodation
users were thus not included during this phase of the study. The sample was
randomly divided into two groups, namely an analysis group and a validation
group. Regression scores from the PCA were used for the discriminant analysis to
examine the discriminatory power of the factors of P2P accommodation use. The
analysis also included additional explanatory factors from the literature, such as
number of annual trips abroad, number of annual domestic trips, personal annual
income, and age. Age was explained via the logarithmic transformation score.
During the second phase of the analysis, we assessed at a deeper level the users
of P2P accommodation services. During this particular phase, we included all
respondents who had reported using P2P accommodation services during both
data collection rounds, resulting in a total of 290 responses. In order to examine
Peer-To-Peer Accommodation: Drivers and User Profiles 293

whether the users form a homogenous group or whether different kinds of user
segments can be identified, we used hierarchical cluster analysis. This is a very
popular approach to addressing market segmentation in tourism literature
(Dolnicar, 2002). Hierarchical cluster analysis groups the observations into a
treelike structure, with similar observations being grouped together. With Ward’s
method, the similarity of clusters is measured using the sum of squares within the
clusters summed for all of the variables (Hair et al., 2010). Different cluster
solutions, ranging from two to five, were compared and, based on the dendrogram
and interpretability of the results, two cluster solutions were chosen. The two
clusters were then compared with respect to the importance of lifestyle factors.

5 Results

5.1 Drivers of P2P Accommodation

The principal component analysis of lifestyle factors identified three underlying

dimensions: “Environmental Friendliness”, “Travelling” and “Active Use of the
Internet” (see Table 1). The Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin MSA test yielded a score of 0.760,
with a significance of p < 0.001. The three components explained 68.96% of the
total variance. The item “I often shop online” was removed from the analysis
because it decreased the reliability of the principal component that it was
associated with.
The main results of the discriminant analysis are presented in Tables 2 and 3.
Box’s M statistics for discriminant analysis proved to be statistically significant
( p < 0.001). The results show that users and non-users of P2P accommodation
services differed the most with respect to their “active use of the Internet”, whereas
they did not differ much statistically in terms of the sustainability component
(“environmental friendliness”) of the analysis. In terms of travel frequency, the

Table 2 Discriminant analysis classification function coefficients

Respondent groups
Users Non-users
Environmental friendliness
1.166
1.393
Active use of the Internet 5.237 4.666
Travelling
0.248
0.511
Personal annual income before taxes 32.225 34.025
Age
0.669
0.776
Frequency of international travel 0.213
0.419
Frequency of domestic travel 2.712 2.776
(Constant)
64.484
69.061
294 J. Pesonen and I. Tussyadiah

Table 3 Tests of the equality of group means and structure matrix

Tests of equality of group means Structure matrix
Wilks’ Lambda F Sig. Function
Environmental friendliness 1.000 0.079 0.779 0.034
Active use of the Internet 0.961 21.771 0.000 0.567
Travelling 0.976 13.057 0.000 0.439
Age 0.964 19.604 0.000
0.538
Personal annual income before taxes 0.997 1.645 0.200 0.156
Frequency of international travel 0.953 26.112 0.000 0.621
Frequency of domestic travel 0.992 4.063 0.044 0.245

frequency of international leisure travel clearly differentiated P2P accommodation

users from non-users more so than did the frequency of domestic travel. Also, age
significantly differentiated users from one another, with younger respondents being
more prone to use P2P accommodation services. Additionally, those who reported
that they regard travelling as important are more likely to be P2P accommodation
users.
The coefficients were generally lower for those who reported not having used
P2P accommodation services, except with respect to age, travelling and personal
income. The variables with the greatest differences in Table 2 explain the differ-
ences between users and non-users. Table 3 shows that “environmental friendli-
ness” and personal income do not significantly affect whether or not someone used
P2P accommodation services. Tests on the equality of group means (Table 3)
measure each independent variable’s potential before the model has been created.
Additionally, the structure matrix provides information regarding how well each
variable correlates within the function. Coefficients with large absolute values
correspond to variables with a greater ability to discriminate between users and
non-users. This means that age, travelling abroad and “active use of the Internet”
discriminate between users and non-users the most, whereas frequency of domestic
travel, “environmental friendliness” and personal income are poor indicators of P2P
accommodation use. The mean age of P2P accommodation users was 39.7 years,
whereas it was 49.5 years for those who reported not using such services.

5.2 Heterogeneity of P2P Accommodation Users

We randomly divided the data into two samples to test the discriminant function.
The function presented in this study managed to group correctly 71.4% of the
unselected original group cases when the prior probabilities were calculated using
equal group sizes.
To analyse the heterogeneity among P2P accommodation users, users were
profiled based on their reasons for using P2P accommodation services in order to
Peer-To-Peer Accommodation: Drivers and User Profiles 295

Table 4 Motivation scores among clusters

Pragmatists Idealists
I chose to stay at a P2P vacation rental because. . . (n ¼ 121) (n ¼ 145)
. . .it saved me time in searching for accommodations
0.50 0.86
. . .I wanted to get insider tips on local attractions
0.41 1.28
. . .the location was convenient 0.32 0.68
. . .finding the rental was an enjoyable experience
0.21 1.32
. . .it saved me money 0.28 0.69
. . .I wanted to have more meaningful interactions with the
0.33 1.19
hosts
. . .it helped lower my travel costs 0.19 0.86
. . .I wanted to support local residents
0.43 0.89
. . .I wanted to get to know people from the local
0.26 0.84
neighbourhoods
. . .it was a more sustainable business model
0.29 0.98
. . .I wanted to have higher quality accommodations while 0.00 0.34
spending less money
. . .I did not want to support hotel enterprises
0.44 0.86

better understand the structure of the markets. We used hierarchical cluster analysis
with Ward’s method and squared Euclidean distances. This resulted in a clear
two-cluster structure in the data with respect to motivations for using P2P accom-
modation services, as presented in Table 4. The first cluster rated all motivations as
being lower than the second cluster. Only three types of motivation received
positive scores for cluster 1: location, saving money, and reducing travel costs.
The members of the second cluster rated all reasons as important, especially insider
tips, the enjoyment that comes from finding a rental and meaningful interaction
with the hosts.
Based on the results, we labelled the first cluster Pragmatists. The main reason
that they reported using P2P accommodation services is that such services offer a
convenient way to travel, providing cheaper and better accommodation at a more
suitable location. They are not interested in the social or sustainable aspects of
P2P accommodation services. The second cluster consists of Idealists. They
reportedly embrace all aspects of P2P accommodation, but especially the com-
munity aspects of the service, such as interaction with the hosts. They reported
that using services such as Airbnb to find the rental is an enjoyable experience.
These results suggest that Idealists might actually consider what type of people
they will meet when they are choosing to use a P2P accommodation service and
do not just look at price, location and quality of the accommodation itself, as the
Pragmatists do.
Regarding lifestyle (Table 5), members of the second cluster reportedly regard
“environmental friendliness”, “food and travel” and “consumption and shopping”
as being more important than do members of the first cluster. We found no
296 J. Pesonen and I. Tussyadiah

Table 5 Lifestyle differences among clusters

Pragmatists (n ¼ 121) Idealists (n ¼ 145) Sig.
Environmental friendliness*
0.1853 0.1302 p ¼ 0.015
Traveling* 0.4316 0.9580 p ¼ 0.288
Active use of the Internet
0.5733
0.4056 p < 0.001
*p < 0.05

Table 6 Differences in socio-demographics and P2P accommodation experiences

Pragmatists Idealists
(n ¼ 121) (n ¼ 145) Sig.
Gender p < 0.05
Men 83 (68.6%) 75 (51.7%)
Women 38 (31.4%) 70 (48.3%)
Overall, how satisfied are you with your stay at P2P p < 0.05
accommodation rentals?
Very dissatisfied 4 (3.3%) 0
Dissatisfied 4 (3.3%) 0
Somewhat dissatisfied 11 (9.1%) 4 (2.8%)
Neutral 52 (43.0%) 9 (6.3%)
Somewhat satisfied 22 (18.2%) 54 (38.0%)
Satisfied 21 (17.4%) 57 (40.1%)
Very satisfied 7 (5.8%) 18 (12.7%)
How likely are you to use P2P vacation rentals in p < 0.05
the future?
Very unlikely 10 (8.3%) 2 (1.4%)
Unlikely 13 (10.8%) 8 (5.6%)
Undecided 49 (40.8%) 18 (12.5%)
Likely 36 (30.0%) 86 (59.7%)
Very likely 12 (10.0%) 30 (20.8%)

statistical differences in terms of “active use of the Internet”. The only socio-
demographic difference between the clusters was gender, with the first cluster
having considerably more men than women, whereas in the second cluster the
gender balance was equal (see Table 6). It also seems that members of the second
cluster have been much more satisfied with their P2P accommodation experience,
reporting that they are much more likely to use P2P services in the future and will
also use them more often than members of the first cluster when travelling abroad.
The clusters were also compared with respect to other profiling items, but we have
not found statistically significant differences in terms of the following items: age,
frequency of P2P accommodation usage, travel frequency, education, phase of life
or personal income. The mean age of the first cluster was 39 years, whereas it was
41 years for the second cluster, with medians of 37 years for both groups.
Peer-To-Peer Accommodation: Drivers and User Profiles 297

