The Sharing Economy towards Sustainable Tourism: An Example of an Online Transport-sharing Platform

Abstract

The sharing economy enables the sustainable development of tourism and at the same time contributes to social well-being and economic growth. It also helps to reduce negative impact on the environment and society, and at the same time reduces costs. The purpose of this study is to find out how the sharing economy can contribute to the development of sustainable tourism. This article is intended to identify the opportunities and benefits of the sharing economy in the tourism sector and to describe the impact of the sharing economy on the travel and tourism sector. To achieve this goal, a systematic scientific analysis of literature and quantitative research methods was applied. Seeking development of sustainable tourism, the authors present a theoretical conceptual model that illustrates the contribution of the sharing economy through benefits and factors influencing sharing economy perspectives in tourism. Empirical research was conducted based on factors influencing sharing economy perspectives in tourism transportation services as one of the sharing economy areas. Analysis of the empirical research results showed that the most important factors influencing the respondents’ choices of the ORSC transport sharing platform were price, general approach and comfort.

1. Introduction

The sharing economy and shared consumption are phenomena that have emerged in the age of the Internet. In sharing consumption practices, there are two commonalities: (1) the use of proprietary models without temporary access to consumer goods and services, and (2) trust in the Internet, especially Web 2.0, to achieve this [1,2,3]. According to Navickas et al. [4], the sharing economy as a precondition for the sustainable development of tourism significantly contributes to economic growth and social well-being and solves ecological problems.

In recent years, a new business model called the sharing economy has emerged in the tourism and transportation sectors [5]. Business through the sharing economy has flourished. Transportation platforms such as Uber and Bla Bla Car are developing scalable platforms that allow individuals to distribute and share transportation (such as cars or bicycles). Shared traveling by car is an eco-friendly way to travel. It should be noted that car-sharing, especially in the tourism sector, reduces emissions and helps to avoid congestion and, at the same time, to achieve the principle of sustainability. Bla Bla Car has started using this business model to introduce people through digital access, i.e., those who can provide shuttle services (e.g., people going by car to a certain place) to share with those who need to go to the same place (e.g., tourist) [6].

The importance of the sharing economy has encouraged researchers to examine this phenomenon in more detail. Pérez-Pérez et al. [7] present the sharing economy in the tourism sector as a potential contribution to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). According to Pouri, et al. [8] the sharing economy is closely linked to the development of sustainability in tourism, as the sharing economy saves energy, reduces energy consumption and waste, and reduces pollution. Shereni [9] argues that the sharing economy in tourism applies innovative ideas and technologies to facilitate access to tourism resources and generates revenue from overcapacity, while promoting sustainability. Cesarani and Nechita [10] note that the sharing economy in the tourism sector has advantages and disadvantages for global sustainability development. An analysis of the scientific sources showed that issues related to the impact of the sharing economy for the sustainable development of tourism are rarely discussed. Research results are usually focused on the impact of the sharing economy on sustainable development [11,12,13,14,15] or on the impact of the sharing economy in improving the quality of life and social integration [16,17], and are directly related to innovations, smart technologies and their development [18]. Despite the variety of research in this field, it is still lacking comprehensive studies of the sharing economy toward the development of sustainable tourism. This fact highlights the importance and significance of this study. The aim of this study is to find out how the sharing economy may contribute the development of sustainable tourism.

Overall, it can be stated that the sharing economy is an extremely important phenomenon for sustainable tourism development. We discuss tourism as changing, influenced by social, economic, and environmental factors sector, so it is very important to exploit the power and opportunities of the sharing economy, (in our case transport services sharing) which are closely related to the protection of the environment and natural resources, including reduction of energy consumption and emissions, creation of new social relations and improvement of quality of life, among others.

The study provides an opportunity to reveal the phenomenon of the sharing economy for development of sustainable tourism, to identify benefits of sharing economy for sustainable tourism, and to distinguish factors influencing sharing economy perspectives in tourism.

The structure of the manuscript is as follow. In the Section 2, a systematic analysis of scientific literature is presented. In Section 1 the authors discuss the concept of the sharing economy, opportunities and benefits of the sharing economy in the tourism sector for sustainable development, and tourism transportation services provided on the principle of the sharing economy. Based on a systematic scientific literature review, the authors present a theoretical conceptual model. Research methods are described in Section 3, and a data analysis of the empirical research is presented in Section 4. The final section of this paper consists of discussion and general conclusions based on the scientific literature and empirical research analysis.

2. Literature Review

The theoretical framework of the research is focused on existing links between the sharing economy and sustainable development in the tourism sector through the transportation sharing.

2.1. The Concept of Sharing Economy

Sharing is not a new concept [19]. The sharing economy, also known as the peer to peer (P2P) or the collaborative economy [20], is a modern phenomenon [20,21]. Its emergence was driven by the development of the Internet [19], economic and societal factors [21,22], technological advances (i.e., smartphones), and the global economic downturn, leading to the need for economic benefits (i.e., lower costs and lower prices), the need for social connections and greater concern for the environment [23,24]. The importance of these factors has encouraged researchers to explore the economics of sharing in more detail through a variety of applications, particularly including different services. Schor and Fitzmaurice [25] agree that sharing is not a new phenomenon in our society. The impression of novelty is created by new ways and forms of sharing, so it may seem new. According to Botsman and Rogers [26], traditional sharing, exchanges, lending, trading, renting, donating, and exchanging are all examples of the consumption of collaboration. Daunorienė et al. [12] state that because money means ownership of a product in the classical market, the structure of the sharing economy shows the benefits of capturing value through short-term access rights to a product or service. This means innovation, which is be able to redistribute money throughout the value chain, especially at a distance towards intermediaries and consumers [25]. To Rutkowska-Gurak et al. [27], the sharing economy is a rather broad term that encompasses many and varied areas of human activity. The sharing economy involves the activities of social groups, different businesses areas and individuals with the aim of facilitating, or even organizing, the sharing of resources. It should be noticed that the scientific literature distinguishes two main dimensions of the sharing economy: (1) user-centered and (2) community-oriented sharing [28]. Collaborative consumption is understood as the sharing of goods and services to improve the quality of life of individuals, meet the needs of a group, and create a new quality of social relationships in the community. Better use of resources, and therefore environmental friendliness, is also an important and often emphasized goal. Skalska [29] states that the concepts of the sharing economy are identified as reciprocal access to a product, as opposed to the need to have each. This can be explained by non-profit or profit-oriented exchanges (for example, the tourism markets such as BlaBlaCar and Airbnb). Regarding the sharing economy, three models of the sharing economy are most commonly analyzed: product and service systems, redistributive markets, and collaborative lifestyles [30]. Frenken et al. [31] point out that these are based on one of three concepts: the provision of goods or services, the provision of access to resources, and the user-to-consumer (Peer-to-Peer, P2P) platform. According to Skalska [29], the current sharing economy faces many unresolved issues such as local conflicts arising from unacceptable new competitive conditions in the market, as well as legislative issues.

Vila et al. [32] highlight the development of information technology as the main pillar of the popularization of the concepts of the sharing economy, which promotes the availability of so-called meta-search engines used by existing companies. Botsman and Rogers [26] argue that in addition to economic consequences, the sharing economy has positive effects on the environment and social activities. Sharing leads to sustainable use, reducing environmental impact, efficient use of assets and available resources, and at the same time facilitating and creating new social relations. Szymanska [16] confirmed that the sharing economy, as a form of social innovation, improves the quality of life. Online groups integrate local communities and play a significant role in influencing the quality of life of urban residents [33]. Krueger [34] notes that sharing can create innovation, jobs and mobilization of the community. Sharing encourages people to build social cohesion in neighborhoods [35].

