International Journal of Hospitality Management 79 (2019) 148–157

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhm

A qualitative investigation of microentrepreneurship in the sharing economy T

a,⁎ a b
Tingting Zhang , Diego Bufquin , Can Lu
a
University of Central Florida, 9907 Universal Blvd, Orlando, FL, 32819, USA
b
The Ohio State University, 1787 Neil Ave. Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This qualitative study explores various aspects of microentrepreneurship in the sharing economy and describes
Microentrepreneurship the motivations of people who operate these innovative businesses from financial, social, and cultural per-
Airbnb spectives. This study uncovers the positive and negative outcomes of such business activities. Airbnb, a pro-
Peer-to-peer accommodation minent proxy in the peer-to-peer accommodation business, was chosen as the study context and Airbnb hosts
Motivations
interviewed to build a theoretical framework. The results identified eight motivations behind Airbnb hosts’
Outcomes
Qualitative approach
microentrepreneurial activities: social, financial, and cultural benefit; ease of operation; availability of resources;
freedom; flexibility; and excitement about future perspectives. The data also indicated that Airbnb hosts perceive
five positive outcomes of their microentrepreneurship: financial gain, social connection, cultural learning,
personal growth, and feelings of achievement. In addition, this study found that microentrepreneurship presents
challenges to Airbnb hosts, such as risk, lack of privacy, and emotional stress resulting from guest reviews. The
theoretical and practical implications are discussed in detail.

1. Introduction
The sharing economy, or collaborative economy, has been growing
in both scale and scope across all hospitality and tourism sectors. Many
sectors, such as food catering, accommodation, transportation, and tour
guiding, have experienced the tremendous impact of the sharing
economy on their development and existence. This innovative business
pattern has galvanized practitioners and policy makers to rethink the
definition of travel and hospitality, as well as the travel experiences that
people will expect in the near future. The sharing economy emphasizes
the word “sharing,” embracing the idea of collaboratively creating core
business value with a broader range of stakeholders (Kramer and
Porter, 2011). However, the sharing economy provokes many disrup-
tions to the entire economic value system. Many disruptive sharing
initiatives—such as Airbnb (accommodation), Uber (driving), The Pi-
rate Bay (files), Kiva (microloans), and Kickstarter (crowdfunding)—are
thriving, following the ideology of the sharing economy rather than
that of traditional business models. More importantly, these emerging
initiatives continue to revolutionize and transform the hospitality and
tourism industry.
The sharing economy creates a network of connected stake-
holders—individuals, communities, and/or entities—and collabora-
tively generates value by integrating idle resources and transforming
the role of customers as co-creators of services (Zhang et al., 2018). In
the sharing economy, customers revolutionize the ways they search,
book, experience, and make payments for their travel services. Fur-
thermore, the sharing economy cultivates sub-economies and a new
breed of entrepreneurs—microentrepreneurs—thus disrupting en-
trepreneurial opportunities, people’s living and working patterns, and
individual well-being.
Prior research on the sharing economy has mainly focused on its
online platforms and marketing experience (Ert et al., 2016; Liang
et al., 2017; Liu and Mattila, 2017; Wiles and Crawford, 2017), impacts
of peer-to-peer accommodation (e.g., on the housing market and hotels’
revenue and profitability; Fang et al., 2016; Gutierrez et al., 2017;
Guttentag and Smith, 2017; Lee, 2016), host behavior (Karlsson and
Dolnicar, 2016; Karlsson et al., 2017), and guest/host experiences
(Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; Belk, 2014a; Brochado et al., 2017;
Lamberton and Rose, 2012; Mohlmann, 2015; Tussyadiah and Pesonen,
2016; Williams and Horodnic, 2017). For example, from the perspective
of the online platforms and marketing experience, Liu and Mattila
(2017) examined consumers’ responses to the advertising appeal of
Airbnb host services, and Liang et al. (2017) assessed the “Superhost”
badge effect on online reviews and comments. For investigations of the
impacts of peer-to-peer accommodation, Fang et al. (2016) explored the
effect of Airbnb business penetration on tourism employment and the
macroeconomy. In terms host and guest behaviors, Karlsson and
Dolnicar (2016), Karlsson et al. (2017)) found there is no dominant

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: tingting.zhang@ucf.edu (T. Zhang), diego.bufquin@ucf.edu (D. Bufquin), Lu.1168@osu.edu (C. Lu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.01.010
Received 28 April 2018; Received in revised form 21 December 2018; Accepted 7 January 2019
0278-4319/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
T. Zhang et al.
reason why hosts offer their services to guests and Mohlmann (2015)
found that trust, cost saving, utility, and familiarity significantly in-
fluenced consumers in choosing Airbnb services compared to regular
accommodation offerings. However, the sharing economy is not merely
a supplement to the existing hospitality and tourism sectors but rather a
disruptive entrepreneurial innovation (Guttentag and Smith, 2017) that
affects both customers and service providers in novel ways.
To date, this literature has not investigated the emerging roles of
microentrepreneurs in the sharing economy and the underlying process
by which microentrepreneurial businesses operate in the innovative
ecosystem (Prayag and Ozanne, 2018; Richter et al., 2017), such as
what factors lead to the launch of such businesses and what positive or
negative impacts their operation may have on microentrepreneurs.
Therefore, the current project aims to fill this void by focusing on the
continuously evolving but often ignored role of microentrepreneurship
in the sharing economy. Specifically, the objectives of this study are: (a)
to explore the motivations behind individuals’ willingness to start or
operate peer-to-peer accommodation services and (b) to describe the
positive and negative impacts resulting from such microentrepreneurial
opportunities.
The study’s findings have valuable implications for theory and
practice. First, this study provides considerable evidence regarding the
motives that drive hosts to offer services in the Airbnb online platform.
As mentioned above, previous exploration of the supply-side of Airbnb
services has been limited (Karlsson and Dolnicar, 2016; Karlsson et al.,
2017); therefore, the current study contributes to the literature by ca-
tegorizing the motives behind Airbnb hosting services. Second, the
study analyzes the positive and negative impacts of such micro-
entrepreneurial activities in order to offer a comprehensive under-
standing of the outcomes that Airbnb hosts may experience through the
delivery of peer-to-peer accommodation services. The study’s findings
also fill a methodological gap in the literature, as limited qualitative
research has been done so far with respect to the assessment of hosts’
motivations and outcomes (Prayag and Ozanne, 2018). Furthermore,
the qualitative findings may provide empirical evidence for the scale
development of microentrepreneurship in the sharing economy for fu-
ture research. Previous studies mainly investigated sharing activities in
the scope of hospitality and tourism services, rather than exploring the
phenomenon from the perspective of microentrepreneurship. There-
fore, the current study proposes many hypotheses about Airbnb en-
trepreneurial motives and outcomes, which may offer evidence for fu-
ture works scale-developing the related measures in the sharing
economy. From a practical standpoint, the findings will help sharing
economy and peer-to-peer accommodation marketers to better under-
stand what service providers look for in this sector and the impacts that
might ensue from such innovative business processes. Additionally, this
study provides insights for individuals who are currently considering
becoming microentrepreneurs in the promising and ever-evolving peer-
to-peer accommodation sector.
To begin the paper, a review of extant literature is conducted.
Second, data from in-depth interviews with microentrepreneurs in the
peer-to-peer accommodation sector (i.e., Airbnb hosts) are analyzed to
propose various influential factors that explain the motives and impacts
behind the provision of peer-to-peer accommodation services. Finally, a
theoretical framework is developed from the interview results and a
thorough discussion of theoretical and practical implications is pro-
vided based on the study findings, followed by limitations and future
research directions.
2. Literature review
2.1. Microentrepreneurship
Microentrepreneurship has continuously developed and provided
numerous job opportunities in recent decades (Gindling and Newhouse,
2014). According to international standards, microentrepreneurship
149
International Journal of Hospitality Management 79 (2019) 148–157
refers to self-employed individuals and firms with fewer than five em-
ployees (Vial and Hanoteau, 2015). Taking the category of self-em-
ployment in the labor market as a proxy for entrepreneurship,
Bögenhold and Klinglmair (2015) posited that most entrepreneurs are
associated with the category of microbusinesses. The advancements of
information technology and notions of innovative regional clusters
have accelerated the development of entrepreneurship for a sustainable
economic society (Qureshi et al., 2010). Due to the interplay between
globalization, technological innovation, and the labor market, a shift
towards a service-sector economy is mirrored by a growing trend to-
wards self-employment (Bögenhold and Klinglmair, 2015). The primary
goal of microentrepreneurship is to diversify household income sources
and augment consumption and savings (Honig, 1998).
Increasingly, owning a microbusiness is viewed as an alternative to
salaried employment. Indeed, self-employment may be the only means
to increase labor supply and revenues for a household with limited
access to full-time or salaried employment and a binding constraint on
working hours (Vial and Hanoteau, 2015). As a livelihood strategy,
microentrepreneurship acts as a complement to salaried employment
and increases labor utilization and household income (Fields, 2012).
Microentrepreneurship also represents a source of non-market trans-
actions, supplements household consumption, and diversifies profes-
sional activities (Floro and Swain, 2013; Verrest, 2013).
Two competing streams of literature interpret the phenomenon of
microentrepreneurship from different perspectives: a negative-critical
perspective versus a positive-optimistic perspective. The former takes
the tendency for instability in the labor market into account (Kalleberg,
2009, 2011); that is, it recognizes that many salaried employees are
pushed into self-employment due to the tendency for flexibilization in
the labor market and a lack of jobs (Acemoglu, 2001). On the other
hand, the latter argues that an economy depends on new business en-
tries that start small by nature (Bögenhold and Klinglmair, 2015). For
instance, some microbusiness owners achieve sufficient earnings
through freelance work and are not tempted to sacrifice leisure time for
business growth or other job-related duties.
Prior research demonstrates that microentrepreneurs are driven
primarily by motives such as self-realization, economic independence,
and working without hierarchies (Bögenhold and Klinglmair, 2015;
Paoloni and Dumay, 2015). Self-employment can offer the benefits of
avoiding organizational hierarchies and dealing with employees. On
occasion, self-employment takes a hybrid status between salaried em-
ployment and autonomous working (Folta et al., 2010). On the other
hand, some microentrepreneurs who are crowded out from the salaried
labor market start their own business for economic reasons (Bögenhold
and Klinglmair, 2015). In this case, self-employment is therefore an
alternative to unemployment. Adding to the aforementioned motives,
emotional needs arising from changes in personal lives (such as a new
start or challenge, social redemption, etc.) can be important reasons for
individuals to start microbusinesses (Paoloni and Dumay, 2015).
The dominant view regarding the decision to pursue micro-
entrepreneurship opportunities in the industrialized world stresses the
risk-taking nature of the entrepreneurial sector (Montes Rojas and Siga,
2009). Notably, Lucas (1978) proposed that people are endowed with a
certain level of entrepreneurial or managerial ability; those with suffi-
cient managerial skills can become entrepreneurs, whereas others be-
come workers. Adding dynamics to Lucas’ framework, Jovanovic
(1982) suggested that people know little of their entrepreneurial abil-
ities, but they learn by starting and operating a business. Education
enables individuals to assess business opportunities with lower costs,
serving as a complement to entrepreneurial ability (Rees and Shah,
1986). Empirical studies show that level of education positively affects
an individual’s probability of becoming an entrepreneur (Carrasco,
1999; Moore and Mueller, 2002). Furthermore, the entrepreneur’s
education level is positively associated with the probability of their
small business’s survival (Bates, 1990) and its growth rate (Honjo,
2004). Additional personality traits associated with entrepreneurial
T. Zhang et al. International Journal of Hospitality Management 79 (2019) 148–157

