Sharing Economy Article

10/04/2019 Uber, Airbnb and consequences of the sharing economy: Research roundup - Journalist's Resource
Uber, Airbnb and consequences of the

sharing economy: Research roundup
(Unsplash / public domain)
By Joanna Penn and John Wihbey
The leading businesses that are advancing the concept of the “sharing economy” are in many
respects no longer insurgents and newcomers. The size and scale of Uber, Airbnb and several other
firms now rival, or even surpass, those of some of the world’s largest businesses in transportation,
hospitality and other sectors. As the economic power of these technology-driven firms grows, there
continue to be regulatory and policy skirmishes on every possible front, across cities and towns
spanning the United States, Europe and beyond.
While many municipalities and regions have accepted change as inevitable and have been eager to
facilitate new efficiencies for consumers — Uber in particular has made a lot of regulatory
headway since 2015 — there have been cases, such as in Austin, Tex. in May 2016, where policies
https://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/business/airbnb-lyft-uber-bike-share-sharing-economy-research-roundup/ 1/14
have been in effect reversed to block these new forms of commerce. These fights are looking more
and more like political campaigns. In any case, a 2015 report from the National League of Cities
reviews regulatory policies and patterns across a variety of dimensions, from safety to innovation;
a 2016 report from the European Parliament weighs the costs and benefits of non-participation in
the sharing economy.
The Economics and Statistics Administration of the U.S. Commerce Department issued a report in
June 2016 that attempts to define and map out the contours of this emerging business sector,
labeling its participants “digital matching firms.” That report defines this sector through the four
following characteristics:
They use information technology (IT systems), typically available via web-based platforms, such
as mobile “apps” on Internet- enabled devices, to facilitate peer-to-peer transactions.
They rely on user-based rating systems for quality control, ensuring a level of trust between
consumers and service providers who have not previously met.
They offer the workers who provide services via digital matching platforms flexibility in
deciding their typical working hours.
To the extent that tools and assets are necessary to provide a service, digital matching firms
rely on the workers using their own.
The implications of the sharing economy — part of what has also been termed the “gig economy”
— have of course been hotly debated in the news media, and the research world has been steadily
weighing in with deeper analysis. One central area of argument relates to whether the sharing
economy is simply bringing more wage-earning opportunities to more people, or whether its net
effect is the displacement of traditionally secure jobs and the creation of a land of part-time, low-
paid work. It’s a debate that continues to develop and play out, forcing reporters to weigh
competing claims that vary in tone from boosterism to warnings of the new economy’s “dark side.”
While the conclusions about the overall effects of this sector are anything but clear, even as more
data pour in, it is worth digging into the available literature and knowing the centers of research
debate and lines of argument.
A January 2015 paper co-authored by Princeton’s Alan Krueger — the former Chairman of
President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers — based on Uber’s internal data finds
clear benefits for “driver-partners” and notes the new financial opportunities created for tens of
thousands of workers. Those conclusions have been critiqued by, for example, the liberal-leaning
Center for Economic and Policy Research. In any case, the Krueger paper also argues that “the
availability of modern technology, like the Uber app, provides many advantages and lower prices
for consumers compared with the traditional taxi cab dispatch system, and this has boosted
demand for ride services, which, in turn, has increased total demand for workers with the requisite
skills to work as for-hire drivers, potentially raising earnings for all workers with such skills.”
There is the distinct danger, on both sides, of overstating the case and the size of effects. A 2014
paper by Annette Bernhardt of University of California, Berkeley, signals a cautionary note about
any claims of radical recent change being wrought across the U.S. economy:
[We] all share a strong intuition that the nature of work has fundamentally
changed, contributing to the deterioration of labor standards. Yet at least with
aggregate national data, it has been hard to find evidence of a strong,
unambiguous shift toward nonstandard or contingent forms of work –
especially in contrast to the dramatic increase in wage inequality. This is not
to say that there have been no changes in the workplace. But as this paper has
emphasized, for enforcement agencies and policymakers, it may be more
fruitful to focus on specific industries and regions in assessing when and
where pernicious forms of nonstandard work have grown, and which groups
of workers have been most impacted.
It is also true that the rise of independent workers, and associated job insecurity, long predates the
recent rise of the sharing economy, although their percentage of all U.S. workers is expected to
grow from about one-third currently to 40% by 2020, according to some estimates.
A 2015 report from the Center for American Progress notes the heated debate in Britain over “zero
hours contracts” and charges that highly insecure and contingent employment leads to the
exploitation of workers. The report — co-authored by Harvard’s Lawrence Summers, a top official
in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, and Ed Balls, a British Labour Party MP — notes
that “technology has allowed a sharing economy to develop in the United States; many of these