Malhotra and Van Alstyne [36] are controversial about the concept of sharing and point to shortcomings in the legal framework. Schor [37] emphasized the threat to consumer protection and working conditions in this field and noted the overestimated environmental benefits of this phenomenon and the threat to workers' rights. She argues that there is unfair competition between different platforms, which encourages the emergence of monopolies [37].

Definitions of the sharing economy from different researchers are presented in a similar way. Table 1 shows the concepts of the sharing economy and the number of citations of various scholars.

The data in Table 1 reveals that the most popular and most frequently cited and, in this manuscript analyzed concept, is from Hamari et al. [39] which was cited (as found in databases DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals) 3365 times.

In summary, the sharing economy is constantly evolving, and the main principles of the phenomenon are more efficient use of available resources and the transition from ownership to mutual sharing platforms. The sharing economy allows individuals to rent or borrow property belonging to another. Thus, the sharing economy brings together property owners and those who seek this particular asset.

2.2. Sharing Economy in the Tourism Sector and Sustainability

The sharing economy in the tourism sector is very diverse and constantly evolving, encompassing a wide variety of different areas that people are willing and able to share. This part of the study defines the role of the sharing economy in the various travel and tourism sectors considering the ideas of sustainability. Transport and accommodation services in the framework of the sharing economy are analyzed and the business example of this phenomenon is deepened. The tourism sharing economy is closely linked to ecological sustainability, as the processing and sharing of raw materials increases the lifespan of goods and saves natural resources. Sharing reduces energy consumption and the amount of waste accumulated [8]. Saving energy and other resources, and reducing waste, are examples of indirect environmental impacts. On the other hand, direct impact includes the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, for example, when driving on Uber sharing transport [46].

Hamari et al. [39] argue that sustainability, enjoyment, reputation, and economic benefits are, in order of importance, key factors in the formation of attitudes and behavioral intentions related to shared consumption. Pérez-Pérez et al. [7] present the sharing economy in the tourism sector as a potential contribution to achieving UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Researchers emphasize that sustainability is revealed through sharing and changes in consumption patterns. Shereni [9] notes that the tourism-sharing economy uses innovative ideas and technologies to facilitate access to tourism resources to generate revenue from overcapacity. This concept is based on the idea of shared consumption, which emphasizes the importance of access rather than ownership. The research points out that the impact of this phenomenon on sustainability is extremely significant for the global tourism industry. According to Cesarani and Nechita [10], the sharing economy in the tourism sector has advantages and disadvantages for global competitiveness, such as seasonality, sustainability, accessibility.

It should be noted that the sharing economy, especially in the tourism sector, can make a significant contribution to sustainable growth. The sharing economy can contribute to all sustainable development goals by reducing environmental pressures, promoting low carbon, reducing gender, education, and income inequalities, promoting sustainable consumption and production practices, and using sustainable energy and transforming infrastructure and cities. According to Boar et al. [11], the sharing economy does not currently distinguish between clear environmental goals for sustainable development, such as a clean water, clean energy, climate action, underwater living, or living on land. Govindan et al. [46] argue that industrial sectors, as well as the tourism sector, are more prone to negative sustainability, and therefore strategies to promote and implement a sharing economy from an industrial perspective need to be considered.

Hamari et al. [39] state that participation in a sharing economy is driven by several factors, such as its sustainability, enjoyment of activity and economic success. The authors note that sustainability is not directly related to participation in the sharing economy unless it can also be linked to a positive attitude towards the process. This shows that sustainability can only be an important factor for those people who value organic consumption. Researchers emphasize that there may be a gap in attitudes and behavior in the sharing economy; people perceive the activity positively and say good things about it, but this good attitude does not necessarily translate into the right action.

It should be noted that the main components of the tourism sharing economy sector are transport and accommodation [47]. According to Gabrielli et al. [48], tourism, and especially the transport sector, consumes about a third of all energy consumption in European countries and the United States. However, Single-Occupancy Vehicles (SOV) are also common in these countries [19]. There are still many barriers to reducing pollution (atmospheric and noise) and congestion, and reducing barriers to personal, social, and environmental costs in the transition to more sustainable models. The largest revenue-sharing transport sector in Europe in terms of revenue is “Person-to-person”. It is expected that by 2025 this sector will continue to grow and will maintain a top position when comparing transport, accommodation, and domestic services platforms [49]. It is said that such popularity was due to public pressure to protect the environment, which led to a rather positive attitude towards car and bicycle sharing. For example, an electric car is a large investment for a person, but when a car is purchased with the intention of renting it out for community use, the price does not seem so high [50]. Several typologies of car-sharing economics, such as business-to-customer, person-to-person, and non-profit, are found in the scientific literature [50,51]. Business and customer sharing assumes that an organization has a fleet of cars and distributes them to its members. B2C car dealers include companies such as BMW, Peugeot, as well as rental car brands: Hertz and “WeCar” [51]. The person-to-person model connects private individuals who rent cars with drivers through online or mobile apps. “Relay Rides”, “Flight Car”, and “DriveNow” are examples of person-to-person car-sharing providers. One more an alternative to the car-sharing economy is the non-profit cooperative that emerged in Europe in the 1960s [52]. This initiative seeks to change driving habits rather than gain financial gain. “PhillyCarShare” and “Autolib” are examples of such cooperatives [51].

Another example of a sharing economy in the tourism sector is personal car-sharing. It operates on a person-to-person model, thus connecting passengers with vehicle owners, considering the purpose and schedule of the trip [51]. Bicycle sharing programs are another way of mobility. Modern use of bicycles depends on the availability of bicycles and safe connection stops. Advanced radio frequency technology allows you secure tracking, and bike check-in and check-out, which greatly reduces bike theft. There are various bicycle sharing tools, such as public ownership, sponsorship, and non-profit bicycles. Some cities, such as Washington, have invested in bike-sharing programs themselves, and assume full responsibility for local bicycle sharing activities. Other bike-sharing programs are run by sponsors, where bikes and moorings are used for promotional purposes. Support-based bicycle use is being implemented, for example, in the use of bicycles in the city of Helsinki. Nonprofit cycling programs are largely dependent on government subsidies and membership fees, one example being the “B-Cycle” program [52].

Table 2 presents the concepts of the sharing economy in the tourism sector seeking sustainability, and the number of citations of various scholars.

In conclusion, the sharing economy is a cooperative consumption phenomenon, which is developing rapidly in the field of tourism and was especially intensified during the pandemic period and the decrease in the number of tourism services. It should be noted that business models based on the tourism sharing economy are in the development stage, and there is no comprehensive and in-depth research to properly assess their impact on the development of the tourism industry contributing to the idea of sustainability.

2.3. Tourism Transportation Services Provided on the Principle of the Sharing Economy

Tourism services can benefit the destination government, residents, and businesses, and can reduce the costs of information exchange and transportation of people [58,59,60,61]. Tourism can also be considered the basis of a popular form of culture [39,54,62]. It should be noted that the sharing tourism model mainly involves platforms related to accommodation [47], transport [4,63] and food [64,65,66].