6 Discussion

The results of this study confirm the assumptions presented in previous studies
regarding the drivers of collaborative consumption in the context of peer-to-peer
accommodation services. We identified three aspects of Finnish lifestyles (i.e.,
travelling, environmental friendliness and active use of the Internet) and examined
how they affect people’s willingness to adopt and use P2P accommodation services.
We also included income, age and frequency of international and domestic travel in
the analysis. The results show that those who are younger, who actively use the
Internet and who travel abroad more often are more likely to be P2P accommoda-
tion users. These findings confirm the assumption that the consumers of P2P
accommodation services are younger and technology-savvy people who travel
more often and earn more than the general population. The most important drivers
are “active use of the Internet”, age and frequency of travels to abroad. Travelling in
general is an important factor in explaining the use of P2P accommodation services,
as those people who travel more frequently are also the ones who are more likely to
use P2P accommodation services. However, even though P2P accommodation
users are younger than non-users, most of them, at least in Finland, are well over
30 years of age, with the median age being 37. However, a standard deviation of
15 years demonstrates the fact that users come from many different age groups and
generations. Income proved to be a non-significant factor in accounting for P2P
accommodation use, meaning that people from all income categories are likely
users of P2P accommodation services. Finally, contrary to suggestions made in
previous studies, “environmental friendliness” is not a driving force behind the use
of P2P accommodation services.
We identified two different user profiles with respect to P2P accommodation
users. We labelled the first group Pragmatists. This group of people reported that
they use P2P accommodation services only because such services are convenient.
They can find accommodations at relatively affordable prices when using P2P
services. Still, they reported being generally less satisfied with the P2P accommo-
dations and less likely to use them in the future than the members of the other group.
In terms of demographics, the pragmatist primarily consisted of men. Regarding
lifestyle, they reportedly are not active users of the Internet, as are the members of
the other segment, nor are they as environmentally friendly in their opinions. We
called the other group Idealists. This group had an almost equal number of men and
women. They reported appreciating all aspects of P2P accommodation services, but
especially the interaction with hosts and the booking process itself, which includes
the chance of interacting a great deal with the hosts. For them, the convenience
offered by P2P accommodation services was the least important motivation. They
reported being quite satisfied with P2P accommodation services and highly likely to
use them again in the future. The groups were of almost equal size, thus the P2P
accommodation market in this study could be divided quite evenly. However,
Wards method tends to form clusters of an equal size (Hair et al., 2010), and
segment sizes obtained via cluster analysis do not necessarily represent the actual
298 J. Pesonen and I. Tussyadiah

marketplace; which should be kept in mind when interpreting the results (Pesonen,
2014). There were no differences between the segments regarding the phase of life,
income or age.

7 Conclusions

This study identified several drivers of collaborative consumption and their effect
on differentiating between users and non-users. The results clearly demonstrate that
the sharing economy thrives on the use of the Internet, just as an important prior
study suggests (Belk, 2014). Without the Internet and its users, there would be no
sharing economy at a global scale. As Sigala (2015) states, collaborative consump-
tion fulfils the requirements for it to be considered a disruptive technology, one
which appeals to enthusiastic early adopters. Also, travel behaviour significantly
influences this consumption practice, as those who travel abroad more frequently
are more likely to embrace P2P accommodation services.
This study in part challenges the assumption that sustainability is a driving force
behind collaborative consumption, especially in the case of P2P accommodation
services. When comparing the driving forces that account for why some people
choose to use P2P accommodation services and others do not, we found that
environmental friendliness does not play much of a role. Airbnb (2014), for
example, differentiates itself from hotels based on sustainability arguments. How-
ever, the results of this study do not confirm the assumption that environmentally
friendly consumers choose to use P2P accommodation services in greater numbers.
When looking at the two user segments, we found that Idealists are more environ-
mentally friendly than Pragmatists and also regard P2P accommodation services as
a more sustainable business model compared to other accommodation alternatives.
However, for Idealists sustainability only ranked as the fourth most important
reason for choosing to use P2P accommodation services out of the 12 reasons
measured in this study. This also confirms the assumption made by Hamari et al.
(2016) that sustainability indeed is important only for those whom ecological
consumption is likewise important. We can conclude that at least in Finland, the
environmental sustainability, or ecological footprint, of the accommodation is not a
major concern for consumers when choosing a holiday. However, this study does
not tell the whole story regarding the topic, as sustainable consumption can already
be an organic part of the Finnish lifestyle and only manifest itself when terrible
sustainability practices are witnessed, or else perhaps tourists just want to take a
break from sustainable practices during their holidays (Barr, Shaw, Coles, &
Prillwitz, 2010).
The division of P2P accommodation users into Idealists and Pragmatists sug-
gests that collaborative consumption has a different appeal for different people.
Idealists are looking for social connections. They use P2P accommodation services
not only to find a place to stay, but also to connect with local people and engage in
positive social interaction. For them, the host can be even more important than the
Peer-To-Peer Accommodation: Drivers and User Profiles 299

rental accommodation itself. Pragmatists, on the other hand, do not seek to interact
much with the hosts. For them, a P2P accommodation is just a way to find
conveniently located places to stay with a good price-quality ratio. This means
that Pragmatists probably compare P2P accommodation options with other possi-
bilities, such as hotels, to find the optimal location-price-quality combination with
respect to an accommodation. Idealists, on the other hand, prefer to say in P2P
accommodations because the social aspects of such stays are something that hotels
struggle to provide. Idealists are much more likely to use P2P accommodation
services in the future as well and are considerably more satisfied with their previous
P2P accommodation experiences than Pragmatists.
Tussyadiah (2015) identified economic drivers as one of the most important
reasons for choosing to use P2P accommodation services and argues that users
consider such accommodations to be less expensive than other accommodation
options. The results of this study also provide insights into the role of economic
benefits as a driving force in collaborative consumption. This study found that
people who have a higher level of personal income are more likely to use P2P
accommodation services. However, collaborative consumption services such as
Airbnb are not just for low-income and budget-conscious people (Guttentag,
2013). Many people are willing to pay prices that are equal to hotel prices just for
an alternative experience. For Pragmatists, the main reason for using P2P accom-
modation services is that such services help them save money, and so for this
segment of the population the findings presented in previous studies are quite
relevant.
The distinction between Idealists and Pragmatists also reflects typologies pos-
ited in earlier literature. For example, Idealists are similar to Week’s (2012)
travellers in that they seek authentic experiences, whereas Pragmatists are similar
to the type of tourists that Week defines in his study (Week, 2012). The results also
reflect the tourists’ need for authenticity (Yeoman et al., 2007). In searching for
authentic experiences, tourists desire human contact that is both local and real
(Yeoman et al., 2007). P2P accommodation services are probably for many closer
to the genuine hospitality experience (Ritzer, 2007) than are hotels, especially for
Idealists. The results also show that the more respondents claimed to travel inter-
nationally, the more likely they reportedly are to be P2P accommodation users.
However, taking more annual domestic trips does not mean that a person is more
likely to use P2P accommodation services. It seems that P2P accommodation
services are used especially when travelling abroad, which means that especially
for Idealists, the local culture is a significant factor when choosing an accommo-
dation and when choosing a P2P accommodation over other types of
accommodation.
A critical part of collaborative consumption, one that affects the tourism industry
quite strongly, is how to generate interest in using a particular product or service.
The results of this study show that P2P accommodation services are just beginning
to become popular, at least in Finland. Only a small minority, less than 10% of
Finnish consumers, have used P2P accommodation services. However, the average
age of the users was 40 years, meaning that P2P accommodation services are not
300 J. Pesonen and I. Tussyadiah