jobs offer flexibility to workers, many of whom are working a second job and using it to build
income or are parents looking for flexible work schedules. At the same time, when these jobs are
the only source of income for workers and they provide no benefits, that leaves workers or the
state to pay these costs.”
Meanwhile, scholars such as Juliet Schor of Boston College have been examining how workers
might regain bargaining power despite an increasingly app-based, decentralized system of
distributed labor. “While the for-profit companies may be ‘acting badly,'” she writes in an October
2014 essay, “these new technologies of peer-to-peer economic activity are potentially powerful
tools for building a social movement centered on genuine practices of sharing and cooperation in
the production and consumption of goods and services. But achieving that potential will require
democratizing the ownership and governance of the platforms.”
Fights over rules and regulations
In October 2014 the New York State Attorney General released a report into Airbnb’s operations
that concluded that 72% of the site’s rentals violated state zoning regulations or other laws. The
company’s business model is built around allowing people to rent out rooms or entire apartments
on a short-term basis, and the report is the latest in a series of ongoing battles Airbnb is engaged
in with regulators across the world.
Berlin has banned regular short-term rentals in the most popular parts of the city without prior
permission from the authorities. Paris passed a law in February 2014 to allow city inspectors to
check rental homes whose owners are suspected of renting them out to visitors illegally. Airbnb
has countered with its own reports on the benefits of short-term stays on local housing markets,
arguing that the company’s service benefits local economies.
Also known as collaborative consumption or peer-to-peer (P2P), the sharing economy challenges
traditional notions of private ownership and is instead based on the shared production or
consumption of goods and services. Its origins were in not-for-profit initiatives such as Wikipedia
(2001) and Couchsurfing and Freecycle (both 2003). Advances in information technology enabled
the creation of large-scale bike-share systems (the first was in Lyon, France, in 2005), and these
have subsequently expanded to the United States and around the world.
Social media and mobile technology have enabled the latest expansion of the sharing economy
and turned it into a big business: Airbnb allows individuals to share their homes, while Lyft and
Uber transform private cars into common resources. All these are for-profit services, but they take
only a fraction of the fees levied, passing the rest on to the owners: In 2013 it was estimated that
revenues passing through the sharing economy into people’s wallets exceeded $3.5 billion, up 25%
from the previous year. Airbnb has exceeded 10 million guest-stays since its launch and now has
more than half a million properties listed. Meanwhile Uber has said that it is doubling its revenue
every six months.
As a 2014 article in Harvard Business Review noted, the interests of sharing-economy firms and city
governments are often aligned, but failing to engage early on with potential regulators can raise
the suspicion that companies are trying to exploit loopholes rather than develop a legitimate
business model. For example, courts in Frankfurt recently upheld a national ban on Uber, and the
service has been banned in several Canadian cities as well. At the heart of many of these debates is
whether Uber is, as it claims, operating as a pure technology company, providing a match-making
service to willing participants, or whether it is operating in effect as an unlicensed taxi service,
which was the conclusion of Calgary’s city council. Moreover, a Massachusetts class-action lawsuit
asserts that Uber exploits its drivers, misclassifying them as independent contractors to avoid
paying them as employees with the same benefits.
Examples from elsewhere in the world shows such fractious relationships with regulators need not
be the norm. In February 2014, Amsterdam became the first city to pass so-called “Airbnb friendly”
legislation. A law allowing short-term rentals by permanent San Francisco residents was finalized in
October 2014, but requires them to collect city hotel taxes and imposes other restrictions. In
London, 1970s regulations limiting short-term stays were scrapped, making it easier for Airbnb and
others to operate in the city. The British government has even launched an initiative to make the
U.K. the “global centre for [the] sharing economy.” Similarly, while some traditional operators have
fought sharing start-ups, others have chosen to get in on the game themselves: In 2013 Avis paid
half a billion dollars for the car-sharing service Zipcar, and Hertz has started a similar service.
Below are a range of additional academic articles that seek to define, understand and analyze the
sharing economy, those who participate and its economic impact.
——————————
Latest research
“Owning, Using and Renting: Some Simple Economics of the ‘Sharing Economy'”
Horton, John J.; Zeckhauser, Richard J. NBER Working Paper No. 22029, February 2016.
Abstract: “New Internet-based markets enable consumer/owners to rent out their durable goods
when not using them. Such markets are modeled to determine ownership, rental rates, quantities,
and surplus generated. Both the short run, before consumers can revise their ownership decisions,
and the long run, in which they can, are examined to assess how these markets change ownership
and consumption. The analysis examines bringing-to-market costs, such as labor costs and
transaction costs, and considers the operating platform’s pricing problem. A survey of consumers
broadly supports the modeling assumptions employed. For example, ownership is determined by
individuals’ forward-looking assessments of planned usage.”
“Does the Sharing Economy Do Any Good?”