Table 1
Characteristics of Micro-entrepreneurship and Sharing Economy Business.
Characteristics Micro-entrepreneurship Sharing Economy Business

Type of employment Self-employed (Bögenhold and Klinglmair, 2015) Self-employed (Meged and Christensen, 2017)
Type of roles Self-employed individuals and employees (Munoz 2010; Vial and Independent operators (Dredge 2017)
Hanoteau, 2015)
Organizational structure No organizational hierarchy (Paoloni and Dumay, 2015) Non-hierarchical relationships (Cannas 2017)
Motivations Self-realization, economic independence, emotional needs, working Economic benefit (Meged and Christensen, 2017), social reasons (Ikkala
without hierarchies (Bögenhold and Klinglmair, 2015; Paoloni and and Lampinen 2015), gratification, ancillary benefits (Lampinen and
Dumay, 2015) Cheshire 2016)

intention and performance include need for achievement, need for the form of a redistribution market, peer-to-peer-based sharing has
autonomy, innovativeness, internal locus of control, self-efficacy, and been coordinated and facilitated through community-based online
high stress tolerance (Brandstätter, 2011). services (Mohlmann, 2015). The rise of market mediation and the
power of social networks have accelerated the growth of collaborative
consumption on a larger scale. Consequently, person-to-person mar-
2.2. Sharing economy
ketplaces have allowed individuals to start microenterprises that supply
goods and services. The emergence of these platforms enables in-
Sharing, as one of the most basic economic behaviors, has existed as
dividuals to tap into managerial abilities and entrepreneurial aspira-
a form of exchange in human societies for centuries (Cheng, 2016;
tions that otherwise would not have been possible to realize. More
Hellwig et al., 2015). Under the influence of economic recession, con-
importantly, such platforms serve as new engines for innovation by
sumers have become increasingly mindful about spending and have
providing microentrepreneurship opportunities that empower people
attempted to be resourceful in the long term. Alongside this, a growing
who were previously constrained by formal or limited employment
concern about climate change has increased consumers’ desire for
opportunities.
communal consumption and has made the sharing economy an ap-
Microentrepreneurship encompasses the sharing economy, in which
pealing alternative consumption mode with lower costs (Cheng and
individuals can establish binding contracts with others and trade peer-
Edwards, 2017). Additionally, the sharing economy allows people who
to-peer products and services (Matofska, 2016). Ferreira et al. (2018)
have a desire for stronger communities to create and maintain social
defined tourism e-microentrepreneurship as “the process of launching
connections (Tussyadiah and Pesonen, 2016; Zhu et al., 2017). Given its
or adding value to a small tourism enterprise, relying partially on web
ecological, societal, and developmental impact, the sharing economy
marketplaces to attract visitors, employing no more than five people,
has gained in popularity and received much attention from scholars and
with the aim to serve a glocal market and permitting the owner a de-
practitioners (Belk, 2014a; Matzler et al., 2015).
sired livelihood and lifestyle” (p. 276). Stabrowski (2017) posited that
In order to overcome economic and institutional issues, consumers
people as businesses not only represent an emerging economic phe-
embrace the development of a collaborative lifestyle through the
nomenon but also create a novel form of urban micro-
sharing economy (Zhang et al., 2018). Shifting from the traditions of
entrepreneurialism through which local governments reframe the so-
ownership, the customer accesses the asset and pays for the experience
ciospatial relations of urban housing in order to meet economic and
of temporary use instead of buying or owning a resource (Bardhi and
environmental needs. Entrepreneurs, including small businesses and
Eckhardt, 2012). Such access-based consumptions are market-mediated
microentrepreneurs, supply goods and services in these peer-to-peer
transactions that offer consumers temporary access to assets in ex-
marketplaces (Sundararajan, 2014). Individuals who work or make
change for access fees, while ownership remains with the provider
money within the sharing economy are considered to be micro-
(Zhang et al., 2018). Benoit et al. (2017) posited that collaborative
entrepreneurs (Martin, 2016). Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of
consumption involves a triadic relationship between a platform pro-
microentrepreneurship and the sharing economy. As Sundararajan
vider, a peer service provider, and a customer. By sharing under-uti-
(2014) pointed out, individuals who offer living spaces to peers as
lized goods and services, sharing economy entrepreneurs allow con-
short-term accommodation through the Airbnb platform are micro-
sumers to prioritize utilization and accessibility over ownership. For
entrepreneurs, whereas their peers who rent the spaces are consumers.
example, peer-to-peer accommodation services, such as Airbnb, appeal
Guided by the review function that serves as a surveillance system,
to travelers economically and socially because they provide unique
Airbnb hosts can be perceived as microentrepreneurs who practice
local experiences at affordable prices. Applying the notion of cultural
pseudosharing (Belk, 2014b) and maneuver in microcompetitive plat-
capitalism to Airbnb, O’Regan and Choe (2017) pointed out that in-
form capitalism (Meged and Christensen, 2017). On the one hand,
dividuals directly buy and sell cultural experiences instead of buying
previous research has indicated that tourism microentrepreneurs are
and selling objects to attain experiences. Airbnb hosts take advantage of
driven by non-financial motives (Ateljevic and Doorne, 2000) and value
the under-utilization of their own resources (homes, rooms, etc.) to
quality of life over enterprise growth (Peters and Schuckert, 2014). On
supply such demand with affordable rentals, and thus generate addi-
the other hand, Meged and Christensen (2017) interviewed two Airbnb
tional revenues out of their individual assets. In the analysis of service
hosts and demonstrated that economic benefits represent the primary
quality, Priporas et al. (2017) suggested that Airbnb guests highly value
motivation for engagement in host activities, whereas sociality was not
the convenience and flexibility of the platform, and greatly appreciate
desired by them. While this study found evidence for economic moti-
the genuine hospitality offered by hosts. In particular, Mauri et al.
vation, the sample size was small. Furthermore, per a recent article that
(2018) revealed that the personal reputation of a host plays a critical
systematically reviewed studies in peer-to-peer accommodation sharing
role in driving the popularity of the host’s service offerings.
research (Prayag and Ozanne, 2018), only two articles in one major
Collaborative consumption has been expanding to areas previously
hospitality and tourism journal, Annals of Tourism Research, in-
deemed as having no collaborative nature (Belk, 2014a). The universal
vestigated host behaviors. The first, Karlsson et al. (2017), revealed that
availability of the Internet became a key driver in boosting the con-
Airbnb hosts tend to refuse permission to book based on the purpose of
stitution of virtual communities and online networks (Mohlmann,
the consumer’s trip. The second, Karlsson and Dolnicar (2016), reported
2015), while the exponential growth of information technologies has
on a study that assessed the reasons behind Airbnb hosts’ rental beha-
enabled the development of social media, which contributes to user-
viors. Although research on the sharing economy has been increasing
generated content, sharing, and collaboration (Matzler et al., 2015). In