just for young people; older age groups have also started using these services. The
average age of the respondents who reportedly do not use P2P accommodation
services was almost 50 years. The fact that more mature consumers are willing to
use P2P accommodation services indicates that collaborative consumption business
models will likely be more widely adopted in the future.
The reasons presented and analysed in this study provide an answer to why
people use P2P accommodation services. For some consumers, they provide a way
to find an accommodation that is better located or of a higher quality than would
have otherwise been possible on a more limited budget, especially compared to
such options as hotels. For others, a P2P accommodation provides opportunities for
social interaction that enable them to feel more like travellers (Week, 2012); they
seek the chance to mingle with locals instead of just being stuck in the typical
tourist bubble. Guttentag (2013) argues that Airbnb lacks many benefits provided
by such traditional options as hotels, including service quality, brand reputation and
security. However, Airbnb has managed to create a brand for itself and offer a level
of service that earlier homestay services had not managed to provide. The Airbnb
brand offers customers the security and brand reputation that they value in major
hotel chains.
The results are interesting for traditional accommodation companies such as
hotels and hostels as well as P2P accommodation companies. It can be suggested
that approximately half of all P2P accommodation users represent a potential
market for hotels, as Pragmatists are not looking for anything that the hotels
could not provide. However, Idealists are clearly consumers who prefer P2P
accommodations over more traditional accommodation options, mainly due to the
unique attributes of P2P accommodations (for example, social interaction between
the guest and host), attributes which the various hotel chains may lack entirely.
Idealists are also more likely to respond to green marketing than Pragmatists, as
they tend to be more environmentally friendly in their lifestyle choices. The results
of this study carry both positive and negative implications for hotels. The good
news is that for many P2P accommodation users, hotels are still a viable option
when deciding on accommodations for a holiday. Pragmatists compare different
options and, given more convenient accommodation choices, are less likely to use
P2P accommodation services than Idealists. Idealists, on the other hand, are indeed
a difficult market segment for hotels. Idealists want genuine hospitality, contacts
with local people and also to feel less like tourists and more like travellers. On the
one hand, small hotel chains and boutique hotels have the possibility to cater to this
segment of the market via more personalised marketing and services; on the other
hand, these hotels are also probably the ones that lose the most customers to P2P
accommodation services, especially in the Idealists segment. According to
Tussyadiah and Pesonen (2015), the availability of P2P accommodation services
expands tourists’ destination choice sets and enables them to travel more. Idealists
are probably the consumers that especially enjoy additional travel possibilities
because of P2P accommodation services.
Theoretically, this study contributes to our understanding of the driving forces
behind the P2P accommodation phenomenon by studying the importance of the
Peer-To-Peer Accommodation: Drivers and User Profiles 301

different forces at play. The study also challenges existing assumptions about
sustainability being the determining factor, as P2P accommodation users are
homogenous in their motivations and needs. This study also provides insights into
collaborative consumption from the customer perspective. People use collaborative
consumption services for different reasons. The markets are most likely also
heterogeneous regarding forms of collaborative consumption other than just P2P
accommodation services; rather than just focusing on customers in general, there
are possibilities for providing niche services if such niches and market segments
can be better identified.
In conclusion this is the first study to segment P2P accommodation users based
on their motivations to use P2P accommodation and also increases our knowledge
on what factors drive the use of P2P accommodation. The two segments identified,
Idealists and Pragmatists, provide an interesting viewpoint on the use of P2P
accommodation for future research. The segment structure also helps practitioners,
both traditional accommodation providers as well as P2P accommodation pro-
viders, to understand the users of P2P accommodation better and how customer
motivations impact their businesses.

References

Airbnb. (2014). New study reveals a greener way to travel: Airbnb community shows environ-
mental benefits of home sharing. Accessed 2016, December 10, from https://www.airbnb.fi/
press/news/new-study-reveals-a-greener-way-to-travel-airbnb-community-shows-environmen
tal-benefits-of-home-sharing
Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: The case of car-sharing.
Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 881–898.
Barr, S., Shaw, G., Coles, T., & Prillwitz, J. (2010). ‘A holiday is a holiday’: Practicing
sustainability, home and away. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(3), 474–481.
Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online.
Journal of Business Research, 67, 1595–1600.
Bieger, T., & Laesser, C. (2002). Market segmentation by motivation: The case of Switzerland.
Journal of Travel Research, 41(1), 68–76.
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). “What’s mine is yours.” The rise of collaborative consumption.
New York: Collins.
Cohen, S. (2010). Searching for escape, authenticity and identity: Experiences of ‘lifestyle
travellers’. In M. Morgan, P. Lugosi, & J. R. B. Ritchie (Eds.), The tourism and leisure
experience: Consumer and managerial perspectives (pp. 27–42). Bristol: Channel View
Publications.
Dolnicar, S. (2002). A review of data-driven market segmentation in tourism. Journal of Travel
and Tourism Marketing, 12(1), 1–22.
Gansky, L. (2010). The mesh: Why the future of business is sharing. London: Portfolio Trade.
Guttentag, D. (2013). Airbnb: disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism accom-
modation sector. Current Issues in Tourism. doi:10.1080/13683500.2013.827159.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Haley, R. (1995). Benefit segmentation: Decision-oriented research tool. Marketing Management,
4(1), 59–62.
302 J. Pesonen and I. Tussyadiah

Hamari, J., Sj€oklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2016). The sharing economy: Why people participate in
collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technol-
ogy, 67(9), 2047–2059.
Han, H., & Kim, Y. (2010). An investigation of green hotel customers’ decision formation:
Developing an extended model of the theory of planned behavior. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 29(4), 659–668.
Han, H., Hsu, L. T. J., & Sheu, C. (2010). Application of the theory of planned behavior to green
hotel choice: Testing the effect of environmental friendly activities. Tourism Management, 31
(3), 325–334.
Kalafatis, S. P., Pollard, M., East, R., & Tsogas, M. H. (1999). Green marketing and Ajzen’s theory
of planned behavior: A cross-market examination. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(5),
441–460.
Kim, Y., & Han, H. (2010). Intention to pay conventional-hotel prices at a green hotel—A
modification of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(8),
997–1014.
Kim, D., & Perdue, R. R. (2013). The effects of cognitive, affective, and sensory attributes on hotel
choice. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 35, 246–257.
Kohda, Y., & Matsuda, K. (2013, October 31–November 2). How do sharing service providers
create value? In Proceedings of the Second Asian Conference on Information System (ACIS
2013). Thailand: Phuket.
Lee, J. S., Hsu, L. T., Han, H., & Kim, Y. (2010). Understanding how consumers view green
hotels: How a hotel’s green image can influence behavioural intentions. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 18(7), 901–914.
Manaktola, K., & Jauhari, V. (2007). Exploring consumer attitude and behaviour towards green
practices in the lodging industry in India. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 19(5), 364–377.
Mustonen, P., & Lindblom, T. (2013). Urbaanien nuorten aikuisten monenkirjavat elämäntyylit.
Kvartti, 2, 69–85.
Owyang, J. (2013). The collaborative economy: Products, services and market relationships have
changed as sharing startups impact business models. To avoid disruption, companies must
adopt the collaborative economy value chain (A market definition report). San Mateo, CA:
Altimeter.
Ozanne, L. K., & Ballantine, P. W. (2010). Sharing as a form of anti-consumption? An examina-
tion of toy library users. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(6), 485–498.
Park, D.-B., & Yoon, Y.-S. (2009). Segmentation by motivation in rural tourism: A Korean case
study. Tourism Management, 30(1), 99–108.
Pesonen, J. A. (2012). Segmentation of rural tourists: Combining push and pull motivations.
Tourism and Hospitality Management, 18(1), 69–82.
Pesonen, J. A. (2013). Developing market segmentation in tourism: Insights from a finnish rural
tourism study. Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies No. 69, University of
Eastern, Finland.
Pesonen, J. A. (2014). Testing segment stability: Insights from a rural tourism study. Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing, 31(6), 697–711.
Pesonen, J. A. (2015). Targeting rural tourists in the internet: Comparing travel motivation and
activity-based segments. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 32, 211–226.
Plog, S. (1974). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. The Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 14(4), 55–58.
Ritzer, G. (2007). Inhospitable hospitality. In C. Lashley, P. Lynch, & A. Morrison (Eds.),
Hospitality: A social lens (pp. 129–139). Oxford: Elsevier.
Sigala, M. (2015). Collaborative commerce in tourism: Implications for research and industry.
Current Issues in Tourism. doi:10.1080/13683500.2014.982522.
Sims, R. (2009). Food, place and authenticity: Local food and the sustainable tourism experience.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(3), 321–336.
Peer-To-Peer Accommodation: Drivers and User Profiles 303