Dillahunt, Tawanna, et al. Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work and Social Computing Companion, Pages 197-200, 2016.
Abstract: “Despite the benefits offered by sharing economy, researchers have identified several
challenges preventing disadvantaged groups (e.g. low socioeconomic status, un(der)employed
and/or users from emerging regions) from receiving the same level of benefits as those from
advantaged populations. This panel brings researchers from the sharing economy and mobile
crowdsourcing space whose research has identified unique challenges for underserved
populations. We consider the opportunities offered by these platforms to disadvantaged
communities and examine to what extent these platforms instead may recreate disadvantage, as
well as the workarounds communities employ to make these platforms work for them. We examine
the opportunities for the CSCW [Computer Supported Cooperative Work] community to address
these challenges going forward.”
“The Sharing Economy: Reports from Stage One”

Schor, Juliet B. Working paper, Boston College, November 2015.
Abstract: “The sharing economy has generated heated controversy as proponents claim it is
bringing efficiency, opportunity and sociability and critics argue it is degrading labor, exacerbating
inequality and commodifying daily life. Here we discuss findings from in-depth interviews with
providers on three for-profit platforms (Airbnb, Relay Rides and TaskRabbit) and find a mixed
picture. Providers are generally pleased with their earning possibilities although there is some
evidence that conditions are eroding for providers of general labor services. With respect to
sociability and commodification we also find a mixed picture.”
“Who Benefits from the ‘Sharing’ Economy of Airbnb?”

Quattrone, Giovanni, et al. WWW ’16 Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World
Wide Web, Pages 1385-1394, 2016.
Abstract: “Sharing economy platforms have become extremely popular in the last few years, and
they have changed the way in which we commute, travel, and borrow among many other activities.
Despite their popularity among consumers, such companies are poorly regulated. For example,
Airbnb, one of the most successful examples of sharing economy platform, is often criticized by
regulators and policy makers. While, in theory, municipalities should regulate the emergence of
Airbnb through evidence-based policy making, in practice, they engage in a false dichotomy: some
municipalities allow the business without imposing any regulation, while others ban it altogether.
That is because there is no evidence upon which to draft policies. Here we propose to gather
evidence from the Web. After crawling Airbnb data for the entire city of London, we find out where
and when Airbnb listings are offered and, by matching such listing information with census and
hotel data, we determine the socio-economic conditions of the areas that actually benefit from the
hospitality platform. The reality is more nuanced than one would expect, and it has changed over
the years. Airbnb demand and offering have changed over time, and traditional regulations have
not been able to respond to those changes. That is why, finally, we rely on our data analysis to
envision regulations that are responsive to real-time demands, contributing to the emerging idea
of ‘algorithmic regulation.'”
“Peeking Beneath the Hood of Uber”