Due to the diversity of its services, tourism is an important market for the expansion of consumer business. It should be noted that travelers are increasingly inclined to experiment, to travel more cheaply and perhaps more interestingly, and to try out new and unique tourism experiences that the shared economy can offer. The emergence of the desire for this experience can be explained by the emergence of new niche markets, facilitated by technology platforms. Marčeková et al. [62] analyzed the issues of transport services under the sharing economy and state that the transport sharing in the tourism sector is quite a new concept and legislation is at the beginning stage. The authors argue that transport sharing services are provided on the principle of the sharing economy and at the same time on the principle of sustainability. Researchers also note that the use of such services is strongly influenced by the motivation of potential providers of such services. Mouratidis et al. [67] examine how the sharing economy, and new transportation technologies–components such as “App City”, can affect travel behavior and the built environment. Researchers note that teleworking and teleconferencing have reduced the total number of trips, but the economy of tourism sharing can increase the number of long trips; for example, bicycle sharing is more conducive to more active travel and less car use, car-sharing can reduce the use and ownership of private cars, ride hailing can increase the number of vehicles driven, and the implications of e-scooter sharing, ride sharing, and mobility as a service depend on the context. Dogru et al. [68] defines general mobility as bicycle sharing, car-sharing, and scooter sharing, and identifies it as one of the most used forms of the sharing economy. Transport sharing as a travel and tourism service can result in new models dismantling, transforming, or even changing entire industrial sectors [69]. Co-mobility is the sharing of a mode of transport that “enables consumers to access modes of transport for a short time when needed” [70] p. 77. General mobility today is supported by information and communication technologies (ICT) and apps [71]. These include a variety of car-sharing, bicycle-sharing, bicycle-sharing (cars and vanpools), customized travel (on-demand riding services) and e-mail sharing. Rauch and Schleicher [72] noted the importance of technological progress in sharing transport and entry of new platforms to the market. They argue that these factors are accelerating sharing and economic growth.

One of the most common vehicle-sharing activities is car-sharing. Such a mobility option allows rental of public cars, thus changing the use and ownership of private cars. The car owner can be a business or a private individual [73]. The goal of car-sharing is to make it easy to find vehicles parked in residential areas, while at the same time implementing the principle of sustainability. Nowadays, the use of cars is facilitated by mobile applications. Ferrero et al. [74] note that due to simple access to smartphones and the mobile internet, car-sharing is increasing and expanding, making car-sharing a major mode of transport.

Regarding the tourism sharing economy and transportation platforms, it is appropriate to provide a brief description of the most popular and commonly used transport platforms. This information is presented in Table 3.

The presented data shows that the most common car transport platforms are Uber and Bla Car.

When analyzing the services of tourism transportation platforms, customers pay attention to the characteristics [78] of vehicles, according to which they can assess the quality of services. One such characteristic provided in the platform is the information about the car. When drivers determine their profile, they are asked to provide information about the car, such as model, color, and vehicle type. Based on this information, for example, BlaBlaCar classifies cars into four categories: “Basic”, “Normal”, “Comfortable” and “Luxury” [81]. Another important aspect for a customer when ordering a service is the price. The price, as indicated in the vehicle sharing platforms, may vary depending on distance and other circumstances. The price is set by the driver, deviating from ± 50 percent of the set rate [82,83]. The sharing economy has greatly changed tourist habits and travel perceptions. On the one hand, people tend to have a stronger sense of community and the ability to communicate and exchange ideas with locals. Travelers seek to balance their experiences and establish and maintain social relations with other travelers and local hosts [20]. Other important details when travelers are ordering a transportation service are trust and security. As was mentioned earlier, the sharing economy, especially in the tourism sector, faces challenges related to security and trust in a particularly online platform [82,84,85]. It should be noted that passenger distrust can be a barrier for many to engage in a sharing economy. The variables of the trust relationship are, mutual trust between buyer and seller, consumer and technology, and consumer and company [20]. Sthapit et al. [86], in analyzing the topic of building trust on sharing platforms, notes that focus should be faced on trust between hosts and travelers. The authors also remark that individuals who book a shuttle service are characterized by personal vulnerability [86]. Paulauskaite et al. [87] emphasize that travelers demand authentic, experience-oriented opportunities for more meaningful communication with locals. The sharing economy has emerged, in part, in response to these consumer trends, which have a significant potential impact on tourism. According to Cesarani and Nechita [10], the sharing economy tourism model is based on the development of shared services that stimulate tourist flow. Sharing economy in the tourism sector, researchers describe four criteria, such as trust, unity, technology, and transformation. Transformation scholars interpret traditional producer-consumer roles including social relationships [10].

Based on a systematic scientific literature review, the authors of this paper present a theoretical conceptual model that illustrates the contribution of the sharing economy related to development of tourism sustainability (see Figure 1).

After discussing the theoretical background, the Section 3 of this study describes methods of research.

3. Methods

To analyze the factors influencing the sharing economy for sustainable tourism it is necessary to discuss research methods and organization of the research. In this research, transportation service, as one of sharing economy areas in tourism, is recognized as a precondition for sustainable tourism development. ORSC was selected as one of the most popular online ride-sharing company, with more than 15 years of experience in the market. The principle of this platform is based on a driver who is going to the place he needs to be while transporting passengers for a fee. ORSC was selected for the study as an example of a sharing economy. This platform was chosen to find out customer experience and factors influencing this choice without the aim of evaluating the efficiency of the company's activities.

A quantitative research method was applied as the most appropriate and most responsive to the research [82,83,84]. The choice of this method was determined by circumstances such as the ability to collect as much data as possible in a relatively short time with a low financial cost. Based on a systematic analysis of the scientific literature, a survey was developed by authors. A questionnaire was designed as a combination of two building blocks. The first block consisted of questions related with sociodemographic characteristics of respondents such as gender, marital status, and age. The second block of the questionnaire consisted of 40 statements and included nine factors affecting traveler’s choice of ORSC.

• General attitudes towards ORSC. To measure the general approach, three statements (platform is suitable for use, it is good to use, it is pleasure to use) were formulated by Saxena et al. [82].

• Price. The scale adapted by Müller [81], Saxena et al. [82] and Farajallah et al. [83] consists of four statements (transportation through the ORSC platform is economical, transportation services for an affordable price, services are value for money, better service delivery than other platforms), which show the factors affecting evaluation of the price.

• Trust. Five statements scale (anonymity, the information is authentic and reliable, protection the interests of the customer, the capacity to fulfill all its obligations, trust into business model) were taken from the research of Mittendorf [84], Gruber [85], Sthapit et al. [86] and Fondevila-Gascón et al. [88].

• Expected risk factors consist of six statements (offered real quality, car breakdown or accidents, friendliness of the car owner during the trip, safe communication with the ORSC platform, the service ordering duration, no problems with payment) based on Wang et al. [63].

• Security. Seven statements (insecurity of ordered car, unsafe driving, technical obstacles and surprises, car breakdowns, experience of the driver, unfriendliness of fellow passengers and car owner) were used to assess security were based on Gruber [85], Wang et al. [63] and Mittendorf [84].

• Comfort. A scale of four statements (picking up and transporting the passenger to the place he needs, comfortable conditions, the trip according to customer expectations, fully meet the needs of the passenger) were based on Zalega [89], Manthiou et al. [90] and So et al. [91] were chosen to evaluate comfort of the transportation service.

• Authenticity. For the evaluation of authenticity, a scale of four statements (opportunity to travel faster and cheaper, provides an authentic experience, offers services that integrate local cultures, a unique experience) was chosen according to Paulauskaite et al. [87], Casprini et al. [92], Zalega [89] and So et al. [91].

• Fun. Four statements (happiness to use the service, fun to use, an experience through entertainment, shuttle service as entertainment) were based on Saxena et al. [82], Zalega [89] and Manthiou et al. [90] and were used to assess fun.

• Social relations. A three-statement scale (passengers can communicate directly with local people, the opportunity to establish social contacts with the driver, an opportunity to communicate more with other passengers) adapted by Zalega [89], Tussyadiah and Pesonen [48] and Manthiou et al. [90] was chosen to assess social relations.

A 5-point Likert scale seeking to evaluate the main factors influencing choice of ORSC was used. Research participants rated each response on a Likert scale in which 1 score means strongly disagree, 2 points disagree, 3 points neither agree nor disagree, 4 points agree, 5 strongly agree. Respondents had to choose the one that was the best option for the specified factor. The total minimum score is 40, the maximum is 200. Each domain score was calculated as a mean score for the scale.

A research sample-convenience selection principle was used. The research was conducted from April to July 2021. Respondents were recruited through a snowballing method using the researchers’ networks of colleagues and acquaintances. A total of 149 respondents participated in the research. It should be noted that all respondents had used the service of ORSC at least once in their lifetime. Data collection was conducted online.