Sohrabi, B., Vanani, I. R., Tahmasebipur, K., & Fazli, S. (2012). An exploratory analysis of hotel
selection factors: A comprehensive survey of Tehran hotels. International Journal of Hospi-
tality Management, 31(1), 96–106.
Stokes, K., Clarence, E., Anderson, L., & Rinne, A. (2014, September). Making sense of the UK
collaborative economy. Nesta Collaborative Lab.
Tung, V. W. S., & Ritchie, J. B. (2011). Exploring the essence of memorable tourism experiences.
Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1367–1386.
Tussyadiah, I. (2015). An exploratory study on drivers and deterrents of collaborative consump-
tion in travel. In I. Tussyadiah & A. Inversini (Eds.), Information and communication tech-
nologies in tourism. Proceedings of the international conference in Lugano, Switzerland,
February 3–6, 2015 (pp. 817–830). Heidelberg: Springer.
Tussyadiah, I. P., & Pesonen, J. (2015). Impacts of peer-to-peer accommodation use on travel
patterns. Journal of Travel Research. doi:10.1177/0047287515608505.
Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 26
(2), 349–370.
Week, L. (2012). I am not a tourist: Aims and implications of “traveling”. Tourist Studies, 12(2),
186–203.
Wong, K. K., & Chi-Yung, L. (2002). Predicting hotel choice decisions and segmenting hotel
consumers: A comparative assessment of a recent consumer based approach. Journal of Travel
and Tourism Marketing, 11(1), 17–33.
Yeoman, I., Brass, D., & McMahon-Beattie, U. (2007). Current issue in tourism: The authentic
tourist. Tourism Management, 28(4), 1128–1138.
Part IV
Futures
New Frontiers in Collaborative Economy
Research in Tourism

Dianne Dredge and Szilvia Gyimóthy

Abstract This chapter reflects on the challenges of defining the collaborative eco-
nomy in a tourism context. We argue that an all-encompassing definition of the
collaborative economy is problematic and that efforts might be better spent in
understanding the social, cultural and economic pluralism of the collaborative eco-
nomy rather than locking up its conceptualization in universal assumptions and
producing knowledge that is highly contextual to that definition. In an effort to
address growing concerns about the hidden values and self-interest underpinning
collaborative economy research, this paper sets out a framework that helps
researchers articulate their research choices.

Keywords Collaborative economy • Sharing economy • Tourism • Future

research • Research framework

1 Introduction: Perspectives on the Collaborative

Economy

The aim of this book has been to explore and theorise the nature, character and
operation of the collaborative economy and its relationship to tourism. In the
unfolding of the preceding chapters we have seen that the collaborative economy
is much wider, deeper and more complex that we had initially anticipated, and that
in the process of exploration we have come to appreciate that it has wide reaching
social, economic, political and environmental consequences. The collaborative
economy crosses disciplinary and sectoral boundaries, and it creates tensions and
contradictions that take considerable skill, knowledge and patience to unravel and
understand, much less construct purposive interventions.

D. Dredge (*) • S. Gyimóthy

Department of Culture and Global Studies, Aalborg University, A.C. Meyers Vænge 15,
Copenhagen 2450, Denmark
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 307

D. Dredge, S. Gyimóthy (eds.), Collaborative Economy and Tourism,
Tourism on the Verge, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-51799-5_18
308 D. Dredge and S. Gyimóthy

We deliberately adopted a broad interpretation of the collaborative economy at

the outset of this book project. We adopted this approach in order to allow
researchers the latitude needed to explore all that it could mean without limiting
it to current discussions about the digital collaborative economy epitomised by a
few well-known digital platforms. Without a doubt, this approach paid off in
terms of the rich insights gathered from chapter authors who adopted a range of
disciplinary perspectives, research approaches and contexts for their investiga-
tions. We overview these below, but we would first like to share some insights
about how this collection of chapters has emerged, and the implications this has
for knowledge building and a social science agenda for researching the collabo-
rative economy.
In developing this book and in the initial call for papers, our first preconceptions
were that we would indeed attract a range of contributions interrogating the digital
collaborative economy, its transactions, its impacts and its controversies in tourism.
Additionally, we were particularly keen to explore how “the global” plays out in the
local, and how “the local” influences what happens globally in the collaborative
economy. We wanted to seek out explorations of the de/re/structuring of tourism
systems, and the wider economic, social, political and environmental implications of
the collaborative economy. Coming from this perspective, it came as quite a surprise
to us that, in late 2015, when we first announced the book proposal, few tourism
researchers had heard of the collaborative economy. By mid-2016 however, we
believe that the situation had changed dramatically and that there is growing
awareness. To date however, research has remained quite narrowly focused on
understanding markets, quite often using very limited data sets, and on critiquing
of particular platforms. Wider interrogations have been limited and there are few
explorations of the global-local interactions and processes of de/re structuration
being facilitated by the collaborative economy either inside tourism or in the wider
research arena. In Dredge and Gyimóthy (2015), we posit the reasons why research
has been slow to take off include the absence of clear analytical frameworks and
lenses, the difficulty of securing access to data, and the need for an appreciation of
wicked complexity of the collaborative economy as a multidisciplinary and multi-
sectoral problem. These issues remain problematic and will need to be addressed in
the future.
As a result, and as we pointed out in the first chapter, researching the collabo-
rative economy from a holistic social science perspective is not an easy task.
However, our chapter authors rose to the challenge and interpreted “collaborative
economy” in a kaleidoscope of ways giving depth, variety, contrast and meaning in
ways that we never expected. In the light of their varied and insightful investi-
gations, it therefore makes sense to revisit the meaning of the collaborative economy,
and how we might unfold and investigate this term in the future. Put simply, using
an inductive approach, we are now able to draw attention to the meanings of the
collaborative economy and its intersections with tourism in a manner that we were
unable to at the beginning of this project.
New Frontiers in Collaborative Economy Research in Tourism 309

2 Definitional Reflections: Towards Social, Cultural

and Economic Pluralism

As promised in the introductory chapter, we return to explore the meaning of the

collaborative economy in this final chapter. There are many definitions of the collabo-
rative economy, which reflect both the diverse values of authors and the purposes for
which they seek to define it. Contradictions abound. It is both old and new; it is global
and local; it may be monetized or non-monetized; and it is manifested in both formal
and informal economies. It is collective in name and also demonstrates a high level of
individualization. It is said to redistribute wealth, democratize economic systems
(Gorenflo, 2013; Parsons, 2014a, 2014b) and increase the accessibility of travel
(PWC, 2015). Conversely, it is also seen as nothing more than platform capitalism,
extracting wealth from precariat workers and the commons, redistributing and con-
centrating it within the wealthier echelons of capitalist society including venture
capitalists, hipsters, property investors and the creative class (Scholz, 2014; Slee,
2016; Thrasyvoulou, 2014). Another unresolved contradiction is whether the collabo-
rative economy represents resistance to traditional forms of capitalism, ownership and
over-consumption, or whether it is simply a new form of capitalism. Botsman (cited in
Kade, 2015) has suggested that the collaborative economy might be a form of
resistance to hyper-consumption, consumerism and resource depletion:
. . .what originally drew me into the space was how these ideas can empower both providers
and customers to exchange in more direct and human ways. At its best, power is taken from
the hands of the ‘big company’ and back into the hands of millions of users.

O’Regan and Choe (chapter “Airbnb: Turning the Collaborative Economy into a
Collaborative Society”) counter this argument with observations that the collabo-
rative economy incentivizes monopolistic, commercial and profit-seeking behav-
iours, where the offering of multiple properties by the same owner on collaborative
accommodation sites such as Airbnb, or Uber’s move into fleet cars demonstrates
this point (SMH, 2016). It seems that the more attention the collaborative economy
receives, the more new contradictions emerge.
Not surprisingly, definitions of the collaborative economy tend to reflect the
particular reality for which the definition is generated; the author’s way or under-
standing or positioning of themselves within the discourse; and the particular value
sets held by authors or their clients. For example, consultants and so-called sharing
economy experts focus on the disruptive and innovative elements of the collabo-
rative economy, buying into a framing that heightens the value of their expert con-
tribution in helping to navigate the uncertainty of disruption. Economists and
business consultants might focus their definitions on elements such supply chain
and market dynamics, demand and consumption, while social researchers might
concern themselves with the distribution of impacts on different communities,
aspects of power, trust, reputation and the accumulation/redistribution of wealth.
In other words, definitions are shaped by a range of ontological (i.e. ways of
understanding), epistemological (i.e. ways of knowing) and axiological (i.e. ways
310 D. Dredge and S. Gyimóthy