Chen, Le, et al. IMC ’15 Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Internet Measurement
Conference, Pages 495-508, 2015.
Abstract: “Recently, Uber has emerged as a leader in the “sharing economy”. Uber is a “ride
sharing” service that matches willing drivers with customers looking for rides. However, unlike
other open marketplaces (e.g., AirBnB), Uber is a black-box: they do not provide data about supply
or demand, and prices are set dynamically by an opaque “surge pricing” algorithm. The lack of
transparency has led to concerns about whether Uber artificially manipulate prices, and whether
dynamic prices are fair to customers and drivers. In order to understand the impact of surge
pricing on passengers and drivers, we present the first in-depth investigation of Uber. We gathered
four weeks of data from Uber by emulating 43 copies of the Uber smartphone app and distributing
them throughout downtown San Francisco (SF) and midtown Manhattan. Using our dataset, we are
able to characterize the dynamics of Uber in SF and Manhattan, as well as identify key
implementation details of Uber’s surge price algorithm. Our observations about Uber’s surge price
algorithm raise important questions about the fairness and transparency of this system.”
What is the sharing economy and who participates?
“Avoiding the South Side and the Suburbs: The Geography of Mobile Crowdsourcing
Markets”
Jacob Thebault-Spieker; Loren Terveen; Brent Hecht. Urban Environments CSCW 2015, March 14-
18, 2015, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Abstract: “Mobile crowdsourcing markets (e.g., Gigwalk and TaskRabbit) offer crowdworkers tasks
situated in the physical world (e.g., checking street signs, running household errands). The
geographic nature of these tasks distinguishes these markets from online crowdsourcing markets
and raises new, fundamental questions. We carried out a controlled study in the Chicago
metropolitan area aimed at addressing two key questions: (1) What geographic factors influence
whether a crowdworker will be willing to do a task? (2) What geographic factors influence how
much compensation a crowdworker will demand in order to do a task? Quantitative modeling
shows that travel distance to the location of the task and the socioeconomic status (SES) of the task
area are important factors. Qualitative analysis enriches our modeling, with workers mentioning
safety and difficulties getting to a location as key considerations. Our results suggest that lowSES
areas are currently less able to take advantage of the benefits of mobile crowdsourcing markets.
We discuss the implications of our study for these markets, as well as for ‘sharing economy’
phenomena like UberX, which have many properties in common with mobile crowdsourcing
markets.”
“The Sharing Economy: Why People Participate in Collaborative Consumption”

Hamari, Juho; Sjöklint, Mimmi; Ukkonen, Antti. Social Science Research Network, May 2013.
Abstract: “In recent years, [information and communications technologies] have afforded the rise
of the so called ‘collaborative consumption’ (CC) — a form of consumption where people share
consumption of goods and services online. CC has been expected to alleviate societal problems
such as hyper-consumption, pollution, and poverty by lowering transaction costs related to
coordination of economic activities within communities…. The motivation to participate in CC is
often regarded as fuelled by the aspirations to do good, but at the same time CC offers participants
possible economic benefits. In this paper we investigate the role of these intrinsic and extrinsic
motivations in attitudes and participation. The study employs survey data (N=168) and structural
equation modeling (SEM-PLS). The results show that, whereas intrinsic motivations strongly predict
attitudes, they do not translate as well into usage intentions. Conversely, economic benefits predict
use intentions but do not significantly influence attitude. Furthermore, the attitude-behavior gap
seems to loom in the consumption behavior related to collaborative consumption; people perceive
the activity positively and say good things about it, but they might not still participate in it
themselves.”
“The Promise of the Sharing Economy among Disadvantaged Communities“

Tawanna R. Dillahunt; Amelia R. Malone. ACM Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) 2015,
April 18 – 23 2015, Seoul, Republic of Korea. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702189
Abstract: “The digital-sharing economy presents opportunities for individuals to find temporary
employment, generate extra income, increase reciprocity, enhance social interaction, and access
resources not otherwise attainable. Although the sharing economy is profitable, little is known
about its use among the unemployed or those struggling financially. This paper describes the
results of a participatory-design based workshop to investigate the perception and feasibility of
finding temporary employment and sharing spare resources using sharing-economy applications.
Specifically, this study included 20 individuals seeking employment in a U.S. city suffering economic
decline. We identify success factors of the digital-sharing economy to these populations, identify
shortcomings and propose mitigation strategies based on prior research related to trust, social
capital and theories of collective efficacy. Finally, we contribute new principles that may foster
collaborative consumption within this population and identify new concepts for practical
employment applications among these populations.”
“You Are What You Can Access: Sharing and Collaborative Consumption Online”
Belk, Russell; Journal of Business Research, August 2014, Vol. 67, Issue 8, doi:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.10.001.
Abstract: “Sharing is a phenomenon as old as humankind, while collaborative consumption and