The obtained coded research data were compiled into an SPSS (Statistical Package of Social Science) program file and statistical data analysis was performed. p < 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance, and distributions of the variables of the different aspects of ORSC platform we are assessed for significant difference from normal distribution. The normality of the data was assessed based by the Shapiro-Wilk test, asymmetries and excess coefficients.

To find out which statistical methods (parametric or nonparametric) should be chosen for further statistical analysis, quantitative correspondence of the distributions of the variables to a normal distribution was checked. Verification of the distribution of the different aspects of ORSC used in the study is presented in Table 1; a significance value of p < 0.05 was chosen.

Table 4 shows the distributions of ORSC factors based on customer experience, which were statistically significantly different from normal in all subscales (general approach; price; trust; risk; security; authenticity; comfort; fun and social relations). Based on the results, nonparametric data analysis criteria were selected for further statistical analysis (Kruskal-Wallis criterion, Mann-Whitney U criterion). The Kruskal-Wallis test was chosen for statistical analysis, which compares more than two groups. This was chosen to determinate choice of the factors in the different marital status groups and to indicate for which group of marital status was more important. The Mann-Whitney U test was chosen for statistical analysis, which compares two groups. In this research this criterion was chosen to determinate choice of the factors in the groups of different gender and different age (37 and younger, 38 and older). The averages of the answers were calculated, with the aim of evaluating for each a separate factor of the ORSC.

4. Results

An analysis of the data on the general approach aspect showed that most research participants fully agreed that the ORSC platform was suitable for use (4.7). A slightly smaller proportion of respondents said that it is good to use ORSC (4.3), and that it was a pleasure using ORSC (4.2).

An analysis of the price revealed that most respondents thought that transportation through the ORSC platform was economical (4.8), while fewer respondents stated that ORSC provides transportation services for an affordable price (4.3) and the services offered by ORSC represented value for money (4.1. The fewest respondents agreed that ORSC offers better service delivery than other platforms offering such services (3.9). The results obtained show that ORSC was considered economical an affordable transportation service system whose services offer value for money.

Assessing the ORSC trust aspect, the anonymity of ORSC is least believed (3.9). Results were equally distributed in the assessment that the information provided by ORSC is authentic and reliable (4.1), that ORSC protected the interests of the customer (4.1) and that ORSC had the capacity to fulfill all its obligations (4.1). Most ORSC users believed in the ORSC business model (4.2).

When assessing the respondents' results in terms of risk, the results were distributed quite analogously. Most respondents admitted that it was clear to them that ORSC offered real quality (2.3). Some respondents agreed that they would not have a problem with car breakdown or that accidents would be avoided during the trip (2.1), that the car owner would be friendly during the trip (1.9), that communication with the ORSC platform was safe (2.1), the service ordering through ORSC system did not take long (2.1), and there would be no problems with payment (2.2). In summary it can be stated that the respondents did not consider that there is a high probable risk due to the services provided by ORSC. The respondents were not worried about the real quality of the service, the technical condition of the vehicle, the owner possible unfriendliness, communication, platform inconvenience and difficulty of payment.

Looking at the security aspect of ORSC, we observed that respondents were the least concerned that the car they ordered would be insecure (1.7) and that driving in general would be unsafe (1.8). Respondents were more concerned that, due to driving, there could be problems due to technical obstacles and surprises (2.2), possible car breakdowns (2.3), experience of the driver (2.1), fellow passengers could be unfriendly (2.2), the car owner could be unfriendly (2.3).

Most respondents evaluating the comfort aspect of ORSC believed that ORSC provided an opportunity to conveniently reach the required place of arrival (4.8). The results were almost evenly distributed when assessing that ORSC provides comfortable conditions (4.3) and ORSC offers shuttle services according to customer expectations, for example, by taking short stops during the trip according to customer expectations (4.2). Fewest respondents thought that ORSC provided services that fully met the needs of the passenger (2.9).

Most of the respondents believed that ORSC provided an opportunity to travel faster and cheaper (4.7). The results were similarly distributed when evaluating the claims: that ORSC provides an authentic experience (4.1) and offers services that integrate with local cultures (4.1). Fewest respondents thought that ORSC provides a unique experience (3.9).

In the assessment of the fun aspect of ORSC, most of the respondents stated that they would be happy to use ORSC (4.5). Other results were distributed approximately equally: fun to use ORSC (3.8), ORSC shuttle service offers an experience through entertainment (3.5) and as an entertainment itself (3.7).

Results on social relations aspects were evenly distributed in the assessment that ORSC passengers can communicate directly with local people (4.1) and that ORSC provides the opportunity to establish social contacts with the driver (4.1). The fewest respondents agreed with the statement that ORSC provides an opportunity to communicate more with other passengers (3.9).

In the present study, we compared the applied aspects of ORSC between different genders. The Mann-Whitney U nonparametric test was chosen to determine this. Participants were 53% of women and 45% of men, while only 2% chose “other”. The participants were evenly distributed by gender, evaluating women and men. The results are shown in Table 5.

The results presented in Table 5 show that there were statistically significant differences in the assessment of ORSC aspects in different gender groups at p <0.05. The fun aspect of ORSC was more important in the sample of women than men. The price factor of ORSC was more significant for women than for men. Other aspects of ORSC were not statistically significant. It can be argued that fun and price are more important for women than for men when it comes to the ORSC platform. To determine whether the assessment of the aspects of ORSC used in the research differed between individuals with different marital status, a comparison was made between different groups of marital status. Most participants in this research were single/unmarried (44.3%) or married (36.9%). The least involved in the research were divorced (16.1%), and "other" chose only 2.7%. The nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis was chosen and the results are shown in Table 6.

The data in Table 6 shows that there were statistically significant differences between marital status of the ORSC passengers and factors such as: trust, price, authenticity, fun, social relations, comfort, and general attitude. Aspects of trust, authenticity, fun, general attitude, comfort, and price were the most important in divorced individuals. The ORSC aspect of social relations was most important in married respondents. Other aspects of ORSC did not differ statistically significantly in the marital status groups.

To determine whether the assessment of the aspects of ORSC used in the study differed between individuals of different age groups, a comparison was made between different age groups. Respondents were divided into age groups according to the mean age. Individuals 37 years old and younger were assigned to the first group, and 38 years and older to the second group. Respondents were divided into two groups with an average age of 37 years, with the youngest participant being 18 years old and the oldest being 65 years old. Overall, 64.4% of respondents in the 37 years and younger group participated and 35.6% in the 38 years and older group. This indicates that young people under 37 years of age made up most of the participants. The Mann-Whitney U nonparametric criterion was chosen for comparison. The results are shown in Table 7.

The results presented in the Table 7 reveal that there are statistically significant differences in the assessment of the factors of ORSC concerning general approach, comfort, expected risk, authenticity, price, and safety. It can be argued that overall attitude, comfort, authenticity, and price are more important in the 37 and younger age group. Probable risk and safety is more important in the age group of 38 and older. Aspects of social relationships and fun did not differ statistically significantly between different age groups.