of valuing) assumptions. Under these circumstances, an all-encompassing defini-

tion of the collaborative economy is unlikely to emerge. Efforts might be better
spent in understanding the social, cultural and economic pluralism of the collabo-
rative economy rather than locking up its conceptualization and meaning in uni-
versal assumptions and producing knowledge that is highly contextual to that
definition (e.g. see Howitt & Suchet-Pearson, 2006).
So what reflections can be learned from the deliberations contained within the
chapters of this book that might help to direct attention towards developing greater
social, cultural and economic pluralism of the collaborative economy? In the
chapter “Business models of the collaborative economy”, Gyimóthy shows that
the collaborative economy is also characterised by diverse business models. Whilst
it is easy for our thinking to be dominated by the recent rise of the digital
collaborative economy, and for our theoretical endeavours to become narrowly
fashioned around the digital focus, the importance of maintaining awareness of
wider ontologies of collaborative economy is essential. Drawing upon Kennedy
(2015), Gyimóthy (“Networked cultures in the collaborative economy”) alerts us to
three ontological perspectives on the collaborative economy that have been
reflected within the chapters of this book:
• An economy driven by social capital (i.e. the sharing economy/collaborative
economy) demonstrated in, for instance, the chapters by Guttentag (“Regulating
innovation in the collaborative economy: an examination of Airbnb’s early legal
issues”) as well as Pesonen and Tussyadiah (“Peer-to-peer accommodation:
drivers and user profiles”).
• A mode of resource distribution (i.e. sharing platforms) demonstrated in, for
instance, the chapters by Cannas (“Embedding social values in tourism manage-
ment: community currencies as laboratories of social entrepreneurship?”) and
Leal Londo~ no and Medina (“Free walking tour enterprises in Europe: an evolu-
tionary economic approach”).
• A site of social intensification (i.e. symbolic exchanges, tribal belonging and
bonding among community members, which has been demonstrated in the
chapters by Cannas (“Embedding social values in tourism management: com-
munity currencies as laboratories of social entrepreneurship?”), Johannesson
and Lund (“Improvising economy: everyday encounters and tourism consump-
tion”), Hardy (“Community and connection: exploring non-monetary aspects of
the collaborative economy through recreation vehicle use”).
In the chapter “Networked cultures in the collaborative economy”, Gyimóthy
examines the sociological dimensions of collaboration and sharing to illustrate that
the motivations of actors in the collaborative economy also vary as does the way it
is valued. She highlights that the historical framing and dominance of communi-
tarian “sharing” discourses have led to romanticized notions of collaboration,
solidarity, sustainability and social responsibility that can misrepresent what is
really going on. She argues that “sharing is positioned as a ‘morally correct act’,
transporting its rhetoric and positive associations to companies facilitating peer
transactions against a fee”. Gyimóthy’s explanation of the algorithmic
New Frontiers in Collaborative Economy Research in Tourism 311

manipulations taking place on digital platforms illustrate that we need to remain

cautious to the communitarian claims of the digital collaborative economy, and be
aware of the ethos, motivations and logics underpinning digital “collaborative
economy” models. The chapters of Cannas (“Embedding social values in tourism
management: community currencies as laboratories of social entrepreneurship?”),
Johannesson and Lund (“Improvising economy: everyday encounters and tourism
consumption”) and Hardy (“Community and connection: exploring non-monetary
aspects of the collaborative economy through recreation vehicle use”) provide us
with alternative examples of the collaborative economy demonstrating that solidar-
ity, sustainability and social responsibility can indeed be present. Furthermore, if
we foreground the social (as opposed to the nature of economic exchange), we
reveal other insights about the nature of collaboration, individualization, relational
bonds and connections.
In sum, we decline to offer an all-encompassing definition for the above
discussed reasons, and instead argue for conceptualizations that allow the social,
cultural and economic pluralism of the collaborative economy to flourish. The
collaborative economy might be very old, but it is also evolving, hybridizing and
morphing at a very rapid rate. Narrowing to a preferred definition runs the risk of
closing down yet-to-be-imagined models. Remaining open to alternative onto-
logical, epistemological and axiological perspectives must therefore form part of
any future research agenda. However, this position requires that authors take the
time to explicate their ontological, epistemological and axiological foundations.

3 Reflections on Complexity: Collaborative Economy

as a Perfect Policy Storm

The rise of the collaborative economy has been described as a “perfect storm”
(Gansky, 2010). “Perfect storm” is an expression used to describe the confluence of
issues where the synergies produced are significantly more complex and difficult to
deal with than if individual issues were addressed separately (Dredge, Gyimóthy,
Birkbak, Jensen, & Madsen, 2016). The metaphor is particularly apt in policy
contexts where a number of policy and regulatory issues coalesce, where there
are diverse stakeholder interests at play, and the complexity of taking action
involves weighing up a range of interconnected policy options and their known
and unknown consequences (e.g. see Head, 2008a, 2008b; Rittel & Weber, 1973 for
a discussion of wicked policy problems). The rapid growth of the collaborative
economy at a global scale has contributed to this perfect (policy) storm.
Both Richards’ chapter (“Sharing the new localities of tourism”) and O’Regan
and Choe’s contribution (“Airbnb: Turning the Collaborative Economy into a
Collaborative Society”) illustrate this perfect policy storm in their renderings of
the global-local complexities of the collaborative economy accommodation sector.
312 D. Dredge and S. Gyimóthy

City destinations are raising concerns over the impact of the rapid rise of the
collaborative economy accommodation sector that has occurred at a time when
many localities in various corners of the globe are feeling the impacts of decades of
pro-growth tourism strategies. Strong sustained growth in visitor numbers, fuelled
by growth in low cost airline passenger capacity, city branding and promotion
efforts, the increased use of events as economic development tools, and increases in
hotel investment, have contributed to an intensification of tourism activity. Physical
signs of overcrowding and visitor saturation, particularly in inner-city locations
close to tourist attractions, are evident. Psychological effects of overcrowding are
manifested in increased political conflict (e.g. demonstrations in Barcelona and
negative social media in many cities). In some instances, falling rates of residential
occupancy in some neighbourhoods have resulted in the closure of community
facilities such as schools where there is no longer a population demographic to
support the service. These policy issues are broadly the consequence of tourism
growth and development policies. The seeds of these current problems existed prior
to the rise of collaborative economy tourism accommodation sector and the pace of
uptake of the collaborative economy by both producers and consumers has exacer-
bated these pre-existing policy issues (Dredge et al., 2016).
The rise of the collaborative economy has also coincided with pre-existing
housing shortages and affordability issues in many cities. The causes of these
housing issues are complex and historically embedded in, for example, the evolu-
tion of national and regional housing markets, infrastructure and investment poli-
cies. These policies have shaped the supply and demand for housing; they have
shaped the behaviours of markets and investment, and in turn contributed to current
housing shortages and affordability issues. The collaborative economy tourism
accommodation sector has grown, in part, due to the natural tendency for capital
to maximise return on investment. In many cities, local economic and investment
conditions dictate that short-term tourism accommodation rental is more profitable
than renting to permanent residents. As a result, investors seeking to maximise their
returns have been drawn to the collaborative economy accommodation sector
where small investors with as little as one apartment to rent can access the global
marketplace (Dredge et al., 2016).
These conditions create considerable challenges for policy makers and regula-
tors. Diverging national rules and local regulations have created uncertainty and
policy and regulatory environments have become highly politicized in some loca-
tions. Not only have existing policy and regulatory approaches and frameworks
struggled to keep up with the pace of innovation in the collaborative economy, but
opportunities to share information, compare and contrast public administration
responses and experiences in different contexts have been difficult. Accordingly,
the policy environment in all its multi-scalar complexity is both a facilitator
and/or an inhibitor to the collaborative economy and understanding of policy
complementarities and trade-offs must be part of a future research agenda.
New Frontiers in Collaborative Economy Research in Tourism 313

4 Reflections on Knowledge Needs and Information

Asymmetries

In our earlier work exploring the landscape of the collaborative economy and tourism,
we identified a range of concerns about the lack of reliable data, the dearth of
independent research and the information asymmetries that have been emerging as a
result of power imbalances in the collaborative economy (Dredge & Gyimóthy, 2015).
Governments and industry require good, reliable data in order to devise well-conceived
responses to the collaborative economy. Put simply, the fundamentals of robust
decision-making about what to do includes using valid and reliable data; analysis,
conclusions and potential actions that are derived from independent and systematic
inquiry drawn from multiple sources of evidence; and establishing a level of trust
among stakeholders that these former conditions have been met (Pawson, 2006).
At present in the collaborative economy, reliable and publically accessible data
is limited and the data that is available or made public is often presented through a
lens of self-interest (Gordo, de Rivera, & Apestegia, 2016; Slee, 2016). For a
variety of commercial and political reasons, collaborative economy platforms are
unwilling to share their “raw data” and even when it has been forthcoming it has
generally been in the form of high-level trend or descriptive data that supports the
overall position or interests of the platform. CleanTech’s research report on the
environmental sustainability of Airbnb, briefly discussed by Dredge in the chapter
on “Responsibility and care in the collaborative economy”, illustrates this point.
Adding a further level of murkiness, there have been specific incidences where data
supplied have been “cleaned” or manipulated prior to its sharing, which has eroded
trust between Airbnb and its stakeholders (Cox & Slee, 2016).
The targeting of data collection exercises is also problematic. Existing data
collection initiatives such a visitor surveys, census data collection, accommodation
data, industry reporting and so on do little to shed light on the collaborative economy
in tourism. While additional questions are now starting to be offered within these
existing data collection tools, their ability to capture the extent and nature of the
collaborative economy is questionable because their application and target audi-
ences may not reach collaborative economy participants. In the tourism sector, the
mobility of travellers adds an additional challenge to data collection. For example,
collaborative economy visitors often circulate outside traditional tourist zones
and/or communication channels making them difficult to identify and survey.
Hosts may also not self-identify for fear of the regulatory burden or tax obligations
they may be subjected to.
The impacts and consequences of the collaborative economy in tourism also
extend well beyond impacts on traditional industry players, hosts and guests. As
discussed in the opening chapter “Collaborative economy and tourism”, stake-
holders may be directly or indirectly affected by the collaborative economy and
impacts may emerge over time. As a consequence, a broader set of stakeholders and
longitudinal data collection must also be included when considering what informa-
tion is required, and from whom, in responding to the collaborative economy.
314 D. Dredge and S. Gyimóthy