the ‘sharing economy’ are phenomena born of the Internet age. This paper compares sharing and
collaborative consumption and finds that both are growing in popularity today. Examples are given
and an assessment is made of the reasons for the current growth in these practices and their
implications for businesses still using traditional models of sales and ownership. The old wisdom
that we are what we own may need modifying to consider forms of possession and uses that do
not involve ownership.”
“When Is Ours Better Than Mine? A Framework for Understanding and Altering Participation
in Commercial Sharing Systems”
Lamberton, Cait Poynor; Rose, Randall L. Journal of Marketing, July 2012, Vol. 76, No. 4, 109-125.
Abstract: “Sharing systems are increasingly challenging sole ownership as the dominant means of
obtaining product benefits, making up a market estimated at more than US$100 billion annually in
2010. Consumer options include cell phone minute-sharing plans, frequent-flyer-mile pools,
bicycle-sharing programs, and automobile-sharing systems, among many others. However,
marketing research has yet to provide a framework for understanding and managing these
emergent systems. The authors conceptualize commercial sharing systems within a typology of
shared goods. Using three studies, they demonstrate that beyond cost-related benefits of sharing,
the perceived risk of scarcity related to sharing is a central determinant of its attractiveness. The
results suggest that managers can use perceptions of personal and sharing partners’ usage
patterns to affect risk perceptions and subsequent propensity to participate in a commercial
sharing system.”
“Alternative Marketplaces in the 21st Century: Building Community Through Sharing

Events”
Albinsson, P. A.; Yasanthi Perera, B. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, July/August 2012, Vol. 11, Issue
4.
Abstract: “We examine alternative consumption including collaborative consumption, sharing, and
unconsumption (i.e., postconsumption activities such as upcycling, reuse, recycling, etc.) at non-
monetary-based private and public sharing events including Really Really Free Markets (RRFMs).
These alternative marketplaces (RRFMs) were initially organized by the Anarchist Movement as a
form of resistance to the capitalist economic model. However, many consumer groups now utilize
this model to stage public sharing events as a means of raising awareness about various issues
including sustainability and overconsumption. Participants bring, share, and take goods without
any expectation of monetary or other exchange. There is limited research on collaborative
consumption and sharing in non-monetary marketplaces. We address this gap by exploring
alternative marketplaces, organized by consumers for consumers, utilizing qualitative research
methods. Our findings indicate that a sense of community is both a driver of participation and an
outcome of these events. Organizers and participants utilize these venues to share knowledge and
possessions for various ideological and practical reasons. Our findings also indicate that these
events challenge the entrenched notions of exchange and reciprocity. Our research contributes to
the literature by highlighting the importance of community, collaboration, and changing consumer
mindsets to the success of such sharing efforts.”
“Does Sharing Mean Caring? Regulating Innovation in the Sharing Economy”

Ranchordas, Sofia, Tilburg Law School-Department of Public Law, Social Science Research Network,
September 2014.
Abstract: “Sharing economy practices have become increasingly popular in the past years. From
swapping systems, network transportation to private kitchens, sharing with strangers appears to be
the new urban trend. Although Uber, Airbnb, and other online platforms have democratized the
access to a number of services and facilities, multiple concerns have been raised as to the public
safety, health and limited liability of these sharing economy practices. In addition, these innovative
activities have been contested by professionals offering similar services that claim that sharing
economy is opening the door to unfair competition. Regulators are at crossroads: on the one hand,
innovation in sharing economy should not be stifled by excessive and outdated regulation; on the
other, there is a real need to protect the users of these services from fraud, liability and unskilled
service providers. This dilemma is far more complex than it seems since regulators are confronted
here with an array of challenging questions: firstly, can these sharing economy practices be
qualified as “innovations” worth protecting and encouraging? Secondly, should the regulation of
these practices serve the same goals as the existing rules for the equivalent commercial services
(e.g. taxi regulations)? Thirdly, how can regulation keep up with the evolving nature of these
innovative practices? All these questions, come down to one simple problem: too little is known
about the most socially effective ways of consistently regulating and promoting innovation.”
“The Social Logics of Sharing”

John, Nicholas A. Communication Review, July 2013, Vol 16, Issue 3.
Abstract: “This article explores the concept of sharing in three distinct spheres: Web 2.0, whose
constitutive activity is sharing (links, photos, status updates, and so on); ‘sharing economies’ of
production and consumption; and intimate interpersonal relationships, in which the therapeutic
ethos includes a cultural requirement that we share our emotions. It is argued that a range of
distributive and communicative practices — not all of which are entirely new–are converging under
the metaphor of sharing. Thus, practices in one sphere are conceptualized in terms of practices
from other spheres. What all three spheres of sharing have in common are values such as equality,
mutuality, honesty, openness, empathy, and an ethic of care. Moreover, they all challenge
prevalent perceptions of the proper boundary between the public and the private.”
“Sharing Nicely: On Shareable Goods and the Emergence of Sharing as a Modality of