Summarizing the respondent's statements, it can be argued that factors such as price, general approach and comfort received the most support from respondents. Most respondents thought that transportation services through the ORSC platform was suitable and good for use, economical, and that passengers are taken from the place of arrival. Respondents also believed that ORSC provides an opportunity to travel faster and cheaper, provides an authentic experience and offers transport services that integrate with local cultures. Research participants did not consider there to be a significant potential risk from the services provided by ORSC. Respondents agreed that ORSC provides the opportunity to interact with locals and the car owner, but less appreciated the opportunities communicate with other passengers. Transportation services through the ORSC platform were rated as safe and respondents were least worried about possible technical car failures. ORSC consumers believed in the ORSC business model. The fun and price aspects of ORSC were more important in the sample of women than in the sample of men. Trust, authenticity, fun, general approach, comfort, and price were the most important features in the group of divorced persons. The ORSC aspect of social relations was most important for married respondents. The general approach, comfort, authenticity, and price were more important in the 37 and younger age group. Factors of risk and security were more important in age group 38 and older.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The sustainability role of the sharing economy in the tourism sector is obvious. The sharing economy as an innovative business model and a potential path to the development of sustainable tourism through resource savings. Sharing not only enables the use of services cheaper than those offered by conventional and traditional business models [5,6], but at the same time helps to establish more authentic contact [89,92] with the hosts and thus a better understanding of the culture of the country visited. Theoretical research findings show that the sharing economy not only makes travel easier and cheaper, but at the same time supports the ideas of sustainability [39,53]. The authors of this paper presented a theoretical conceptual model and revealed benefits of sharing economy in tourism seeking development of tourism sustainability. In this model were highlighted the benefits of protection of the environment and natural resources, reduction of energy consumption, emissions, avoidance of congestion, assurance of efficient use of assets, promotion of sustainable consumption and production practices, creation of new social relations, improvement of the quality of life, integration and mobilization of local communities, creation of innovations, reduction of gender, education, and income inequalities.

In this study we sought to find out the customers’ experience through factors influencing the sharing economy for the sustainable tourism development. Quantitative research was conducted by respondents completing a questionnaire based on factors identified by the authors influencing travelers’ choice of using the transportation service of the ORSC platform. This research was conducted by surveying ORSC customers selected for the survey using the snowball method. The survey was conducted according to the factors pointed out by the authors in the theoretical part of the article: (1) general approach; (2) price; (3) trust; (4) risk; (5) security; (6) comfort; (7) authenticity; (8) fun and (9) social relations.

An analysis of the results revealed that most of the respondents thought that transport service through the ORSC platform is economical, as fewer respondents said that ORSC provides a shuttle service at an affordable price and that the services offered by ORSC are value for money. These results are consistent with other results obtained in the research that ORSC, while not the best transportation option, is certainly one of the cheaper ways to travel [50,83]. This result suggests that although ORSC is different from the provision of traditional transport services, the price still has a significant impact on consumers. The results were evenly distributed when assessing the claims that ORSC provides an authentic experience and offers a shuttle service that integrates local cultures [33,39,53,62].

The fewest respondents thought that ORSC provides a unique experience. So et al. [91] confirms the results obtained. Researchers state that authenticity is a significant factor in American and Canadian cultures. Authenticity means that consumers have more access to the local cultural experience when choosing ORSC, through communication with other residents, the owner of the vehicle or with locals. However, there are unanswered questions about the uniqueness of the experience itself and if the use of the ORSC platform service is so unique.

Respondents did not consider there to be a significant potential risk from the services provided by ORSC. Clients of ORSC transport sharing platform believed in the ORSC business model, but there were doubts about the anonymity of the transport platform system. It was accepted that the information provided by ORSC are authentic, the interests of the customers are protected, and that online platform has the capacity to fulfill all its obligations. This raises the customers’ confidence in the analyzed platform for transportation services. The obtained results supplement data obtained by other authors. Distrust is understood as a lack of trust between passengers and drivers, distrust of technology, or distrust of the platform [47]. Trust is the foundation of a sharing economy because it cannot participate in the sharing process if there is no trust in the owner of the vehicle, for example [84]. It should be noted that mistrust significantly constrained the consumers choice of ORSC.

The conducted research in the field of the sharing economy through the transport sharing platform allowed identification of several important observations. According to the research results concerning the respondents’ sociodemographic characteristics, the aspect of fun of the ORSC service was more important in the sample of women than men. ORSC price aspect was more significant for women than men. Other aspects were not statistically significant. Other scholars suggest that, in general, women are more involved in the evaluation of online service systems and are more sensitive to different aspects compared to men. Price, comfort and the performance of various technologies are more important for women than for men [33,93].

The limitation of this paper is that the selected research method does not produce representative results because the respondents were selected on the snowball principle and only one transport sharing platform was surveyed. Therefore, not all driving platforms can be assessed based on the data thus obtained. Another limitation of this research is that the identification of factors of the sharing economy in the development of sustainable tourism required a quantitative data collection method to explain the topic in more detail (e.g., to create an information base, suggest ideas and identify benefits). As a limitation, the legal problems of the sharing economy in tourism sector should also be pointed out. Ensuring the security, legal regulation of prohibition, insurance, licensing, and problems with traditional businesses were not analyzed in this manuscript. Finally, due to the wide scope of the problem and the preliminary nature of the analysis, the study was strictly exploratory.

The authors suggest paying attention to the power of the sharing economy and its impact on the development of sustainable tourism. By using sharing transport services, tourists directly contribute to sustainable tourism development, sometimes without even realizing it. This process usually takes place naturally and automatically. Changes in travelers' behavior and habits can make a significant contribution to sustainability in the tourism sector by reducing traffic flows, and thus CO2 emissions, and other transport-related environmental problems. We believe the presented analysis suggests future research to develop this field for sustainable tourism. As the transport sector is one of the biggest polluters, the sharing economy should be encouraged, especially through transport services. The aim of this study was to determine the experience of driving customers using transport platform services. The analysis of identified factors could lead other scientists and researchers, as well as practitioners, politicians and legislators to discuss and, perhaps to make, appropriate decisions on how to achieve greater passenger willingness to take advantage of the sharing economy, especially in the tourism sector. In decision-making, they should focus on the environmental, economic, and legal implications of the sharing economy in the tourism sector, which remains controversial and needs to be further explored.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: D.P.; M.V; B.Š.; data collection: D.P.; B.Š. and M.V.; formal analysis: B.Š.; D.P and M.V.; funding acquisition: D.P.; B.Š.; investigation: B.Š.; methodology: B.Š. and D.P.; project administration: D.P.; resources: D.P.; M.V. and B.Š.; visualization: M.V. and D.P. writing—original draft: D.P.; B.Š. and M.V.; writing—review & editing: D.P. and M.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figure and Tables

Figure 1. Theoretical conceptual model illustrating the contribution of the sharing economy in developing of sustainable tourism (prepared by the authors).

Table 1

Description of Sharing Economy Concepts (information was obtained through different databases such as: DOAJ, IDEAS/RePEc, IDEAS/RePEc and others).

Authors	Year	Number of Citations	Concept
Benkler [38]	2004	1336	Sharing economy means shareable goods
Belk [1]	2014	2211	Sharing economy can be understand as a financial remuneration
Schor [37]	2014	1399	The sharing economy is sharing with the stranger. “Stranger sharing”.
Hamari, et al. [39]	2016	3365	Sharing economy is access to goods and services coordinated through community online services
Rudmin [40]	2016	63	Sharing economy as an object used simultaneously or sequentially.
Martin [41]	2016	1217	The sharing economy includes online economic activities that are as diverse as renting, for-profit services, and donations.
Frenken et al. [42]	2017	1046	Sharing economy provides consumers (or businesses) temporary access to underused physical property (idling), possibly for money.
Görög [43]	2018	67	Sharing economy is the sharing of people’s intangible or unused assets for money, or for free, with the help of the Internet.
Sutherland and Jarrahi [44]	2018	285	The sharing economy is associated with the benefits of technology.
Markman et al. [45]	2021	2	The sharing economy includes multifaceted platforms that make it easier for consumers to access assets that are competitive rather than proprietary rather than proprietary.

Table 2

Description of literature sources about sustainability and the sharing economy in tourism (information was obtained through different databases such as: DOAJ, IDEAS/RePEc, IDEAS/RePEc and others).