5 Reflections on Myths

Myth-making is prevalent amongst advocates of the collaborative economy. In the

opening chapter, “Collaborative economy and tourism” we identified a number of
myths that have been reproduced so often that they are fast becoming taken-for-
granted “truths” that normalise the way we view the collaborative economy.
Following Couldry (2015), the concern we raise is that these myths are framed
around certain socio-political values and self-interests and can impede and even
distort balanced understanding of the collaborative economy. Myths also tend to be
characterised by over-generalisation and high levels of simplicity. The contributors
to this book have explored the complexity of the collaborative economy and its
relationship to tourism, and while they have not directly sought to dispel the myths
identified, their interrogations help to shed light on the relative strengths and
weaknesses of such assertions.
The first myth was that the collaborative economy supposedly unlocks hidden
wealth by turning idle assets, dead capital and surplus resources into economic
opportunity. The chapter authors have, through their diverse explorations, rendered
a picture of the collaborative economy as being much more than a system of
economic transactions unlocking hidden wealth. For example, Cannas’ chapter,
“Embedding social values in tourism management: community currencies as lab-
oratories of social entrepreneurship?”) highlights the hidden wealth of communities
who seek to collaborate, but motivations are not as simple as unlocking hidden
wealth. In the Sardex case, economic reasons for collaboration cannot be separated
out from social bonds of a community seeking to survive the financial crises that
have unfolded in Sardinia. This social dimension of exchange, the diversity of
non-monetised transactions, and the social and cultural value of the relational
encounter itself tend to be minimised in this myth. These transactions have a
personal individual quality (Jóhannesson and Lund), and they also have a collec-
tive, bonding value (see also Hardy’s and Clausen and Velázquez’s chapters). This
myth thus oversimplifies social-economic entanglements, and over-focuses on
economic value to the detriment of deeper understandings. The complexity of
social-economic linkages justifies a broader social science approach as will be
detailed in the research agenda later in this chapter.
The second myth was that the collaborative economy embraces openness,
inclusivity and the commons, it reallocates wealth across the value chain, and it
carries the seeds of a more fair, just and equal society. A range of chapters offers
insights into the claims embedded in this myth. There were elements of truth in this
myth in Leal Londo~no and Medina’s chapter (“Free walking tour enterprises in
Europe: an evolutionary economic approach”) investigation of free-walking
tours. They found that easy access to the collaborative economy marketplace had
opened up opportunities for local guides and given them choices that they may not
have had previously. However, Clausen and Velázquez dispel this myth in their
discussion of the collaborative economy in Latin America, finding that it is linked
to pre-existing patterns of economic and social organisation. They argue that the
New Frontiers in Collaborative Economy Research in Tourism 315

collaborative economy is not new, but an extension of existing informal economies

that has been propelled by digital technology. Examining the collaborative econ-
omy from the perspective of labour, Meged and Christensen (“Working within the
collaborative tourist economy: the complex crafting of work and meaning”) also
note that the collaborative economy does not redistribute wealth nor create a fairer
or more just society. They find the reverse—that the collaborative economy under-
mines existing labour rights and protections and has the potential to make society
less fair. Drawing from the insights offered by the collection of chapters, we find
that such a myth oversimplifies the nature of transactions and generalises across a
wide range of collaborative economy models. It demonstrates Gyimóthy’s chapter
(“Networked Cultures in the collaborative economy”) concern over the
romanticisation of the collaborative economy as an altruistic phenomenon, which
has been problematized by authors such as Guttentag (“Regulating innovation in
the collaborative economy: an examination of Airbnb’s early legal issues”),
O’Regan and Choe (“Airbnb: Turning the Collaborative Economy into a Collabo-
rative Society”) and Richards (“Sharing the new localities of tourism”).
The third myth is that the collaborative economy focuses on community
lifestyle and living local movements, it is an antidote to the failures of capitalism,
and it contributes to a moral turn towards more responsible production and
consumption. Some of the chapters in this book render very intimate understand-
ings of collaboration, and leave little doubt that deep relational bonds can emerge
from collaborative transactions. Jóhannesson and Lund (“Improvising economy:
everyday encounters and tourism consumption”) explore the connections between
museum staff and a visitor in the Icelandic Museum of Sorcery and Witchcraft.
They draw our attention to the encounter and to the meaning and relational
attributes of genuine collaboration, which in the case of the museum curator is
about responsibility and care. It is neither monetised or digitized. Hardy (“Com-
munity and connection: exploring non-monetary aspects of the collaborative
economy through recreation vehicle use”) follows a similar trajectory, where in
her investigation of grey nomads, she arrives at the conclusion that collaboration
is about a sense of belonging, fellowship and shared sentiment. Among the grey
nomads, transactions take a variety of forms and may or may not have an explicit
economic value. Moreover, money is often ancillary to the highly valued collab-
orations that take place. So while we see partial support for this myth within the
chapters, any semblance of truth in this myth depends heavily on the character-
istics of the particular collaborative economy model and the actors involved.
Gyimóthy (“Networked cultures in the collaborative economy”), O’Regan and
Choe (“Airbnb: Turning the Collaborative Economy into a Collaborative Soci-
ety”), Meged and Christensen (“Working within the collaborative tourist econ-
omy: the complex crafting of work and meaning”) and Richards (“Sharing the
new localities of tourism”) all explore the digital collaborative economy,
returning an alternative conclusion that it is not a more responsible form of
consumption and is often nothing more than business as usual capitalism.
316 D. Dredge and S. Gyimóthy

The fourth myth is that the collaborative economy represents a free, unfettered
and more efficient market place where producers and consumers exchange goods
and services without heavy-handed regulation. Chapter contributors (e.g. Guttentag,
O’Regan and Choe) have raised a range of concerns about the capacity of the
collaborative economy to deliver more efficient markets. Of particular concern is
the way in which digital P2P platforms can bypass regulatory requirements with
issues emerging around health and safety, consumer protections, labour rights.
Again, this myth does not take into account the diversity of collaborative economy
models nor the effects and unintended consequences of these efficiency dividends.
Day (“Collaborative economy and destination marketing organisations: a systems
approach”) draws attention to the way in which the collaborative economy has
potential to bypass Destination Management Organisations (DMOs), and in the
process a range of core DMO functions (e.g. training, promotion, business support)
that contribute to destination image, service quality and so on are placed at risk.
Day’s findings suggest that a measured response in needed towards the collaborative
economy and that the bypassing and/or dismantling of all regulatory mechanisms
and government functions in relation to tourism is not necessarily the best outcome
for the future of innovative and competitive tourism systems.
The fifth and final myth was that the collaborative economy possesses the
capacity to self-regulate and address market failures. Chapter authors contribute a
number of observations with regard to this myth but all suggest that there are a range
of issues, unintended consequences and impacts that have not yet been fully and
concretely identified much less researched. Dredge’s exploration of politics, policy
and the regulatory challenges (“Responsibility and care in the collaborative econ-
omy”) draws attention to the need for a more nuanced approach to regulation that
responds to the different collaborative economy models and the consequences for
diverse stakeholders and communities of interest. Importantly, this myth is perhaps
also designed to progress the argument that the collaborative economy needs a
“regulation-lite” approach from government. It seeks to confirm a fundamental
tenant of neoliberal capitalism: that self-regulation is better and more efficient
than government regulation. However, it would seem that it is too early to make
such a claim that the collaborative economy has the capacity to self-regulate. The
discussions contained in chapters by Guttentag, Richards, Gyimóthy and O’Regan
and Choe also appear to support the need for more detailed, critical and independent
studies about the relative merits of self—versus government regulation.