Economic Production”
Benkler, Yochai, Yale Law Journal, November 2004, Vol. 114, No. 2.
Abstract: “This essay offers a framework to explain large-scale effective practices of sharing
private, excludable goods. It starts with case studies of carpooling and distributed computing as
motivating problems. It then suggests a definition for shareable goods as goods that are “lumpy”
and “mid-grained” in size, and explains why goods with these characteristics will have systematic
overcapacity relative to the requirements of their owners. The Essay next uses comparative
transaction costs analysis, focused on information characteristics in particular, combined with an
analysis of diversity of motivations, to suggest when social sharing will be better than secondary
markets at reallocating this overcapacity to non-owners who require the functionality. The essay
concludes with broader observations about the attractiveness of sharing as a modality of economic
production as compared to markets and to hierarchies such as firms and government. These
observations include a particular emphasis on sharing practices among individuals who are
strangers or weakly related; sharing’s relationship to technological change; and some implications
for contemporary policy choices regarding wireless regulation, intellectual property, and
communications network design.”
Shared accommodation
“Social Networking Technologies and the Moral Economy of Alternative Tourism: The Case of
Couchsurfing.org”
Molz, Jennie Germann. Annals of Tourism Research, October 2013, Vol. 43, 210-230.
Abstract: “The purpose of this study is to examine the role social networking technologies play in
the moral economy of alternative tourism. The study takes as its empirical focus the online
hospitality exchange network Couchsurfing. Using the concept of ‘moral affordances’, the analysis
outlines the way Couchsurfing’s technical systems, software design, and search algorithms enable
participants to engage in a moral economy based on the non-commodified provision of
accommodation to strangers and personal relations of trust and intimacy. Findings suggest that
these affordances are not isolated effects of the technologies themselves, but rather reflect a
broader moral landscape in which alternative tourism is performed.”
“The Rise of the Sharing Economy: Estimating the Impact of Airbnb on the Hotel Industry”
Zervas, Georgios; Proserpio, Davide and Byers, John; Boston U. School of Management Research
Paper No. 2013-16, February 2014.
Abstract: “Airbnb is an online community marketplace facilitating short-term rentals ranging from
shared accommodations to entire homes that has now contributed more than ten million
worldwide bookings to the so-called sharing economy. Our work addresses a central question
facing the hospitality industry: to what extent are Airbnb stays serving as substitutes for hotel
stays, and what is the impact on the bottom line of affected hotels? Our focus is the state of Texas,
where we identify Airbnb’s impact by exploiting significant spatiotemporal variation in the patterns
of adoption across city-level markets. Using a dataset we collected spanning all Airbnb listings in
Texas and a decade-long panel of quarterly tax revenue for all Texas hotels, we develop a nuanced
estimate of Airbnb’s material impact on hotel revenues. Our baseline estimate is that a 1% increase
in Airbnb listings in Texas results in a 0.05% decrease in quarterly hotel revenues, an estimate
compounded by Airbnb’s rapid growth.… We find that the impacts are distributed unevenly across
the industry, with lower-end hotels and hotels not catering to business travelers being the most
affected. Finally, by simulating various regulatory interventions informed by current events, such as
limiting Airbnb hosts to a single listing, we find only a moderate mitigating impact on hotel
revenues.”
Shared transport
“Ride On! Mobility Business Models for the Sharing Economy”

Cohen, Boyd; Kietzmann, Jan; Organization and Environment, September 2014, Vol. 7, No. 3.
Extract: “The P2P ride-sharing platforms like Uber and Lyft have opted for a seemingly infinitely
scalable, pure, for-profit business model. As these ride-share platforms have no need to hire
drivers or acquire vehicles, Uber and Lyft and others like them, rely on the power of social
networking to scale their service. As evidenced by their rapid growth and high valuations, it is clear
these ride-share companies have achieved some early success in maximizing value to their
customers… However, the private ride-share operators, to date have opted to avoid interaction
with local governments. As mentioned earlier, this has resulted in significant challenges to the
longevity of their business models due to legal action and other threats posed by local
governments and taxi operators. We suggest that this can be explained, in part, by the failure to
consider more active engagement with local governments from the beginning. While the go-it-
alone approach and avoiding local government and regulation has been a historical modus
operandi in other sectors (Konefal, 2013), we suggest that shared mobility service providers would
be better served by finding ways to collaborate with local governments if they want to achieve
long-term viability. Not only would this entail adhering to regulations in areas such as vehicle and
driver safety requirements but also seeking to optimize the citizen and environmental goals to
achieve active city support. Any direct financial support, or incentives that promote the use of
these P2P networks, such as embedding the ride-sharing data into transit applications, could result
in a reduction in costs for riders.”
“Quantifying the Benefits of Vehicle Pooling with Shareability Networks”