150
T. Zhang et al. International Journal of Hospitality Management 79 (2019) 148–157

Table 2 contributions.
Demographic Information about Participants. Stage III: Data collection. Following a constructivist approach, the
Item Range Percentage sampling procedure aimed to promote a diversity of voices. The re-
spondents represented a broad cross-section of people who run sharing-
Age 22-35 years 50% economy businesses. Airbnb was selected as the representative sharing-
36-45 years 23%
economy business in this study. Participants were recruited through
46-55 years 13%
Above 56 years 14%
researchers’ personal contacts and with the help of tourism companies
Gender Female 38% and organizations. The sample was expanded using a snowballing
Male 62% technique. To avoid homogeneity-related problems resulting from this
Ethnicity Caucasian 50% technique, individuals from various backgrounds were approached.
African American 14%
An in-depth interview was deemed appropriate for the current re-
Hispanics 15%
Asian 10% search purpose to explore the nature and understanding of micro-
Others 11% entrepreneurship in the sharing economy. Semi-structured interviews
Annual family income Below $30,000 5% were used as a guide to ask participants about their experiences of being
$30,000- $60,000 50%
microentrepreneurs in the sharing economy. Sixty microentrepreneurs
$60,000-$80,000 30%
Above $80,000 15%
were interviewed, with each interview lasting sixty minutes on average.
Education Below high school graduate 3% The questions were drafted based on the literature review, and the in-
High school graduate or some college 15% terviews began with warm-up questions and explanations about the
2 years or 4 years college 65% sharing economy and microentrepreneurship. The interviews were re-
Master or doctoral degree 22%
corded and transcribed, and the notes were then thematically analyzed
Marital status Single, never married 15%
Married without children 25% with the aid of MAXQDA 12 to illuminate the underlying themes.
Married with children 10% Due to the exploratory nature of the study, no hypotheses guided
Divorced or separated or widowed 25% the analysis. Instead, the analysis was guided by Denzin and Lincoln
Living with a partner 25% (2005) authenticity criteria to validate the data. Data were collected
from August until November 2017, the period during which the re-
searchers interviewed 60 participants in the southeastern region of the
over the last few decades, studies that explore the supply side of the
United States. The majority (50%) of Airbnb hosts had 1–3 years of
sharing economy, and more specifically of the peer-to-peer accom-
experience. Of the 60 interviewed hosts, 65% were full-time service
modation sector, remain scarce. Therefore, the current study aims to fill
providers and 35% were part-time hosts. The demographics of the in-
a research gap and explore both extrinsic and intrinsic motivations for
terviewees are displayed in Table 2. The decision to conclude data
becoming an Airbnb host. Moreover, the outcomes resulting from the
collection was made when the same patterns of answers repeatedly
provision of such peer-to-peer accommodation services will be ex-
emerged, thus suggesting that additional interviews would yield theo-
amined in detail.
retical saturation.
Since the current research adopted a data-driven approach, the
3. Method analysis was guided by grounded theory (Mehmetoglu and Altinay,
2006) and, more specifically, by memoing. In the research notes of
The exploratory nature of the current study and its goal—to hear Creswell (1998), grounded theory is defined as a research strategy that
from actual microentrepreneurs in the sharing economy—require a aims to explore a particular situation or phenomenon in order to pro-
qualitative research approach (Creswell and Cheryl, 2017). This project duce or conceptualize a theory or an abstract analytical scheme.
adopted a naturalistic approach to explain phenomena in a specific Grounded theory is frequently adopted by hospitality and tourism
context, and not by means of statistical analytics or other quantification scholars (Mehmetoglu and Altinay, 2006) to explain phenomena by
methods. Therefore, the adoption of a qualitative research method was emphasizing the inductive generation of theory from data. In the cur-
found to be reasonable. In order to ensure the credibility, trustworthi- rent study, which aims to explore the phenomenon of micro-
ness, and dependability of the collected data, an attempt was made to entrepreneurship in the peer-to-peer accommodation sector, the au-
adopt assessment procedures following other research projects that had thors followed a grounded theory approach and, more specifically, a
used in-depth qualitative analysis. During the selection of the assess- memoing technique to conduct the data analysis. In the memoing
ment procedures, three criteria were raised to develop the decision process, researchers make notes, available to other researchers, on key
trail: visibility, comprehensibility, and acceptability. Finally, a five- thoughts and hunches during data collection. This process served as the
stage decision trail (Akkerman et al., 2008) was adopted to describe the basis for Stage IV, during which categories and units of analysis were
research process. developed from the processed data. Given that the study focused on
Stage I: Document stage (Akkerman et al., 2008). A critical review of themes, no attention was paid to semiotics. Consequently, interpreta-
the literature on the sharing economy and microentrepreneurship was tion was relatively easy, and the two researchers who separately ana-
undertaken and a qualitative epistemology adopted. The theoretical lyzed the data achieved a high level of agreement (80% similarity),
foundation lies in the conceptualization of microentrepreneurship in which is suggested as acceptable by Landis and Koch (1977).
the sharing economy. An approach that emphasizes people’s experi- There are different schools of thought on how to use the literature in
ences and their connections with environments was adopted to provide data-driven research. In the current study, the researchers considered
participants with the opportunity to speak and describe themselves. The both the related literature and data analysis results to maximize the
researchers’ role during this stage was to be active learners instead of contributions to theory and practice. Stage V is linked with the process
experts. document, which fully reflects the process of both gathering and ana-
Stage II: Determining the form of the final document. Recorded casual lyzing data. The developed themes and processed data were system-
talks were carried out in an attempt to create a relaxing atmosphere, in atically analyzed and summarized in a report to document the actions
order to encourage participants to share and discuss their feelings about undertaken and the associated results.
being microentrepreneurs in the emergent subeconomies of the sharing
economy and, more specifically, in the peer-to-peer accommodation
sector. The receipt of first-hand feedback from stakeholders has con-
crete managerial implications and can provide significant theoretical