6 Researching the Collaborative Economy and Tourism

In this section we seek to lay the foundations for a research agenda on the collabo-
rative economy that enables us to pursue the social, economic, cultural and political
pluralism that we believe is necessary. As previously discussed, a commitment to
ontological, epistemological and axiological pluralism can help to generate alter-
native understandings of the collaborative economy and tourism.
New Frontiers in Collaborative Economy Research in Tourism 317

The contributions contained within this book demonstrate that the collaborative
economy is very complex. It is not just a tourism problem; its tentacles extend into
urban planning, economic management, community development, fiscal policy,
investment, labour and mobility to name a few sectors and policy spheres. There
is no single best approach to its study—it is multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary,
and it also involves a myriad of stakeholders and communities of interest. The
contradictions and competing claims that have emerged, which have been discussed
herein have arisen in part because of the wide range of values and self-interests
lurking beneath both research and advocacy activities in the collaborative economy.
In order to explore these contradictions and competing claims there is a need for
researchers to be more explicit about the worldview they adopt; to be clear about
the knowledge devices, disciplinary influences, frameworks and tools they are
using to frame and focus their research; and there is a need to be clear about the
values and beliefs that shape their position as a researcher.
Figure 1 captures the elements of this values-based framework for the collabo-
rative economy and tourism. This framework can be used as a guide to assist
researchers better articulate the choices and influences upon their research into
the collaborative economy by making explicit the ontological, epistemological and
axiological decisions that have influenced their research approach. On the left side
of the Figure, the researcher is prompted to articulate ontological, epistemological
and axiological choices. The shaded boxes in the middle of the Figure contain
examples of the choices that were made by the chapter authors within this volume.

Example

What ontological world view on

An economy driven by social capital
the collaborative economy and A mode of resource distribution
tourism is being adopted? A system of social exchange
Ontology Influences
Business management Researcher
Sociology & relational aspects choices in:
What knowledge devices, tools, Politics, power & labour-capital relations Research approach
frameworks, disciplinary
influences can be used to Law, rights & responsibilities Research strategy
understand the collaborative Environment & resource consumption Methods
economy and tourism?
Tourism Data collection
Epistemology
Urban and regional planning Analysis
Geography, space & place

…as communitarian
What are the researchers’ …as altruism
values and beliefs?
…as sustainability
What myths are being bought
into? …as the democratisation of markets
…as unlocking hidden wealth
Axiology
…as ”business as usual” capitalism

Fig. 1 Social, economic, cultural and political pluralism in the collaborative economy: a research
framework
318 D. Dredge and S. Gyimóthy

A commitment to social, cultural and political pluralism addresses the choices

available in framing or positioning future research in the collaborative economy
and tourism. But what might be the substantive directions for a research agenda for
the collaborative economy and tourism? In this final section, we can now identify a
number of research opportunities that have emerged and which provide important
lines of theoretical and practical inquiry into the future. We frame this agenda
around the need to engage more thoroughly in three overlapping sets of concerns
emerging from this volume: (1) better understandings of the characteristics of the
collaborative economy in tourism; (2) improved insights into the societal impacts of
the collaborative economy and tourism; and (3) what can be done about it. While
the first two enable us to better understand the nature of the collaborative economy
and tourism and its impacts, the latter channels the knowledge of the first two and
prompts us to ask the hard questions about values, ethics, responsibility and
judgement. We deal with each in turn.

6.1 Characteristics of the Collaborative Economy and Its

Relationship with Tourism

It is evident from the preceding chapters that some parts of the tourism system are
being transformed by the collaborative economy. We have also illustrated that the
collaborative economy is not a homogeneous “thing”, neither does it “hit equally”.
Rather, it is a collection of business models, practices, relational networks, tech-
nologies, and stakeholders with different interests, resources and power that
together are placing pressure on parts of the traditional tourism system. More
nuanced understandings of the collaborative economy and its relationship with
tourism are needed. The chapters of this book have opened and contributed to the
following lines of research in this area:
• Characteristics and models of collaborative economy businesses in tourism
• Sociology of exchange in the collaborative economy and how these relational
characteristics influence tourism encounters and practices
• Stakeholder values, interests and motivations in the collaborative economy in
tourism
• Impacts and implications of collaborative economy on traditional and/or incum-
bent industry actors and destination management organizations
• Impacts and implications of collaborative economy on tourism systems, supply
chains and business ecologies and regulations
• Alternative forms of economic and non-economic forms of value creation in
collaborative economy in tourism.
New Frontiers in Collaborative Economy Research in Tourism 319

6.2 Societal Impacts of the Collaborative Economy

The idea that tourism can be a tool for social good—that it can add social and
economic value, help to protect natural resources, and contribute to community
cohesion and sustainable livelihoods for example—is well established in the liter-
ature. Similarly, some models of the collaborative economy are also aligned with
the altruistic view that it can help to deliver social, cultural and political value in
addition to economic growth and innovation. Together these ideas—that tourism
collaborative economy can create a better world—has become a simplistic but
potent argument gaining increasing momentum. Critical voices put forward an
opposite interpretation, claiming that the collaborative economy is the purest
form of capitalism, exploiting individual lives and private resources beyond the
safety net of welfare systems. However, both positions remain ideological and
provide an overtly crude appraisal of a phenomenon that is not yet consolidated
nor well understood. The collaborative economy is seeping in the cracks of dys-
functional capitalist and welfare systems, creating partial solutions but also new
ruptures as it infiltrates existing institutional and social structures. Hence, more
detailed investigation is needed to better understand the complex societal impact of
the collaborative economy in tourism. From these deeper understandings we can
better identify strategies and actions to maximise the positive benefits and minimise
the negative effects.
Drawing from the preceding chapters a number of lines of further inquiry have
been identified, such as:
• Impacts and implications of collaborative economy on destination sustainability
• Economic impacts of tourism collaborative economy sectors (e.g. accommodation,
transport, services, etc.)
• Employment consequences of the collaborative economy including full time and
part time job creation, estimates of formal and informal labour and multiplier
effects on employment in other parts of the economy
• Impacts and implications of the collaborative economy on housing, livelihoods,
labour rights and relations
• Characteristics of participation (e.g. demographics, gaps, biases and impedi-
ments) leading to insights about social inclusion and exclusion and the demo-
cratization of the marketplace
• Evaluations of the direct and indirect social and cultural impacts of the collabo-
rative economy on communities
• The impacts and consequences of the collaborative economy across different
policy sectors, the policy complementarities and trade-offs involved in manag-
ing the collaborative economy
• New models of public-private governance that invoke new thinking about regu-
latory roles, responsibilities and structures
• Opportunities and impediments to partnerships and collaboration in the collabo-
rative economy
320 D. Dredge and S. Gyimóthy

• Implications and consequences of the collaborative economy on different types

of destinations at different scales and geographical locations, e.g. urban, rural
and coastal destinations, major tourist hubs and smaller localities.

6.3 What Can Be Done About It?

Taking a social science perspective, many of the chapters within this volume have
galvanized around the notion of a more caring and responsible research agenda with
respect to the collaborative economy. While the above two areas of future research
dwell on understanding the impacts and characteristics of the collaborative eco-
nomy in tourism, this last set of research ideas focuses on what we ought to do
about it.
The collaborative economy is unfolding at lightening pace, and there exist many
possible scenarios for its future. At the same time, our slide into a post-fact, post-
truth world (Majoo, 2011) is creating significant challenges in understanding what
is really going on, what “truth” to believe, and what is the entire pool of options
available, not just what we are given to select from. In this post-fact world,
collaborative economy advocates, consultants, platforms and researchers are con-
tributing insights and knowledge about the collaborative economy by marshalling
the best possible evidence drawn from their own cloisters. Knowledge sharing
occurs only to the extent it comes from those sharing the same (or similar) onto-
logical stage, and alternative insights are distanced, dismissed and/or not given
credence. Each knowledge network has a truth of its own, and the politics of
pluralism allows alternative insights to be ignored despite the potential utility,
rigor and salience for other groups of actors. This dissent into fragmentation
stymies opportunities to develop broad-based, textured and contextualised under-
standings of the collaborative economy. Non-action is easier than action in such
circumstances. This last set of research directions is aimed at addressing this
potential inertia.
Earlier we raised an issue with the asymmetries of information that characterize
the collaborative economy and tourism and called for greater attention to ontolog-
ical, epistemological and axiological orientations that underpin research and knowl-
edge generation. Tourism researchers can and should play an important role in
shaping this future, and we encourage our colleagues to live up to this responsibil-
ity. It requires going beyond the role of documentary chroniclers, industrial con-
sultants driven by a particular agenda or alienated critiques, and repositioning
ourselves as responsible scholars. To be clear, we are not proposing an instrumental
research agenda that prescribes what ought to be done, nor are we advocating that a
consensus can be reached about what is true, valuable or useful knowledge in the
collaborative economy and tourism. To the contrary, we argue that diverse types of
knowledge are useful in different circumstances and we call for wider engagement
in the generating and sharing of knowledge, and for researchers, consultants,
advocates and platforms to span knowledge-making boundaries. Within this line
New Frontiers in Collaborative Economy Research in Tourism 321