Santini, Paolo; Resta, Giovanni; Szell, Michael; et al. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, July 2014, Vol. 111 No 37.
Abstract: “Taxi services are a vital part of urban transportation, and a considerable contributor to
traffic congestion and air pollution causing substantial adverse effects on human health. Sharing
taxi trips is a possible way of reducing the negative impact of taxi services on cities, but this comes
at the expense of passenger discomfort quantifiable in terms of a longer travel time. Due to
computational challenges, taxi sharing has traditionally been approached on small scales, such as
within airport perimeters, or with dynamical ad hoc heuristics. However, a mathematical
framework for the systematic understanding of the tradeoff between collective benefits of sharing
and individual passenger discomfort is lacking. Here we introduce the notion of shareability
network, which allows us to model the collective benefits of sharing as a function of passenger
inconvenience, and to efficiently compute optimal sharing strategies on massive datasets. We apply
this framework to a dataset of millions of taxi trips taken in New York City, showing that with
increasing but still relatively low passenger discomfort, cumulative trip length can be cut by 40% or
more. This benefit comes with reductions in service cost, emissions, and with split fares, hinting
toward a wide passenger acceptance of such a shared service. Simulation of a realistic online
system demonstrates the feasibility of a shareable taxi service in New York City. Shareability as a
function of trip density saturates fast, suggesting effectiveness of the taxi sharing system also in
cities with much sparser taxi fleets or when willingness to share is low.”
“Access-Based Consumption: The Case for Car Sharing”

Bardhi , Fleura ; Eckhardt, Giana M., Journal of Consumer Research, December 2012, Vol. 39, No. 4,
881-898.
Abstract: “Access-based consumption, defined as transactions that can be market mediated but
where no transfer of ownership takes place, is becoming increasingly popular, yet it is not well
theorized. This study examines the nature of access as it contrasts to ownership and sharing,
specifically the consumer-object, consumer-consumer, and consumer-marketer relationships. Six
dimensions are identified to distinguish among the range of access-based consumptionscapes:
temporality, anonymity, market mediation, consumer involvement, the type of accessed object,
and political consumerism. Access-based consumption is examined in the context of car sharing via
an interpretive study of Zipcar consumers. Four outcomes of these dimensions in the context of car
sharing are identified: lack of identification, varying significance of use and sign value, negative
reciprocity resulting in a big-brother model of governance, and a deterrence of brand community.
The implications of our findings for understanding the nature of exchange, consumption, and
brand community are discussed.”
“Understanding the Diffusion of Public Bikesharing Systems: Evidence from Europe and
North America”
Parkes, Stephen D; Marsden, Greg; Shaheen, Susan A.; and Cohen, Adam P., Journal of Transport
Geography, July 2013, Vol. 31.
Abstract: “Since the mid-2000s, public bikesharing (also known as “bike hire”) has developed and
spread into a new form of mobility in cities across the globe. This paper presents an analysis of the
recent increase in the number of public bikesharing systems. Bikesharing is the shared use of a
bicycle fleet, which is accessible to the public and serves as a form of public transportation. The
initial system designs were pioneered in Europe and, after a series of technological innovations,
appear to have matured into a system experiencing widespread adoption. There are also signs that
the policy of public bikesharing systems is transferable and is being adopted in other contexts
outside Europe. In public policy, the technologies that are transferred can be policies, technologies,
ideals or systems. This paper seeks to describe the nature of these systems, how they have spread
in time and space, how they have matured in different contexts, and why they have been adopted.”
“Bike Share: A Synthesis of the Literature”

Fishman, Elliot; Washington, Simon; Haworth, Narelle. Transport Reviews, 2013, 33:2, 148-165. doi:
10.1080/01441647.2013.775612.
Abstract: “This paper begins by providing an overview of bike share programs, followed by a
critical examination of the growing body of literature on these programs…. Several consistent
themes have emerged within the growing body of research on bike share programs. Firstly, the
importance bike share members place on convenience and value for money appears paramount in
their motivation to sign up and use these programs. Secondly, and somewhat counter intuitively,
scheme members are more likely to own and use private bicycles than nonmembers. Thirdly, users
demonstrate a greater reluctance to wear helmets than private bicycle riders and helmets have
acted as a deterrent in jurisdictions in which helmets are mandatory. Finally, and perhaps most
importantly from a sustainable transport perspective, the majority of scheme users are
substituting from sustainable modes of transport rather than the car.”
Online ratings and reputation
“Engineering Trust: Reciprocity in the Production of Reputation Information”