151
T. Zhang et al.
4. Findings
4.1. Motivations in the sharing economy
Traditional motivation theories posit internal and external motiva-
tion factors that make individuals do certain things (Erez and Isen,
2002). Internal motivators include personal interests and self-en-
hancement values that are observed by performing certain behaviors.
For example, in order to stay healthy, people are internally motivated
to exercise and maintain a healthy diet. On the other hand, external
motivators refer to the forces outside individuals, such as families,
peers, environments, or other external conditions, that may influence
their decision making. In the context of microentrepreneurship in the
sharing economy, both external and internal motivations were observed
in the results of the thematic analysis.
Financial motivations were the most frequently mentioned moti-
vation (50 out of 60 participants) for individuals to want to work as
Airbnb hosts. Financial motivations include paying off the mortgage,
helping offset the cost of maintenance, earning a living, and helping
increase family income. Benoit et al. (2017) also identified economic
benefits as one of the primary peer service provider motives, since
starting a microbusiness can help a household diversify its sources of
income and even counter unemployment (Bögenhold and Klinglmair,
2015). Thus,
Hypothesis 1. Financial motivations are positively related to an
individual’s willingness to become a microentrepreneur in the peer-
to-peer accommodation sector.
Cultural motivations were the second most mentioned motivation
(42 out of 60 participants) during the interviews. Learning about new
cultures has become a popular motivation factor among Airbnb hosts
(Wu et al., 2017a,b). Given that many travelers come from different
backgrounds and cultures and usually stay at an Airbnb property for
one or two nights, it is common for the host and guest to share cultural
knowledge and values. Airbnb has seized on this trend by launching a
match-up campaign that allows hosts and guests to mingle and find the
best “fit” in the virtual community, where they share information, make
inquiries, and post their preferences about homes, neighborhoods, and
experiences. Hosts often participate in Airbnb with the intention of
meeting new people from other cultures and experiencing a certain
level of “strangeness.” They not only share their private homes to
provide a place to stay, but also allow their guests to have an authentic
experience and live like a local. Hence,
Hypothesis 2. Cultural motivations are positively related to an
individual’s willingness to become a microentrepreneur in the peer-
to-peer accommodation sector.
The social factor is another motivator that influences participants
(35 out of 60 participants) to start a sharing-economy business. Social
needs are one of the key human needs suggested by Maslow (1971) in
his hierarchy of needs. This is also in accordance with social capital
theories (Bourdieu, 1986). Bonding social capital represents strong ties
between individuals who provide mutual emotional support through
reciprocity (Williams, 2006). Further, individuals can gain new and
useful information through these loose connections (Putnam, 2000). In
this context, social components include family, friends, peers, and new
people that might become friends. Participants reported that running
Airbnb services provides a chance to meet new people, make more
friends, and increase their social connections. Furthermore, some par-
ticipants felt highly supported by their families and friends. As a result,
participants in the sharing economy can develop social relationships or
bonds with each other. Therefore,
Hypothesis 3. Social motivations are positively related to an
individual’s willingness to become a microentrepreneur in the peer-
to-peer accommodation sector.
152
International Journal of Hospitality Management 79 (2019) 148–157
The freedom and flexibility of the job was identified as another major
motivating factor for Airbnb hosts (25 out of 60 participants) to start
their microentrepreneurial activities. Being one’s own boss and taking
full control of one’s time while earning a sustained income is a dream of
many (Vial and Hanoteau, 2015). Due to the nature of the sharing
economy, this type of business offers great freedom and ownership to
microentrepreneurs, many of whom start their own business as a live-
lihood strategy that offers additional benefits such as flexibility and
independence (Maloney, 2004). Operating in the informal sector also
offers entrepreneurs more autonomy, flexibility, and freedom, and the
opportunity to cultivate and showcase their creativity. Bögenhold and
Klinglmair (2015) found evidence that working without hierarchies is
one of the main motives that drive self-employment. Indeed, en-
trepreneurial freedom enables microbusiness owners to be innovative
and leads customers to co-create value. Thus,
Hypothesis 4. Freedom motivations are positively related to an
individual’s willingness to become a microentrepreneur in the peer-
to-peer accommodation sector.
Hypothesis 5. Flexibility motivations are positively related to an
individual’s willingness to become a microentrepreneur in the peer-
to-peer accommodation sector.
Easiness to operate and availability of resources represent two other
motivations found in the analysis. Some participants (10 out of 60)
found it easy to start and/or manage Airbnb activities, while 11 out of
60 hosts mentioned spare rooms or vacant houses as resources they
would not like to waste, and thus they shared redundant resources with
guests to generate additional revenue. Airbnb hosts find the operational
aspects of the business easy to cope with, and these can even make them
better property owners. More importantly, the phenomenon of an en-
trepreneurial ladder has been developed, such that hosts move from
being afraid to manage the business, to handling it in an increasingly
professional way (Lemonis, 2015). Putting extra space to better use is
another motive that prompts people to engage in hosting activities.
Hence,
Hypothesis 6. Easiness to operate is positively related to an
individual’s willingness to become a microentrepreneur in the peer-
to-peer accommodation sector.
Hypothesis 7. Availability of resources is positively related to an
individual’s willingness to become a microentrepreneur in the peer-to-
peer accommodation sector.
Excitement about future perspectives was the final motivation factor
identified in the thematic analysis. Five participants found running a
sharing-economy business “a cool thing” or believed the sharing
economy would continue to grow and become a future trend. In theory,
Malone and Lepper (1987) identified the excitement of involvement as
one of four main sources of intrinsic motivation. Therefore,
Hypothesis 8. Excitement about future perspectives is positively
related to an individual’s willingness to become a microentrepreneur
in the peer-to-peer accommodation sector.
Please see Appendix A for the supporting quotes.
4.2. Outcomes of the sharing economy
During data analysis of the impacts related to the sharing economy
on microentrepreneurs, their communities, and the societies in which
they live, the researchers observed two major contradicting themes:
positive versus negative impacts. Positive outcomes reported by the
participants mainly related to five factors: financial gain, social con-
nections, cultural learning, personal growth, and a feeling of achieve-
ment. Although some participants did not report any negative impacts,
30 participants did report negative aspects of being Airbnb hosts. These
included a lack of privacy, emotional stress about guests’ reviews, and
T. Zhang et al.
Fig. 1. Visualization of the motivations and outcomes described by Airbnb hosts.
various other risks (e.g., lost or damaged household items and rude
and/or disrespectful guests).
4.2.1. Positive outcomes
The majority of positive outcomes were consistent with the moti-
vation factors that participants reported during the interviews.
However, despite the fact that the financial aspect was the most men-
tioned motivational factor, cultural learning was identified as the most
significant outcome by Airbnb hosts (54 out of 60 participants).
Experiencing different cultures and traditions is consistent with the
nature of the sharing business, which comprises the exchange of in-
formation between various groups of people with diverse backgrounds.
Many participants learned various customs and traditions and even
some languages from their guests while accommodating their stays.
Participants stated they would never have had a chance to learn about
such diverse cultures without being Airbnb hosts.
Financial gains constituted the second most important outcome
mentioned by Airbnb hosts (43 out of 60 participants). The sharing
economy enables microentrepreneurs to earn a sustainable income and
support themselves and their families, and even contributes to the
overall economic performance of certain regions (Fang et al., 2016).
Social connections were often mentioned (25 out of 60 participants)
as a positive outcome provided to Airbnb hosts. In social theories
(Putnam, 2000), outcomes such as “making friends with some cool
people” or “getting to know some interesting people” represent social
events and bonds that individuals value. Despite a commonly discussed
reason (i.e., financial gain) for owning sharing businesses, “making
profits” was described only as supplementary to the social connection
motives for engaging in the sharing economy.
Some participants mentioned personal growth (9 out of 60) as a
positive outcome of being a microentrepreneur in the sharing economy.
They reported that by being Airbnb hosts they learned a great deal
about customer service, communication, patience, and hospitality.
Dealing with various people from different backgrounds is a demanding
task that requires great professionalism, social skills, and customer
service techniques. Sometimes, due to various conditions (e.g., un-
expected guest arrival delays, various pre-visit/on-site guest enquiries,
etc.), Airbnb hosts need to understand how to meet or surpass their
customers’ needs. Accordingly, when moving up the entrepreneurial
ladder, microentrepreneurs develop skills to handle various issues in a
professional manner (Lemonis, 2015).
Finally, five participants described a feeling of achievement as one of
the positive outcomes during the interviewing process. Reijonen and
Komppula (2007) point out that financial gains are not always the
primary motivation for microentrepreneurs. Instead, non-financial
factors, such as self-fulfillment and goal achievement, could be better
153
International Journal of Hospitality Management 79 (2019) 148–157
indicators of success (Walker and Brown, 2004). The analysis in the
current study supports the fact that operating their own businesses
makes Airbnb hosts feel successful and in control of their lives.
Please see Appendix B for the supporting quotes.
4.2.2. Negative outcomes
While many benefits of running a sharing economy business were
discussed during the interviewing process, some participants mentioned
negative aspects. Overall, three major factors (i.e., lack of privacy,
emotional stress about guests’ reviews, and various other risks) were
reported by 30 interviewees, while the other 30 reported no negative
impact whatsoever.
Lack of privacy was viewed as the most challenging outcome of
running peer-to-peer accommodation services (23 out of 30 partici-
pants). Some hosts may lose some of their privacy when residing with
unknown guests. One interviewee even stated that some guests tended
to be overly involved with the host family, thus accentuating the loss of
privacy.
Emotional stress about guests’ reviews was also identified as a main
concern by 12 out of 30 participants. It is obvious that the rating and
review system built into the platform is key to the success of Airbnb
hosts. Therefore, guests’ reviews can cause a large amount of tension
and stress. Both industry reports and academic research have revealed
that sharing-business participants feel emotionally exhausted by unfair
guest reviews (Kapoor and Tucker, 2017).
Finally, other risks were mentioned as a challenge or threat (5 out of
30 participants), including property safety risks, such as property da-
mage caused by guests and the theft of hosts’ possessions. Furthermore,
guests’ bad manners (e.g., being arrogant or overly demanding) can
have personal or emotional consequences for the hosts who share their
own space. Airbnb hosts can also be physically vulnerable if guests turn
out to be dangerous. Additionally, sharing businessowners are exposed
to the risk of being sued by guests who are injured on hosts’ property
(McNamara, 2015).
Please see Appendix B for supporting quotes.
Fig. 1, describes the motivational factors of starting and operating
peer-to-peer accommodation services, as well as the positive and ne-
gative impacts resulting from such microentrepreneurial activities.
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical implications
Research about microentrepreneurship in the sharing economy has
expanded considerably in the past decade due to the increasing global
presence of multinationals, such as Uber, Lyft, Kickstarter, WeWork,
T. Zhang et al.
and Airbnb, which began operating for the most part between 2008 and
2012. Because of its relative novelty, researchers have only been
studying the sharing economy and the peer-to-peer accommodation
sector for the past few years. Despite growth in the number of studies
regarding this new economic phenomenon, as highlighted by Prayag
and Ozanne (2018) systematic review of peer-to-peer accommodation
sharing research, further empirical studies are necessary in order to
better comprehend its effects on individuals, communities, and society
in general (Zhang et al., 2018), and to identify people’s motivations to
become—and the outcomes of becoming—microentrepreneurs and,
more specifically, Airbnb hosts.
To the authors’ knowledge, to date only about 40 academic articles
about Airbnb and/or peer-to-peer accommodation have been published
in hospitality journals. Such research has focused on topics ranging
from the effects of Airbnb on the hotel industry’s performance (Xie and
Kwok, 2017); service quality perceptions, customer satisfaction, and
behavioral intentions (Pappas, 2017; Priporas et al., 2017; Wu et al.,
2017a,b); reviews and listings (Xie and Mao, 2017; Yong and Xie,
2017); and co-creation processes (Camilleri and Neuhofer, 2017; Zhang
et al., 2018). That is, most studies published so far relate to consumers’