of inquiry we also believe it is important to identify opportunities for action by

different actors; to examine, compare and contrast the impacts of policies, strategies
and initiatives already adopted; and to also consider the ethical dimensions and
moral responsibilities upon stakeholders to do something about the issues and
implications that are unfolding. In this sense, research that addresses both “big
picture questions” and “small contextualised explorations” is needed. In order to
produce research that is concrete, salient and useful, researchers must embrace
strategies that entail:
• Detailed engagement with practical problems and contradictions
• A level of independence from politics
• Space for political deliberation
• Insights from experiences in different institutional contexts (national and
international)
• Acknowledgement of the institutional and organizational realities
• Political robustness—i.e., present knowledge that is politically acceptable and
has taken into account various stakeholder perspectives
• Epistemic robustness—i.e., adopt research methods and approaches that are
considered appropriate within the disciplinary context and be scientifically
sound in terms of knowledge claims (see Budtz Pedersen, 2014; Head, 2008a,
2008b; Lentsch & Weingart, 2011).
Drawing from the preceding chapters and the principles above, a particular
approach is emerging, that defines a viable and morally responsible direction for
researchers not only studying but actively shaping the future of collaborative
economy. This necessitates engaging with collaborative economy problems and
challenges as follows:
• Establish dialogue-based approaches and collaborative platforms to identify
value creation mechanisms and shared value across diverse stakeholder groups
• Identify and navigate among the moral responsibilities of those involved in the
collaborative economy and tourism
• Assess the consequences of current regulatory regimes in regard to fair and
equitable competition in the tourism industry
• Assist in the development of balanced regulatory measures, policy strategies,
actions and initiatives aiming at maximising value for stakeholders on different
levels.
From the above we acknowledge that the collaborative economy is bringing
significant transformations to certain parts of the tourism system. Despite our best
efforts and those of the chapter authors within, there is limited research to date, and
we know little about how it will all play out. However, we are certain that the
collaborative economy is deeply entangled in, and has the potential to deliver
positive outcomes for, a range of urgent societal challenges (e.g. the need for
alternative, less-consumptive economic models, sustainability, social cohesion,
local livelihoods, etc.). What is needed though, is to step back from and balance
out the simplistic claims of benefit generated by collaborative economy advocates
322 D. Dredge and S. Gyimóthy

and platforms. Collaborative economy prospects, impacts and implications are also
deeply intertwined with a range of policy sectors (e.g. housing, transport, economic
development, fiscal policy, community development, etc.). Indeed, we argue that
questions about the collaborative economy and consideration of possible actions are
intrinsically connected to big picture thinking about the future. In order to navigate
this future, we need to be armed with research that rises above the political interests
of platform capitalism; that recognises the complex interest structures embedded
within the collaborative economy; and that keep a keen eye on the future and rises
to the societal challenges we face.
Using different research approaches and in different contexts, the chapter con-
tributors have all directed their attention to the need for a caring research agenda.
Drawing from Dredge (chapter “Responsibility and care in the collaborative eco-
nomy”), this is a social science for the collaborative economy and tourism, wherein:
Context matters. A caring response necessarily requires an appreciation of the experiences,
capacities, histories and relationships with others.

Relationships matter. A caring response recognises relational entanglements, interdependence

and dependence, and the flow of impacts and consequences in different directions.

Values and emotions matter. Emotions, such as empathy, injustice and inequity, and values
such as respect, reciprocity and mutuality inform and motivate moral commitment and can
trigger deeper and more personal actions.

Individual and collective action matter. Care ethics involves an action orientation that is
both an individual and a collective responsibility to care.

In the spirit of collaboration, this vision for a social science research agenda for the
collaborative economy and tourism also embraces an open collaborative researcher
network, shared data and knowledge co-creation. Efforts are needed to break down
the current researcher-advocacy silos and to create new platforms for researcher-
society-industry-community collaboration. Technological advances and societal
innovations that have paved the way to new collaborative business models may
also inspire the building of disruptive knowledge sharing initiatives (living lab,
governance lab) across institutional and geographical boundaries.

References

Budtz Pedersen, D. (2014). The political epistemology of science-based policy-making. Society,

51(5), 547–551.
Couldry, N. (2015). The myth of “us”: Digital networks, political change and the production of
collectivity. Information, Communication and Society, 18(6), 608–626.
Cox, M., & Slee, T. (2016). How Airbnb’s data hid the facts in New York City (pp. 1–16).
Retrieved from http://insideairbnb.com/reports/how-airbnbsdata-hid-the-facts-in-new-york-
city.pdf
Dredge, D., & Gyimóthy, S. (2015). The collaborative economy and tourism: Critical perspectives,
questionable claims and silenced voices. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(3), 286–302.
 New Frontiers in Collaborative Economy Research in Tourism 323

Dredge, D., Gyimóthy, S., Birkbak, A., Jensen, T. E., & Madsen, A. K. (2016). The impact of
regulatory approaches targeting collaborative economy in the tourism accommodation sector:
Barcelona, Berlin, Amsterdam and Paris (Impulse paper no. 9). Brussels: European Commission.
Gansky, L. (2010). The Mesh: Why the future of business is sharing. New York: Penguin Books.
Gordo, A., de Rivera, J., & Apestegia, A. (2016). Facing the challenge of collaborative consump-
tion in Europe: The time of independent metrics. In Second International Workshop on the
Sharing Economy (#IWSE) (pp. 1–28). Paris: Second International Workshop on the Sharing
Economy. Retrieved from http://cibersomosaguas.net/files/Facing the challenge of Collabora
tive Consumption in Europe.pdf
Gorenflo, N. (2013, March 19). Collaborative consumption is dead, long live the real sharing eco-
nomy. PandoDaily. Retrieved from http://pando.com/2013/03/19/collaborative-consumption-is-
dead-long-live-the-real-sharingeconomy/
Head, B. W. (2008a). Three lenses of evidence-based policy. Australian Journal of Public Admin-
istration, 67(1), 1–11.
Head, B. W. (2008b). Wicked problems in public policy. Public Policy, 3(2), 101–118.
Howitt, R., & Suchet-Pearson, S. (2006) Rethinking the building blocks: Ontological pluralism
and the idea of “management.” Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human Geography, 88(3),
323–335.
Kade, M. (2015, October/November). The rise of collaborative consumption: A conversation
around connecting humanity to themselves. Aspire. Accessed 2016, June 12, from http://
rachelbotsman.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Aspire_WFW-Magazine-Sept-2015.pdf
Kennedy, J. (2015). Conceptual boundaries of sharing. Information Communication and Society,
19(4), 461–474.
Lentsch, J., & Weingart, P. (2011). The politics of scientific advice: Institutional design for
quality assurance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Majoo, F. (2011). True enough learning to live in a post-fact society. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Parsons, A. (2014a). The sharing economy: A short introduction to its political evolution.
Accessed 2016, June 12, from https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/adam-par
sons/sharing-economy-short-introduction-to-its-political-evolution
Parsons, A. (2014b). The sharing economy: A short introduction. Accessed 2016, June 12, from
https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/adam-parsons/sharing-economy-short-introduc
tion-to-its-political-evolution
Pawson, R. (2006). Evidence based policy: A realist perspective. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
PWC. (2015). The sharing economy. Consumer intelligence series. New York. https://www.pwc.com/
us/en/technology/publications/assets/pwc-consumer-intelligence-series-the-sharing-economy.pdf
Rittel, W., & Weber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2),
155–169.
Scholz, T. (2014). Platform cooperativism vs. the sharing economy. Medium.com, 1–9. Accessed
2016, June 12, from https://medium.com/@trebors/platform-cooperativism-vs-the-sharing-
economy-2ea737f1b5ad
Slee, T. (2016). What’s yours in mine: Against the sharing economy. New York: OR Books.
SMH. (2016, April 23). Uber attracts more car-less drivers as entrepreneurs buy up ride-share
fleets. Accessed 2016, June 12, from http://www.smh.com.au/business/innovation/uber-cars-
used-all-day-and-night-as-drivers-take-turns-using-cars-20160419-goa0ip.html
Thrasyvoulou, X. (2014). What’s next for the collaborative economy? Accessed 2016, June
12, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2014/03/20/whats-next-for-the-collaborative-
economy/#6fbce44223f5

View publication stats