Authors	Year	Number of Citations	Concept
Midgett et al. [53]	2017	41	Sharing economy in tourism means when less energy and resources are used, less waste is produced, and the general principle of sustainability is upheld.
Onete et al. [54]	2018	19	The sharing economy in tourism is linked to accessibility, consumer and stakeholder acceptance of existing technological infrastructure in order to maintain sustainability.
Grondys [55]	2019	12	The sharing economy in tourism is an alternative consumption model that seeks to increase the efficiency using of the resources and creation of a new value for society, while implementing the principle of sustainability.
Shereni [9]	2019	7	The concept of the tourism sharing economy is based on the idea of consumption together for sustainable development purposes.
Zmyślony et al. [56]	2020	12	Sharing economy effect on the sustainability of local communities provides an alternative approach to exploring the perceptions of the population and attitudes towards tourism in areas affected by over-tourism.
Boar et al. [11]	2020	19	The sharing economy is a term for various business models, including tourism, which have a positive impact on sustainability.
Mondal et al. [57]	2021	7	Implementing and adapting the concept of tourism sharing economy is a way to achieve sustainable development of the tourism industry.

Table 3

Tourism sharing economy transportation platforms (compiled by the authors based on data published on official websites).

Platform	Founded	Description	Area of Operation
BlaBlaCar [75]	2006	BlaBlaCar is a French online ride-sharing company based on sense of community – prices are capped so drivers do not profit, and passengers pay only for running costs.	Founded in France, operates in 22 countries: France, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, Germany, Croatia, India, Italy, Hungary, Mexico, Spain, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, Russia, Slovakia, Romania, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Brazil, Czech Republic.
Uber [76]	2009	Driving sharing and technology platform, including peer-to-peer UberX or Uber POP service - driver partners pay the company a collection and discharge fee.	Operates in 71 countries: in more than 10,000 cities.
Lyft [77]	2012	Ride-sharing platform – driver is paid for ride; company collects 20% commission. Like Uber, Lyft had a self-driving division and saw the future as one in which a human driver would no longer be necessary.	Operates in 644 cities in the United States and 12 cities in Canada.
Gett [78]	2010	Gett, the Israel-based ridesharing app formerly known as Get Taxi, has a user base that pales in comparison to Uber and Lyft. Founded: 2010	Operates in more than 100 cities globally, mainly in the U.K. and Israel, but recently shuttered its limited presence in the United States.
Curb [79]	2007	Curb is known as the top taxi app in the United States. The platform enables users to connect with nearby taxi drivers straight through their smartphone and quickly get a ride to their destination.	Operates in more than 45 U.S. cities.
Wingz [80]	2011	San Francisco-based startup started out providing transportation to and from airports. Founded: 2011/renamed to Wingz 2014.	Operates in 30 major cities across the United States via mobile app.

Table 4

Distribution of the ORSC factors used in the research.

Factors	Statistics Meaning	Value
General approach	0.755	<0.001
Price	0.436	<0.001
Trust	0.841	<0.001
Risk	0.882	<0.001
Security	0.852	0.004
Comfort	0.535	0.002
Authenticity	0.895	<0.001
Fun	0.940	<0.001
Social relations	0.877	<0.001

Table 5

Comparison of aspects based on ORSC customers’ experience in male and female groups.

Factors	Men	Women	Z	p
	Average Rank	Average Rank
General approach	70.52	80.18	−1.468	0.142
Price	65.71	84.59	−2.736	0.006
Trust	71.29	79.24	−1.136	0.256
Risk	75.01	75.49	−0.078	0.938
Security	77.34	73.27	−0.586	0.558
Comfort	75.97	75.19	−0.114	0.938
Authenticity	71.18	79.78	−1.218	0.223
Fun	65.99	83.77	−2.535	0.011
Social relations	75.01	75.49	−0.078	0.938

Source: own research. Note: Z-value of the Mann-Whitney test, p-value of statistical significance.

Table 6

Comparison of factors based on ORSC customers’ experience in different groups of marital status.

Factors	Single/Unmarried	Married	Divorced	Other	Chi-Square Value	p
	Average Rank
General approach	66.94	75.08	85.21	16.88	14.969	0.002
Price	67.23	77.56	84.04	17.38	12.658	0.005
Trust	71.33	76.44	81.33	12.50	10.462	0.015
Risk	76.25	82.65	69.11	109.13	4.644	0.200
Security	79.54	81.33	66.83	109.50	6.387	0.094
Comfort	70.33	70.77	83.34	27.00	8.625	0.035
Authenticity	68.36	70.60	85.80	14.38	13.811	0.003
Fun	69.69	69.69	84.96	15.50	12.484	0.006
Social relations	69.15	83.08	80.08	23.25	8.870	0.031

Table 7

Comparison of factors based on ORSC customers’ experience in different age groups.

Factors	37 and Younger	38 and Older	Chi-Square Value	p
	Average Rank
General approach	83.54	61.97	−3.219	0.001
Price	82.98	62.82	−2.877	0.004
Trust	83.42	62.75	−2.546	0.075
Risk	67.52	86.41	−2.645	0.008
Security	67.53	86.40	−2.682	0.007
Comfort	83.24	62.43	−2.936	0.003
Authenticity	83.73	61.68	−3.077	0.002
Fun	80.07	67.27	−1.782	0.075
Social relations	80.01	67.36	−1.784	0.074

References

1. Belk, R. You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. J. Bus. Res.; 2014; 67, pp. 1595-1600. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.10.001]

2. Byun, S.-E.; Sternquist, B. Here-today-gone-tomorrow: Consumer reactions to perceived limited availability. J. Mark. Theory Pract.; 2012; 20, pp. 223-234. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679200207]

3. Smit, B.; Melissen, F. Sustainable Customer Experience Design: Co-Creating Experiences in Events, Tourism and Hospitality; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018.

4. Navickas, V.; Petrokė, I.V.; Bačiulienė, V.; Vasylieva, T. The Impact of the Sharing Economy as an Ecosystem on the Tourism Sector. J. Tour. Ser.; 2021; 22, pp. 66-88. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.29036/jots.v12i22.241]

5. Lang, B.; Botha, E.; Robertson, J.; Kemper, J.A.; Dolan, R.; Kietzmann, J. How to grow the sharing economy? Create Prosumers!. Australas. Mark. J.; 2020; 28, pp. 58-66. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.06.012]

6. Zervas, G.; Proserpio, D.; Byers, J.W. A first look at online reputation on Airbnb, where every stay is above average. Mark. Lett.; 2021; 32, pp. 1-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11002-020-09546-4]

7. Pérez-Pérez, C.; Benito-Osorio, D.; García-Moreno, S.M.; Martínez-Fernández, A. Is Sharing a Better Alternative for the Planet? The Contribution of Sharing Economy to Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 1843. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13041843]

8. Pouri, M.J.; Hilty, L.M. Conceptualizing the Digital Sharing Economy in the Context of Sustainability. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 4453. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10124453]

9. Shereni, N.C. The tourism sharing economy and sustainability in developing countries: Contribution to SDGs in the hospitality sector. Afr. J. Hosp. Tour. Leis.; 2019; 8, pp. 1-10.

10. Cesarani, M.; Nechita, F. Tourism and the Sharing Economy. An Evidence from Airbnb Usage in Italy and Romania. Symphonya. Emerg. Issues Manag.; 2017; 26, pp. 32-47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4468/2017.3.04cesarani.nechita]

11. Boar, A.; Bastida, R.; Marimon, F. A Systematic Literature Review. Relationships between the Sharing Economy, Sustainability and Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 6744.