cognition, attitudes, and behavioral outcomes, and little research has
examined peer-to-peer accommodation services from a service provi-
der’s standpoint. The limited number of host-related studies have fo-
cused on two main themes, such as guest/host experiences (e.g., per-
ceived host trustworthiness, determinants of satisfaction, and likelihood
of use) and host behaviors (e.g., motivations to refuse permission to
book; Ert et al., 2016; Mauri et al., 2018; Mohlmann, 2015; Prayag and
Ozanne, 2018). To fill this void, the current study tried to explore the
motivations behind microentrepreneurs in the peer-to-peer accom-
modation sector, as well as the outcomes (i.e., positive vs. negative)
affecting Airbnb hosts.
Consistent with previous literature, the current study showed that
financial (Benoit et al., 2017; Karlsson and Dolnicar, 2016), cultural
(Yannopoulou et al., 2013), and social motivations (Boxall et al., 2017)
were significant reasons for microentrepreneurs to become Airbnb
hosts. This is in accordance with Maslow (1954) hierarchy of needs,
which specifies that some needs take precedence over others: once basic
needs (i.e., physiological and safety needs) are met, human beings be-
come motivated by the higher-order social, psychological and self-ful-
fillment needs.
This study was also able to reveal other interesting motivations for
individuals to become Airbnb hosts, such as the search for freedom and
flexibility (Bögenhold and Klinglmair, 2015; Maloney, 2004), the ease
of becoming a host (Lemonis, 2015), the availability of resources, and
excitement about future perspective (Malone and Lepper, 1987). This is
in accordance with a model suggested by Segal et al. (2005), which
confirmed that an individual’s entrepreneurial self-efficacy and desire
for self-employment have positive relationships with intentions to be-
coming an entrepreneur, as well as with a research note by Ferreira
et al. (2018), which developed and validated a tourism e-micro-
entrepreneurial self-efficacy scale that includes constructs related to the
willingness to pursue innovation and the use of existing resources.
Furthermore, based on a rigorous qualitative research approach
(Creswell and Cheryl, 2017), the current study assessed the main out-
comes that Airbnb hosts experience from their microentrepreneurial
activities. Two major contradicting themes (i.e., positive versus nega-
tive impacts) were observed during the data gathering and analysis
process. Similar to prior literature, cultural learning (Yannopoulou
et al., 2013), financial gains (Bögenhold and Klinglmair, 2015), social
connections (Putnam, 2000), personal growth (Lemonis, 2015), and
feelings of achievement (Walker and Brown, 2004) were cited as po-
sitive outcomes. The mismatch between motivations and outcomes is
interesting, since the results show that despite the need for financial
returns, Airbnb hosts view cultural learning as the most positive out-
come, followed by financial gain, social connection, and personal
growth. Most motivations and rewards cited by Airbnb hosts are
154
International Journal of Hospitality Management 79 (2019) 148–157
intrinsic in nature, thus confirming the more hedonic purpose of peer-
to-peer accommodation activities (Waterman et al., 2008).
Among the negative outcomes, which were only mentioned by half
of the surveyed hosts, a lack of privacy was perceived as the most
problematic consequence, followed by emotional stress about guests’
reviews and various other risks related to guests’ attitudes and beha-
viors. This is congruent with prior research, which revealed that trust
(i.e., mistrust between strangers and concerns for privacy) was the most
cited barrier to the sharing economy (Karlsson et al., 2017; Tussyadiah,
2015; Tussyadiah and Park, 2018). Moreover, Airbnb hosts may feel
threatened by negative reviews because these tend to have an un-
favorable effect on attitudes towards a product and purchasing inten-
tions (Vermeulen and Seegers, 2009), and, as a result, on sales (Liu,
2006). Finally, in accordance with our findings, stories regarding bad
customer behavior and other operational risks in the peer-to-peer ac-
commodation sector proliferate on the web (McNamara, 2015). Despite
these negative outcomes, it seems the positive outcomes resulting from
peer-to-peer activities outweigh the former. This finding is in ac-
cordance with studies by Segal et al. (2005) and Hvide and Panos
(2014), which found that an individual’s tolerance for risk has a posi-
tive effect on his or her intentions to become an entrepreneur.
5.2. Practical implications
From the current findings, it is reasonable to suggest that Airbnb is
doing a great job in satisfying the needs and wants of hosts, since their
motivations and perceived positive outcomes are somewhat congruent.
For instance, the majority of hosts believe they are able to meet their
needs from a personal, financial, cultural, and social standpoint. This is
extremely positive for Airbnb, which has done an outstanding job in
attracting millions of hosts since its inception (Holmes, 2017). In order
to keep hosts motivated, however, it is important for Airbnb to continue
to adequately compensate their hosts from a financial standpoint, since
the emergence of new competitors and types of accommodation (e.g.,
OTAs and home rental companies) is creating some concern among
hosts, some of whom have seen their listings suffer from a drop in views
and income (Ting, 2017). Moreover, to maintain its competitive ad-
vantage and for hosts to feel financially rewarded for their efforts,
Airbnb should charge lower service fees than the competition (i.e.,
Airbnb host service fees only represent about 3% to 5% of rental prices,
while other companies such as Booking.com and Expedia charge an
average of 15% to 20% for every booking; Ting, 2017).
Not only does Airbnb have to fulfill hosts’ financial needs in order to
motivate them, they must also encourage Airbnb hosts and guests to
interact more often in order for social bonds and authentic cultural
exchanges to emerge from such social interactions and for guests to post
positive reviews about hosts. Similarly, Airbnb has done its homework
when it comes to educating both hosts and guests about specific service
standards and behaviors to adopt (e.g., related to communication,
availability, check-in, cleanliness, and overall experience) during the
service delivery process. Accordingly, the videos, pictures and instruc-
tions available on Airbnb’s website, which instruct hosts and guests
about service principles, proper communication, and hospitality, have
been groundbreaking in the peer-to-peer accommodation sector and
have helped hosts to offer better services and amenities and guests to
understand what is expected from them.
Despite Airbnb’s success in connecting hosts and guests worldwide,
the company should enhance their hosts’ privacy and mitigate the
possible risks and emotional stress they may suffer as service providers.
For instance, to improve their privacy, Airbnb allows hosts to describe
the types of interaction they would like to develop with their guests,
indicating whether such interactions will be extensive or limited. To
limit inconvenient guest attitudes or behaviors, hosts are encouraged to
state their house rules in their listing. For example, hosts can specify
their check-in and check-out times, and whether smoking, pets, parties
or events, and even children are allowed on their premises. Such a user-
T. Zhang et al.
friendly and transparent interface allows hosts and customers to com-
municate clearly with each other before, during, and after a guest’s
arrival, which helps moderate guests and hosts’ expectations and leads
to value co-creation (Zhang et al., 2018). In sum, despite the negative
outcomes described by some hosts, which Airbnb should watch closely
and try to alleviate, it is reasonable to suggest that the positive out-
comes generated by peer-to-peer accommodation activities outnumber
the negative outcomes.
6. Limitations and future research directions
The present study revealed the motivations and outcomes that
Airbnb hosts seek and benefit (or suffer) from in their micro-
entrepreneurial activities in the peer-to-peer accommodation sector,
which is part of the sharing economy. Using a qualitative research
approach that involved a series of semi-structured interviews, several
motivations (i.e., financial, social, and cultural benefit; ease of opera-
tion; available resources; excitement about future perspectives; flex-
ibility; and freedom) emerged from this investigation. The findings also
revealed that positive outcomes (i.e., cultural learning, financial gain,
social connection, personal growth, and feelings of achievement) and
negative outcomes (i.e., lack of privacy, emotional stress about guests’
reviews, and other risks) materialized from the hosts’ activities and
interactions with guests. These findings provide insights about hosts’
psychological wants and needs, which direct their decisions and be-
haviors (Dann, 1981), and explain the pros and cons of being a mi-
croentrepreneur in the peer-to-peer accommodation sector.
However, this study is not free from limitations. First, it included
only Airbnb hosts, and so one cannot generalize the findings to the
Appendix A. Supporting Quotes for the Proposed Motivations for the Micro-entrepreneurship in the Sharing Economy
Hypothesis
Hypothesis 1: Financial motivations are positively related to an individual’s willingness “Financial reason is my top 1 reason to start the Airbnb……I am writer and most of the
to become a micro-entrepreneur in the peer-to-peer accommodation sector.
Hypothesis 2: Cultural motivations are positively related to an individual’s willingness to “……I often encourage my guests to teach me about their culture or to have dinner with
become a micro-entrepreneur in the peer-to-peer accommodation sector.
Hypothesis 3: Social motivations are positively related to an individual’s willingness to
become a micro-entrepreneur in the peer-to-peer accommodation sector.
Hypothesis 4: Freedom motivations are positively related to an individual’s willingness to “I am so thankful to Airbnb because it enables me to be my own boss and I was able to quit
become a micro-entrepreneur in the peer-to-peer accommodation sector.
Hypothesis 5: Flexibility motivations are positively related to an individual’s willingness “Flexibility! It is! […] Flexibility is the major thing I care, and Airbnb gives me that
to become a micro-entrepreneur in the peer-to-peer accommodation sector.
Hypothesis 6: Easiness to operate is positively related to an individual’s willingness to
become a micro-entrepreneur in the peer-to-peer accommodation sector.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 79 (2019) 148–157
entire population of microentrepreneurs that are part of the sharing
economy. Subsequent studies should involve microentrepreneurs who
work for other companies. Similarly, this study was exploratory in
nature and sought to better understand the needs and desires, and the
intrinsic and extrinsic outcomes, that result from such entrepreneurial
activities in the peer-to-peer accommodation sector. Thus, other sectors
could be further explored, such as car and ride sharing (e.g., Zipcar and
Uber), workspace sharing (e.g., WeWork), and peer-to-peer lending and
crowdfunding (e.g., Kickstarter), in order to verify if (dis)similarities
exist among these different sectors with respect to hosts’ motivations
and perceived outcomes.
Furthermore, more research is needed to determine whether the
aforementioned motivations predict outcomes, since other variables
(e.g., hosts’ personality and sociodemographic background, listings,
reviews, and prices) may affect the described positive and negative
outcomes. In order to do so, it is recommended that scales for each
construct be developed and refined following rigorous psychometric
tests. Once these scales have been developed and tested in the peer-to-
peer accommodation sector, the structural model should be expanded
to other sectors to verify its generalizability. Finally, additional ante-
cedents, outcomes, and moderators could be further amended in the
proposed structural model.
Acknowledgements
This project was funded by VPR Advancement of Early Career
Researchers (VPR AECR) 2017-2018 offered by University of Central
Florida.
Supporting quotes
time I stay at home. To offset some of the costs of the house maintenance, I started Airbnb
and I found it really helpful. I am glad I made a good choice.” (Meimei, 48)
“Well, the main reason is to earn extra money. I was a full-time housewife. Airbnb makes
me start my own business and I like it. ” (Alice, 35)
me if they are available……” (Melissa, 36)
“I am cheerful person and I like to see the world. Airbnb gave me an opportunity to let me
know various cultures or traditions…….” (Joe, 40)
“I gain a great deal of cultural experience hosting people from all over the world. Once a
woman from China gave me a beautiful Chinese plaque as gift.” (Peter, 25)
“I get to know a lot of interesting people” (Cooper, 35)
“I meet people from all over (the world) and have stayed in touch with a few (of them)”
(James, 40)
“I like travel and make friends. Airbnb really got me a lot of cool friends while I host them
at my Airbnb hustle. I enjoy talking with friends and the whole process is amazing.”
(Vanessa, 27)
“I saw a couple of friends (who started Airbnb) and (I) was encouraged by them to make
an investment. It went all right so we never stopped.” (Angela, 26)
my job and still be financially capable…….” (Darcy, 37)
“I was a book salesperson and I couldn’t afford any vacations because I have to travel
around…… you know……I quit my job and I started Airbnb…….this is so cool. It gives me
a lot of freedom and I can allocate my time entirely. I do enjoy that!” (Jay, 45)
completely! You can decide when to rent, when to close out. It is amazing!” (Macy, 37)
“My main motivation is flexible schedule. You know……. I like travel and I can rent out
the home when I am on travel. It is really cool…… when you enjoy travelling and someone
can pay for the expenses somehow……. ” (Jackie, 28)
“……It is so easy to start on Airbnb platform. The guidelines are easy to follow and simple
to set up..….” (Jack, 36)
“Managing part is easy. I have cleaners to clean the room for me after each guest left. …..
Also, there are many tools for hosts to use to better promote the business on Airbnb…….
and you can literally manage everything through your smartphones……” (Farcy, 50)
155
T. Zhang et al. International Journal of Hospitality Management 79 (2019) 148–157