Bolton, Gary; Greiner, Ben; and Okenfels, Axel, Management Science, December 2012, Vol. 59,
Issue 2.
Absract: “Reciprocity in feedback giving distorts the production and content of reputation
information in a market, hampering trust and trade efficiency. Guided by feedback patterns
observed on eBay and other platforms, we run laboratory experiments to investigate how
reciprocity can be managed by changes in the way feedback information flows through the system,
leading to more accurate reputation information, more trust, and more efficient trade. We discuss
the implications for theory building and for managing the redesign of market trust systems.”
“A Survey of Trust and Reputation Systems for Online Service Provision”

Josang, Audun; Ismail, Roslan; and Boyd, Colin, Decision Support Systems, March 2007 Vol. 43,
Issue 2.
Abstract: “Trust and reputation systems represent a significant trend in decision support for
Internet mediated service provision. The basic idea is to let parties rate each other, for example
after the completion of a transaction, and use the aggregated ratings about a given party to derive
a trust or reputation score, which can assist other parties in deciding whether or not to transact
with that party in the future. A natural side effect is that it also provides an incentive for good
behaviour, and therefore tends to have a positive effect on market quality. Reputation systems can
be called collaborative sanctioning systems to reflect their collaborative nature, and are related to
collaborative filtering systems. Reputation systems are already being used in successful
commercial online applications. There is also a rapidly growing literature around trust and
reputation systems, but unfortunately this activity is not very coherent. The purpose of this article
is to give an overview of existing and proposed systems that can be used to derive measures of
trust and reputation for Internet transactions, to analyse the current trends and developments in
this area, and to propose a research agenda for trust and reputation systems.”
Keywords: research roundup, technology, public bicycle, ride-sharing, ridesharing, bicycle-share

systems, transportation, tourism, hotels, bikeshare
Last updated: June 3, 2016

 We welcome feedback. Please contact us here.
 Business, Internet, Municipal, Transportation  bicycling, bikeshare, cars, local reporting,

mobile tech, technology, tourism
A project of the Harvard Kennedy School's

Shorenstein Center and the Carnegie-Knight
Initiative, Journalist’s Resource is an open-
access site that curates scholarly studies and
reports.
Home | About | Contact | RSS | EU/EEA Privacy Disclosures
Unless otherwise noted, this site and its contents – with the exception of photographs –
are licensed under a Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0) license.

Sharing Economy Article

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Sharing Economy Article

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

10/04/2019 Uber, Airbnb and consequences of the sharing economy: Research roundup - Journalist's Resource

Uber, Airbnb and consequences of the

(Unsplash / public domain)

By Joanna Penn and John Wihbey

Fights over rules and regulations

“Does the Sharing Economy Do Any Good?”

“The Sharing Economy: Reports from Stage One”

“Who Benefits from the ‘Sharing’ Economy of Airbnb?”

“Peeking Beneath the Hood of Uber”

What is the sharing economy and who participates?

“The Sharing Economy: Why People Participate in Collaborative Consumption”

“The Promise of the Sharing Economy among Disadvantaged Communities“

Abstract: “Sharing is a phenomenon as old as humankind, while collaborative consumption and

“Alternative Marketplaces in the 21st Century: Building Community Through Sharing

“Does Sharing Mean Caring? Regulating Innovation in the Sharing Economy”

“The Social Logics of Sharing”

“Sharing Nicely: On Shareable Goods and the Emergence of Sharing as a Modality of

“Ride On! Mobility Business Models for the Sharing Economy”

“Quantifying the Benefits of Vehicle Pooling with Shareability Networks”

“Access-Based Consumption: The Case for Car Sharing”

“Bike Share: A Synthesis of the Literature”

Online ratings and reputation

“Engineering Trust: Reciprocity in the Production of Reputation Information”

“A Survey of Trust and Reputation Systems for Online Service Provision”

Keywords: research roundup, technology, public bicycle, ride-sharing, ridesharing, bicycle-share

Last updated: June 3, 2016

 Business, Internet, Municipal, Transportation  bicycling, bikeshare, cars, local reporting,

A project of the Harvard Kennedy School's

Home | About | Contact | RSS | EU/EEA Privacy Disclosures

Você também pode gostar