12. Daunorienė, A.; Drakšaitė, A.; Snieška, V.; Valodkienė, G. Evaluating Sustainability of Sharing Economy Business Models. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.; 2015; 213, pp. 836-841. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.486]

13. Curtis, S.K.; Lehner, M. Defining the Sharing Economy for Sustainability. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 567. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11030567]

14. Curtis, S.K.; Mont, O. Sharing economy business models for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 266, 121519. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121519]

15. Plewnia, F.; Guenther, E. Mapping the sharing economy for sustainability research. Manag. Decis.; 2018; 56, pp. 1-15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2016-0766]

16. Szymanska, A.I. The Importance of the Sharing Economy in Improving the Quality of Life and Social Integration of Local Communities on the Example of Virtual Groups. Land; 2021; 10, 754. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land10070754]

17. Davlembayeva, D.; Papagiannidis, S.; Alamanos, E. Sharing economy: Studying the social and psychological factors and the outcomes of social exchange. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.; 2020; 158, 120143. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120143]

18. Srovnalíková, P.; Semionovaitė, E.; Baranskaitė, E.; Labanauskaitė, D. Evaluation of the Impact of Sharing Economy on Hotel Business. J. Tour. Serv.; 2020; 20, pp. 150-169. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.29036/jots.v11i20.145]

19. Belk, R. The Rise of the Sharing Economy: Exploring the Challenges and Opportunities of Collaborative Consumption; ABC-CLIO: Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 2018; pp. 9-12.

20. Tussyadiah, I.P. Strategic self-presentation in the sharing economy: Implications for host branding. Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2016; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 695-708.

21. Hellwig, K.; Morhart, F.; Girardin, F.; Hauser, M. Exploring different types of sharing: A proposed segmentation of the market for sharing businesses. Psychol. Mark.; 2015; 32, pp. 891-906. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20825]

22. Joo, J.H. Motives for participating in sharing economy: Intentions to use car sharing services. J. Distrib. Sci.; 2017; 15, pp. 21-26.

23. Sanasi, S.; Ghezzi, A.; Cavallo, A.; Rangone, A. Making sense of the Sharing Economy: A Business Model Innovation perspective. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag.; 2020; 32, pp. 895-909. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2020.1719058]

24. Mi, Z.; Coffman, D. The sharing economy promotes sustainable societies. Nat. Commun.; 2019; 10, 1214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09260-4] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30872587]

25. Schor, J.B.; Fitzmaurice, C. Collaborating and Connecting: The Emergence of a Sharing Economy. Handbook on Research on Sustainable Consumption; Reisch, L.; Thogersen, J. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2015; pp. 410-425.

26. Botsman, R.; Rogers, R. What’s Mine Is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption; Harper Collins: New York, NY, USA, 2010.

27. Rutkowska-Gurak, A.; Adamska, A. Sharing economy and the city. Int. J. Manag. Econ.; 2019; 55, pp. 346-368. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/ijme-2019-0026]

28. Ejsmont, A.; Ruszewski, J. (red.). Ekonomia Społeczna Dla Rozwoju Społeczności Lokalnych; Centrum Aktywności Społecznej PRYZMAT: Suwałki, Poland, 2013.

29. Skalska, T. Sharing economy in the tourism market: Opportunities and threats. CEJSH Cent. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Humanit.; 2017; 4, pp. 248-260.

30. Niezgoda, A.; Kowalska, K. Sharing Economy and Lifestyle Changes, as Exemplified by the Tourism Market. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 5351. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12135351]

31. Frenken, K.; Meelen, T.; Arets, M.; Van de Glind, P. Smarter Regulation for the Sharing Economy. The Guardian. 2016; Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2015/may/20/smarter-regulation-for-the-sharing-economy (accessed on 6 August 2021).

32. Vila, D.T.; Araújo, N.; Brea, J.A.; Alén, E. Tourism Search and Metasearch Engines for Online Booking. What do they offer?. Handbook of Research on Holistic Optimization Techniques in the Hospitality, Tourism, and Travel Industry; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2017.

33. Mann, M.; Liu-Thompkins, Y. Shopping Online? The Role of Imagination and Gender. Eur. J. Mark.; 2019; 53, pp. 2604-2628. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJM-04-2018-0226]

34. Krueger, N. Bridging Town and Gown: Best Practice? An Essay on Growing the Local Entrepreneurial Ecosystem. Int. J. Bus. Glob.; 2012; 9, pp. 347-358. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBG.2012.050903]

35. Agyeman, J.; McLaren, D. Sharing Cities: A Case for Truly Smart and Sustainable Cities; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015.

36. Malhotra, A.; Van Alstyne, M. The Dark Side of the Sharing Economy and How to Lighten It. Commun. ACM; 2014; 57, pp. 7-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2668893]

37. Schor, J. Debating the Sharing Economy. Great Transition Initiative. October 2014.; Available online: https://www.greattransition.org/publication/debating-the-sharing-economy (accessed on 1 September 2021).

38. Benkler, Y. Sharing Nicely: On Shareable Goods and the Emergence of Sharing as a Modality of Economic Production. Yale Law J.; 2004; 114, pp. 273-358. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4135731]

39. Hamari, J.; Sjöklint, M.; Ukkonen, A. The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol.; 2016; 67, pp. 2047-2059. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23552]

40. Rudmin, F.W. The Consumer Science of Sharing: A Discussant’s Observations. J. Assoc. Consum. Res.; 2016; 1, pp. 198-209. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/685861]

41. Martin, C.J. The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism?. Ecol. Econ.; 2016; 121, pp. 149-159. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.11.027]

42. Frenken, K.; Schor, J. Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit.; 2017; 23, pp. 3-10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.01.003]

43. Görög, G. The Definitions of Sharing Economy: A Systematic Literature Review. Management; 2018; 13, pp. 175-189. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.26493/1854-4231.13.175-189]

44. Sutherland, W.; Jarrahi, M.H. The sharing economy and digital platforms: A review and research agenda. Int. J. Inf. Manag.; 2018; 43, pp. 328-341. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.07.004]

45. Markman, G.M.; Lieberman, M.; Leiblein, M.; Wei, L.; Wang, Y. The Distinctive Domain of the Sharing Economy: Definitions, Value Creation, and Implications for Research. J. Manag. Stud.; 2021; 58, pp. 927-948. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joms.12707]

46. Govindan, K.; Shankar, M.; Kannan, D. Achieving sustainable development goals through identifying and analyzing barriers to industrial sharing economy: A framework development. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2020; 227, 107575. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.107575]

47. Tussyadiah, I.P.; Pesonen, J.A. Impacts of Peer-to-Peer Accommodation Use on Travel Patterns. J. Travel Res.; 2016; 55, pp. 1022-1040. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287515608505]

48. Gabrielli, S.; Forbes, P.; Jylhä, A.; Wells, S.; Sirén, M.; Hemminki, S.; Nurmi, P.; Maimone, R.; Masthoff, J.; Jacucci, G. Design challenges in motivating change for sustainable urban mobility. Comput. Hum. Behav.; 2014; 41, pp. 416-423. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.026]

49. Sharing or Paring?. Growth of the Sharing Economy.; 2015; Available online: https://www.pwc.com/hu/en/kiadvanyok/assets/pdf/sharing-economy-en.pdf (accessed on 15 August 2021).

50. Lahti, V.M.; Selosmaa, J. A Fair Share: Towards a New Collaborative Economy; Atena: Hartford, CT, USA, 2020.

51. Novikova, O. The sharing economy and the future of personal mobility: New models based on car sharing. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev.; 2017; 7, pp. 27-31. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1097]

52. Cohen, B.; Almirall, E.; Chesbrough, H. The city as a lab: Open innovation meets the collaborative economy. Calif. Manag. Rev.; 2016; 59, pp. 5-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0008125616683951]

53. Midgett, C.; Bendickson, J.; Muldoon, J.; Solomon, S. The Sharing Economy and Sustainability: A Case for Airbnb. J. Small Bus. Inst.; 2017; 13, pp. 51-71.