Hypothesis 7: Availability of resources is positively related to an individual’s willingness “We had a spare room. Family and friends visit often enough (so) we couldn’t get a long
to become a micro-entrepreneur in the peer-to-peer accommodation sector. term roommate. But I felt like a secular sin to have an empty bedroom in this city” (Nyc,
34)
“I have a condo in the mountains that would sit vacant for most of the year. I thought I
could turn it into an investment property……” (Farcy, 50)

Hypothesis 8: Excitement about future perspectives is positively related to an individual’s “It seems very cool and the new thing that is going to be something big in the future……”
willingness to become a micro-entrepreneur in the peer-to-peer accommodation s- (Blair, 35)
ector. “Airbnb is a good way to create a world to connect the human, financial, and growth
economy. This is big ……. and it is definitely a trend in the near future.” (Jane, 26)

Appendix B. Supporting quotes for Positive and Negative Outcomes of Micro-entrepreneurship in the Sharing Economy

Outcomes Supporting Quotes

Cultural learning “Airbnb is an interesting way of making unlikely acquaintances with different people from various cultural backgrounds.” (Brian, 50)
“I do get to know about different people and their cultures which is very exciting and great.” (Katherine, 40)

Financial gains “I have monetary gain from putting my extra room to good use, which is the most important outcome for me and was the initial one that got me to
start renting out the room with Airbnb.” (Maria, 55)

Social connections “Normally I don’t try to socialize with people that I don’t know. But at Airbnb most of the guests are kind, polite, and well-mannered and I made a
lot of social connections through Airbnb.” (Kate, 34)

Personal growth “I have learned a great deal about customer service. Just dealing with people in a professional and service oriented manner has taught me a great
deal of patience.” (James, 50)

Feeling of achievement “Airbnb made me feel I am successful and taking the whole control of my own life.” (Wallenda, 41)
“Thanks to Airbnb, I have my own business. I feel I am making something big…… catching the trend. When people come back to choose my home
again, I feel I did a good job.” (Fey, 45)

Lack of privacy “Sometimes I get guests who tend to be little too involved with my family, and seem to expect me to entertain them…. I lost my privacy as well as
my family feel the same.” (James, 40)

Emotional stress about guests’ “The ratings and review systems built into services such as Airbnb are absolutely key to their success…. without ratings and reviews, Aribnb would
reviews basically just be Craiglist. But as a longtime Airbnb host, I can say that there is one very big different between the way Airbnb hosts and many of the
service’s guests view reviews, and it’s one that causes an almost unbelievable amount of tension and stress for hosts.” (Jane, 26)

Risks “Some guests are messy…. Arrogant and overly demanding guests…. You know, sometimes the guests are a little creepy….I have met some people
occasionnaly rude, but that doesn’t happen very often.” (Xiaomei, 43)

References
Acemoglu, D., 2001. Good jobs versus bad jobs. J. Labor Econ. 19 (1), 1–21.
Akkerman, S., Admiraal, W., Brekelmans, M., Oost, H., 2008. Auditing quality of research
in social sciences. Qual. Quant. 42 (2), 257–274.
Ateljevic, I., Doorne, S., 2000. ’Staying within the fence’: Lifestyle entrepreneurship in
tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 8 (5), 378–392.
Bardhi, F., Eckhardt, G.M., 2012. Access-based consumption: the case of car sharing. J.
Consum. Res. 39 (4), 881–898.
Bates, T., 1990. Entrepreneur human capital inputs and small business longevity. Rev.
Econ. Stat. 72 (4), 551–559.
Belk, R., 2014a. You are what you can access: sharing and collaborative consumption
online. J. Bus. Res. 67 (8), 1595–1600.
Belk, R., 2014b. Sharing versus pseudo-sharing in web 2.0. Anthropologist 18 (1), 7–23.
Benoit, S., Baker, T.L., Bolton, R.N., Gruber, T., Kandampully, J., 2017. A triadic fra-
mework for collaborative consumption (CC): motives, activities and resources &
capabilities of actors. J. Bus. Res. 79, 219–227.
Bögenhold, D., Klinglmair, A., 2015. Micro-entrepreneurship: tendency towards pre-
carious work? Empirical findings for Austria. Athens J. Econ. Bus. 1 (2), 107–121.
Bourdieu, P., 1986. The forms of Capital. In: Richardson, J.G. (Ed.), Handbook of Theory
and Research for the Sociology of Education. Greenwood, New York, pp. 241–258.
Boxall, K., Nyanjom, J., Slaven, J., 2017. Disability, hospitality and the new sharing
economy. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage EarlyCite).
Brandstätter, H., 2011. Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: a look at five meta-
analyses. Pers. Individ. Dif. 51 (3), 222–230.
Brochado, A., Troilo, M., Shah, A., 2017. Airbnb customer experience: evidence of con-
vergence across three countries. Ann. Tour. Res. 63, 210–212.
Camilleri, J., Neuhofer, B., 2017. Value Co-creation and Co-destruction in the Airbnb
sharing economy. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 29 (9), 2322–2340.
Carrasco, R., 1999. Transitions to and from self-employment in Spain: an empirical
analysis. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 61 (3), 315–341.
Cheng, M., 2016. Sharing economy: a review and agenda for future research. Int. J. Hosp.
Manag. 57, 60–70.
Cheng, M., Edwards, D., 2017. A comparative automated content analysis approach on
the review of the sharing economy discourse in tourism and hospitality. Curr. Issues
Tour. 1–15.
Creswell, J.W., 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five
Traditions. Sage, London.
Creswell, J.W., Cheryl, N.P., 2017. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing
Among Five Approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Dann, G., 1981. Tourism motivations: an appraisal. Ann. Tour. Res. 8 (2), 189–219.
Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., 2005. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage,
Thousand Oaks.
Erez, A., Isen, A.M., 2002. The influence of positive affect on the components of ex-
pectancy motivation. J. Appl. Psychol. 87 (6), 1055–1067.
Ert, E., Fleischer, A., Magen, N., 2016. Trust and reputation in the sharing economy: the
role of personal photos in Airbnb. Tour. Manag. 55, 62–73.
Fang, B., Ye, Q., Law, R., 2016. Effect of sharing economy on tourism industry employ-
ment. Ann. Tour. Res. 57, 264–267.
Ferreira, B.S., Morais, D.B., Pollack, J.M., Bunds, K.S., 2018. Development and validation
of the tourism e-microentrepreneurial self-efficacy scale. Tour. Anal. 23, 275–282.
Fields, G.S., 2012. Poverty and low earnings in the developing world. In: Jefferson, P.
(Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Poverty. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, pp. 249–276.
Floro, M., Swain, R., 2013. Food security, gender, and occupational choice among urban
low-income households. World Dev. 42, 89–99.
Folta, T.B., Delmar, F., Wennberg, K., 2010. Hybrid entrepreneurship. Manage. Sci. 56
(2), 253–269.
Gindling, T.H., Newhouse, D., 2014. Self-employment in the developing world. World
Dev. 56, 313–331.
Gutierrez, J., Garcia-Palomares, J.C., Romanillos, G., Salas-Olmedo, M.H., 2017. Airbnb
in tourist cities: comparing spatial patterns of hotels and peer-to-peer accommoda-
tion. Tour. Manag. 62, 278–291.
Guttentag, D.A., Smith, S.L.J., 2017. Assessing Airbnb as a disruptive innovation relative
to hotels: substitution and comparative performance expectations. Int. J. Hosp.
Manag. 64, 1–10.
Hellwig, K., Morhart, F., Girardin, F., Hauser, M., 2015. Exploring different types of
sharing: a proposed segmentation of the market for “Sharing” businesses. Psychol.
Mark. 32 (9), 891–906.
Holmes, R., 2017. Airbnb Growth in Southern Africa Raises Familiar Issues. Retrieved
from. https://skift.com/2017/11/20/airbnb-growth-in-southern-africa-raises-
familiar-issues/.
Honig, B., 1998. What determines success? Examining the human, financial, and social
capital of Jamaican microentrepreneurs. J. Bus. Ventur. 13 (5), 371–394.
Honjo, Y., 2004. Growth of new start-up firms: evidence from the japanese manufacturing
industry. Appl. Econ. 36 (4), 343–355.
Hvide, H.K., Panos, G.A., 2014. Risk tolerance and entrepreneurship. J. Financ. Econ. 111
(1), 200–223.
Jovanovic, B., 1982. Selection and the evolution of industry. Econ. J. Econ. Soc. 50 (3),
649–670.
Kalleberg, A.L., 2009. Precarious work – insecure workers: employment relations in