54. Onete, B.C.; Pleşea, D.; Sonia Budz, S. Sharing economy: Challenges and opportunities in tourism. Amfiteatru Econ.; 2018; 20, pp. 998-1015. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24818/EA/2018/S12/998]

55. Grondys, K. Implementation of the Sharing Economy in the B2B Sector. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 3976. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11143976]

56. Zmyślony, P.; Leszczyński, G.; Waligóra, A.; Alejziak, W. The Sharing Economy and Sustainability of Urban Destinations in the (Over)tourism Context: The Social Capital Theory Perspective. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 2310. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12062310]

57. Mondal, S.; Samaddar, K. Issues and challenges in implementing sharing economy in tourism: A triangulation study. Manag. Environ. Qual.; 2021; 32, pp. 64-81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-03-2020-0054]

58. Navickienė, R.; Danilevičienė, L. Turizmo paslaugos kaip pagrindinių ir periferinių paslaugų visuma. Ekon. Ir Vadyb. Aktualijos Ir Perspekt.; 2011; 1, pp. 101-107.

59. Sureka, M.; Sahayajenci, K.; Subramani, A.K. Customer Satisfaction and Service Quality Towards Naturals Parlour, Chennai. Int. J. Multidiscip. Res.; 2015; 5, pp. 35-41.

60. Herhausen, D.; Kleinlercher, K.; Verhoef, P.C.; Emrich, O.; Rudolph, T. Loyalty formation for different customer journey segments. J. Retail.; 2019; 95, pp. 9-29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2019.05.001]

61. Lemon, K.N.; Verhoef, P.C. Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. J. Mark.; 2016; 80, pp. 69-96. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0420]

62. Marčeková, R.; Šebová, L.; Pompurová, K.; Šimočková, I. Tourism Transportation Services Provided on the Principle of Sharing Economy. Culture and Tourism in a Smart, Globalized, and Sustainable World; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021.

63. Wang, Y.; Gu, J.; Wang, S.; Wang, J. Understanding consumers’ willingness to use ride-sharing services: The roles of perceived value and perceived risk. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol.; 2019; 105, pp. 504-519. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.05.044]

64. Wang, C.; Huang, J.; Wan, X. A cross-cultural study of beliefs about the influence of food sharing on interpersonal relationships and food choices. Appetite; 2021; 161, 105129. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105129] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33548349]

65. Falcone, P.M.; Imbert, E. Bringing a Sharing Economy Approach into the Food Sector: The Potential of Food Sharing for Reducing Food Waste. Food Waste Reduction and Valorisation; Morone, P.; Papendiek, F.; Tartiu, V. Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50088-1_10]

66. Morone, P.; Falcone, P.M.; Tartiu, V.E. Food waste valorisation: Assessing the effectiveness of collaborative research networks through the lenses of a COST action. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 238, 117868. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117868]

67. Mouratidis, K.; Peters, S.; Van Wee, B. Transportation technologies, sharing economy, and teleactivities: Implications for built environment and travel. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ.; 2021; 92, 102716. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102716]

68. Dogru, T.; Hanks, L.; Mody, M.; Suess, C.; Sirakaya-Turk, E. The effects of Airbnb on hotel performance: Evidence from cities beyond the United States. Tour. Manag.; 2020; 79, pp. 90-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104090]

69. Forbes. The Future of the Sharing Economy Depends on Trust. Forbes.; 2015; Available online: www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2015/02/10/the-future-of-the-sharing-economy-depends-on-trust/ (accessed on 10 August 2021).

70. Shaheen, S.; Cohen, A.; Zohdy, I. Shared Mobility: Current Practices and Guiding Principles. 2016; Available online: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16022/fhwahop16022.pdf (accessed on 3 September 2021).

71. Gössling, S. ICT and transport behavior: A conceptual review. Int. J. Sustain. Transp.; 2018; 12, pp. 153-164. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2017.1338318]

72. Rauch, D.; Schleicher, D. Like Uber, but for local government policy: The future of local regulation of the sharing economy. Marron Inst. Work. Pap.; 2015; 76, 901.

73. Hampshire, R.C.; Gaites, C. Peer-to-peer carsharing: Market analysis and potential growth. Transp. Res. Rec.; 2011; 2217, pp. 119-126. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2217-15]

74. Ferrero, F.; Perboli, G.; Rosano, M.; Vesco, A. Car-sharing services: An annotated review. Sustain. Cities Soc.; 2018; 37, pp. 501-518. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.09.020]

75. BlaBlaCar. Available online: https://blog.blablacar.com/newsroom (accessed on 7 August 2021).

76. Uber Statistics 2021: How Many People Ride with Uber?. Available online: https://backlinko.com/uber-users (accessed on 7 August 2021).

77. Lyft Revenue and Usage Statistics. 2021; Available online: https://www.businessofapps.com/data/lyft-statistics/ (accessed on 7 August 2021).

78. About Us Gett. Available online: https://gett.com/about/ (accessed on 8 August 2021).

79. What Is the Curb App (and How Does It Work)?. Available online: https://www.ridester.com/curb-app-work/ (accessed on 8 August 2021).

80. About Us Wingz. Available online: https://www.wingz.me/about/ (accessed on 8 August 2021).

81. Müller, N. BlaBlaCar-Business Model and Empirical Analysis of Usage Patterns. Master’s Thesis; University of Wuerzburg: Würzburg, Germany, September 2017.

82. Saxena, D.; Muzellec, L.; Trabucchi, D. BlaBlaCar: Value creation on a digital platform. J. Inf. Technol. Teach. Cases; 2020; 10, pp. 119-126. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2043886919885940]

83. Farajallah, M.; Hammond, R.G.; Pénard, T. What drives pricing behavior in Peer-to-Peer markets? Evidence from the carsharing platform BlaBlaCar. Inf. Econ. Policy; 2019; 48, pp. 15-31. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2019.01.002]

84. Mittendorf, C. Trust and Distrust in Two-sided Markets: An Example in the Sharing Economy. Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; Waikoloa Village, HI, USA, 3–6 January 2018; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2018.673]

85. Gruber, S. Personal Trust and System Trust in the Sharing Economy: A Comparison of Community- and Platform-Based Models. J. Front. Psychol.; 2020; 11, 581299. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.581299] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33362644]

86. Sthapit, E.; Björk, P. Sources of distrust: Airbnb guests’ perspectives. Tour. Manag. Perspect.; 2019; 21, pp. 245-253. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.05.009]

87. Paulauskaite, D.; Powell, R.; Coca-Stefaniak, J.A.; Morrison, A.M. Living like a local: Authentic tourism experiences and the sharing economy. Int. J. Tour. Res.; 2017; 19, pp. 619-628. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2134]

88. Fondevila-Gascón, J.-F.; Berbel, G.; Muñoz-González, M. Experimental Study on the Utility and Future of Collaborative Consumption Platforms Offering Tourism Related Services. Futur. Internet; 2019; 11, 80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/fi11030080]

89. Zalega, T. The Sharing Economy and the Behaviour of Young Polish Singles: The Case of BlaBlaCar. Pol. J. Econ.; 2020; 304, pp. 105-134.

90. Manthiou, A.; Hickman, E.; Klaus, P. Beyond good and bad: Challenging the suggested role of emotions in customer experience (CX) research. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.; 2020; 57, 102218. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102218]

91. So, K.K.F.; Oh, H.; Min, S. Motivations and constraints of Airbnb consumers: Findings from a mixed-methods approach. Tour. Manag.; 2018; 67, pp. 224-236. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.01.009]

92. Casprini, E.; Di Minin, A.; Paraboschi, A. How do companies organize nascent markets? The BlaBlaCar case in the inter-city shared mobility market. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.; 2019; 44, pp. 270-281. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.01.012]

93. Lee, K. Consumer product search and purchase behaviour using various retail channels: The role of perceived retail usefulness. Int. IJC; 2018; 32, pp. 619-627. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2008.00689.x]