156
T. Zhang et al.
transition. Am. Sociol. Rev. 74 (1), 1–22.
Kalleberg, A.L., 2011. Good jobs, Bad jobs: The Rise of Polarized and Precarious
Employment Systems in the United States. Russel Sage Foundation, New York.
Kapoor, A., Tucker, C.E., 2017. How do platform participants respond to an unfair rating?
An Analysis of a Ride-Sharing Platform Using a Quasi-Experiment. Retrieved from.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2970772.
Karlsson, L., Dolnicar, S., 2016. Someone’s been sleeping in my bed. Ann. Tour. Res. 58,
159–162.
Karlsson, L., Kemperman, A., Dolnicar, S., 2017. May I sleep in your bed? Getting per-
mission to book. Ann. Tour. Res. 62, 1–12.
Kramer, M.R., Porter, M., 2011. Creating shared value. Harv. Bus. Rev. 89 (1/2), 62–77.
Lamberton, C.P., Rose, R.L., 2012. When ours is better than mine? A framework for un-
derstanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. J. Mark. 76
(4), 109–125.
Landis, J.R., Koch, G.G., 1977. An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the
assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics 363–374.
Lee, D., 2016. How Airbnb short-term rentals exacerbate Los Angeles’s affordable housing
crisis: analysis and policy recommendations. Harvard Law Policy Rev. 10 (1),
229–254.
Lemonis, V., 2015. Airbnb, Sweet Airbnb. Hosts’ Perspectives on Managing Commercial
Homes and Offering Experiences. Retrieved from. IMIC. http://imic2015.
conferences.gr/wp-content/uploads/LEMONIS.pdf.
Liang, S., Schuckert, M., Law, R., Chen, C.C., 2017. Be a “Superhost”: the importance of
badge systems for peer-to-peer rental accommodations. Tour. Manag. 60, 454–465.
Liu, Y., 2006. Word of mouth for movies: its dynamics and impact on Box office revenue.
J. Mark. 70 (3), 74–89.
Liu, S.Q., Mattila, A., 2017. Airbnb: online targeted advertising, sense of power, and
consumer decisions. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 60, 33–41.
Lucas Jr., R.E., 1978. On the size distribution of business firms. Bell. J. Econ. 9 (2),
508–523.
Malone, T.W., Lepper, M.R., 1987. Making learning fun: a taxonomy of intrinsic moti-
vations for learning. In: Snow, R.E., Farr, M.J. (Eds.), Aptitude, Learning, and
Instruction: III. Conative and Affective Process Analyses. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp.
223–225.
Maloney, W.F., 2004. Informality revisited. World Dev. 32 (7), 1159–1178.
Martin, C.J., 2016. The sharing economy: a pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish
form of neoliberal capitalism? Ecol. Econ. 121, 149–159.
Maslow, A.H., 1954. Motivation and Personality. Harper and Row, New York.
Maslow, A.H., 1971. The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. Viking, Oxford.
Matofska, B., 2016. “What Is the Sharing Economy?”. Retrieved from. http://www.
thepeoplewhoshare.com/blog/what-is-the-sharing-economy/.
Matzler, K., Veider, V., Kathan, W., 2015. Adapting to the sharing economy. MIT Sloan
Manag. Rev. 56, 71–77.
Mauri, A.G., Minazzi, R., Nieto-García, M., Viglia, G., 2018. Humanize your business. The
role of personal reputation in the sharing economy. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 73, 36–43.
McNamara, B., 2015. Airbnb: a not-so-Safe resting place. J. Telecommun. High Technol.
Law 13 (1), 149–170.
Meged, J.W., Christensen, M.D., 2017. Working within the collaborative tourist economy:
the complex crafting of work and meaning. In Collaborative Economy and Tourism.
Springer, Cham, pp. 203–220.
Mehmetoglu, M., Altinay, L., 2006. Examination of grounded theory analysis with an
application to hospitality research. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 25 (1), 12–33.
Mohlmann, M., 2015. Collaborative consumption: determinants of satisfaction and the
likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. J. Consum. Behav. 14 (3),
193–207.
Montes Rojas, G.V., Siga, L., 2009. On the nature of micro-entrepreneurship: evidence
from Argentina. Appl. Econ. 41 (21), 2667–2680.
Moore, C.S., Mueller, R.E., 2002. The transition from paid to self-employment in Canada:
the importance of push factors. Appl. Econ. 34 (6), 791–801.
O’Regan, M., Choe, J., 2017. Airbnb and cultural capitalism: enclosure and control within
the sharing economy. Anatolia 28 (2), 163–172.
Paoloni, P., Dumay, J., 2015. The relational capital of micro-enterprises run by women:
the startup phase. Vine 45 (2), 172–197.
Pappas, N., 2017. The complexity of purchasing intentions in peer-to-Peer accommoda-
tion. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 29 (9), 2302–2321.
Peters, M., Schuckert, M., 2014. Tourism entrepreneurs’ perception of quality of life: an
explorative study. Tour. Anal. 19 (6), 731–740.
Prayag, G., Ozanne, L.K., 2018. A systematic review of peer-to-peer (P2P) accommodation
sharing research from 2010 to 2016: progress and prospects from the multi-level
perspective. J. Hosp. Mark. Manage. 27 (6), 649–678.
Priporas, C.V., Stylos, N., Vedanthachari, L.N., Santiwatana, P., 2017. Service quality,
157
International Journal of Hospitality Management 79 (2019) 148–157
satisfaction, and customer loyalty in Airbnb accommodation in Thailand. Int. J. Tour.
Res. 19 (6), 693–704.
Putnam, R.D., 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Society.
Simon & Schuster, New York.
Qureshi, S., Kamal, M., Wolcott, P., 2010. Information Technology Interventions for
Growth and Competitiveness in Micro-Enterprises. Global Perspectives on Small and
Medium Enterprises and Strategic Information Systems: International Approaches.
pp. 306–329.
Rees, H., Shah, A., 1986. An empirical analysis of self-employment in the U.K. J. Appl.
Econom. 1 (1), 95–108.
Reijonen, H., Komppula, R., 2007. Perception of success and its effect on small firm
performance. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 14 (4), 689–701.
Richter, C., Kraus, S., Brem, A., Durst, S., Giselbrecht, C., 2017. Digital entrepreneurship:
innovative business models for the sharing economy. Creat. Innov. Manag. 26 (3),
300–310.
Segal, G., Borgia, D., Schoenfeld, J., 2005. The motivation to become an entrepreneur.
Int. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 11 (1), 42–57.
Stabrowski, F., 2017. ‘People as businesses’: Airbnb and urban micro-entrepreneurialism
in New York City. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 10 (2), 327–347.
Sundararajan, A., 2014. Peer-to-peer Businesses and the Sharing (collaborative)
Economy: Overview, Economic Effects and Regulatory Issues, Written Testimony for
the Hearing Titled the Power of Connection: Peer to Peer Businesses.
Ting, D., 2017. Airbnb’s Bed-and-Breakfast Deal Highlights Its Bigger Ambitions in
Accommodations. Retrieved from. https://skift.com/2017/12/14/airbnbs-bed-
breakfast-deal-highlights-its-bigger-ambitions-in-accommodations/.
Tussyadiah, I.P., 2015. An exploratory study on drivers and deterrents of collaborative
consumption in travel. In: Tussyadiah, I., Inversini, A. (Eds.), Information and
Communication Technologies in Tourism. Springer, Cham, pp. 817–830 2015.
Tussyadiah, I.P., Park, S., 2018. When guests trust hosts for their words: host description
and trust in sharing economy. Tour. Manag. 67, 261–272.
Tussyadiah, I.P., Pesonen, J., 2016. Impacts of peer-to-Peer accommodation use on travel
patterns. J. Travel. Res. 55 (8), 1022–1040.
Vermeulen, I.E., Seegers, D., 2009. Tried and tested: the impact of online hotel reviews on
consumer consideration. Tour. Manag. 30 (1), 123–127.
Verrest, H., 2013. Rethinking microentrepreneurship and business development pro-
grams: vulnerability and ambition in low-income urban Caribbean households. World
Dev. 47, 58–70.
Vial, V., Hanoteau, J., 2015. Returns to micro-entrepreneurship in an emerging economy:
a quantile study of entrepreneurial Indonesian households’ welfare. World Dev. 74,
142–157.
Walker, E., Brown, A., 2004. What success factors are important to small business
owners? Int. Small Bus. J. 22 (6), 577–594.
Waterman, A.S., Schwartz, S.J., Conti, R., 2008. The implications of two conceptions of
happiness (Hedonic enjoyment and Eudaimonia) for the understanding of intrinsic
motivation. J. Happiness Stud. 9, 41–79.
Wiles, A., Crawford, A., 2017. Network hospitality in the share economy: understanding
guest experiences and the impact of sharing on lodging. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp.
Manage. 29 (9), 2444–2463.
Williams, D., 2006. On and off the ‘Net: scales for social capital in an online era. J.
Comput. Commun. 11 (2), 593–628.
Williams, C.C., Horodnic, I.A., 2017. Regulating the sharing economy to prevent the
growth of the informal sector in the hospitality industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp.
Manage. 29 (9), 2261–2278.
Wu, J., Ma, P., Xie, K.L., 2017a. In sharing economy we trust: the effects of host attributes
on short-term rental purchases. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 29 (11), 2962–2976.
Wu, J., Zeng, M., Xie, K.L., 2017b. Chinese travelers’ behavioral intentions toward room-
sharing platforms. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 29 (10), 2688–2707.
Xie, K.L., Kwok, L., 2017. The effects of Airbnb’s price positioning on hotel performance.
Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 67, 174–184.
Xie, K.L., Mao, Z., 2017. The impacts of quality and quantity attributes of airbnb hosts on
listing performance. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 29 (9), 2240–2260.
Yannopoulou, N., Moufahim, M., Bian, X., 2013. User-generated brands and social media:
couchsurfing and AirBnb. Contemp. Manag. Res. 9 (1), 85–90.
Yong, C., Xie, K.L., 2017. Consumer valuation of Airbnb listings: a hedonic pricing ap-
proach. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 29 (9), 2405–2424.
Zhang, T.C., Jahromi, M.F., Kizildag, M., 2018. Value co-creation in a sharing economy:
the end of price wars? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 71, 51–58.
Zhu, G., So, K.K.F., Hudson, S., 2017. Inside the sharing economy: understanding con-
sumer motivations behind the adoption of mobile applications. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp.
Manage. 29 (9), 2218–2239.