Next Article in Journal
A Comparative Time-Series Investigation of China and U.S. Manufacturing Industries’ Global Supply-Chain-Linked Economic, Mid and End-Point Environmental Impacts
Next Article in Special Issue
An Abductive Analysis of Debates on the Impact of the Sharing Economy: A Systematic Review in a Sustainable Framework
Previous Article in Journal
A Systematic Literature Review on the Quality of MOOCs
Previous Article in Special Issue
Exploring the Motivations of Suppliers in the Collaborative Economy: A Sustainability Approach
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 11
10.3390/su13115818
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Relation between Collaborative Consumption and Subjective Well-Being: An Analysis of P2P Accommodation

by
Martina Toni
*,
Maria Francesca Renzi
,
Laura Di Pietro
,
Roberta Guglielmetti Mugion
and
Giovanni Mattia
Department of Business Studies, University of Roma Tre, 00145 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(11), 5818; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115818
Submission received: 14 April 2021 / Revised: 12 May 2021 / Accepted: 18 May 2021 / Published: 21 May 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sharing Economy and Sustainable Consumptions: New Consumers for Emerging Business Models?)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The present paper investigates the relationships between Collaborative Consumption (CC) and well-being. Specifically, the study aims to understand the antecedents of subjective well-being (SWB) in peer-to-peer (P2P) accommodation services. The research adopts a mixed-method approach by integrating qualitative (focus groups) and quantitative (survey) methods with sequential logic. A conceptual model was developed and validated through structural equation modelling (SEM). The model confirms that the SWB, which has three indirect antecedents (the social, environmental and economic dimensions), was positively influenced by the attitude towards P2P accommodation services, and the relation between this construct and SWB emphasizes the originality of the study. This research contributes to the current sharing economy debate, unveiling theoretical advances on the link between collaborative services and well-being.

1. Introduction

The financial crisis has weakened consumerism, and consequently, people prefer to access, rather than own, private assets [1,2]. As a result, more products are shared rapidly [3,4]. This trend is further enhanced by the increase in alternative mechanisms that rethink the consumption patterns and value attached to ownership [5].
Mobile access and the internet enable people to access information and services ubiquitously [6,7], thus empowering them to become competitors of suppliers [8]. Collaborative consumption (CC) consists of an extensive network of peer service providers willing to access their underutilized assets using online platforms [2,9].
This development marks a shift from the most basic assumption of consumer behavior of “we are what we have and possess” [10,11] to a new one that claims “what is mine is yours” [12] and “you are what you can access” [13], and reflects a transition from asset ownership to access [14,15]. This phenomenon has nourished the collaborative economy, which is “an economic system of decentralized networks and marketplaces that unlocks the value of underused assets by matching needs and haves, by means that bypass traditional middlemen” [16].
CC creates value at both the collective and individual level because of efficient resource use, well-being, and consumer surplus [17]. Several authors have suggested that sharing explains the link of CC to sustainable consumption [12,18,19] and sustainable behavior [20]. Besides, it may offer advantages in terms of well-being [21]—often described as happiness [22]—which represents an important goal of society because people living pleasant and emotional experiences are more likely to perceive their lives as desirable and positive [23].
Service consumption influences consumers’ well-being, including life satisfaction, perceived quality of life, and overall happiness [24]. Within this framework, a link can be envisaged with the transformative service research (TSR) field of study, which consists of service research regardless of discipline that strives to “create uplifting changes and improvements” in the well-being of individuals (consumers and employees), collectives (families and communities) and ecosystems [25,26]. Nevertheless, there are few studies with application and connection to practice about the relationship between service and well-being [27]. Several authors show the collective impact generated by the adoption of CC, while a literature gap emerges in studying well-being at the individual level. Indeed, experiential services, such as tourism activities, have a positive impact on individuals, such as relaxation, entertainment, personal development, inducing positive moods [28,29], happiness [30], enhancing the sense of well-being [23]. CC seems to possess a tight connection with subjective well-being, but no direct evidence supports this assumption.
Accordingly, this research contributes to transformative service research by empirically investigating the relationship between P2P accommodation services and well-being. Specifically, the research objective of the present study is to explore the CC motivations and understand their subjective well-being implications. To achieve this purpose and cover the detected literature gap, empirical analysis in the accommodation sector was carried out, given that the CC registered a substantial impact on tourism [31].
The theoretical background illustrates the prominent literature on the CC phenomenon, the motives for its adoption, and the well-being concept with a specific focus on tourism and accommodation. A mixed-methods approach was used by integrating qualitative and quantitative analyses with two-fold objectives: (i) identifying the main dimensions of CC adoption, and (ii) understanding the impact of CC dimensions on subjective well-being. Specifically, the qualitative analysis was inspired by the means-end theory [32], which is primarily adopted in the marketing field. The quantitative analysis validates the proposed model and hypotheses. Finally, the Conclusions and Managerial Implications and Limitations and Future Researches sections explain the main findings and contributions.

2. Theory and Hypothesis

2.1. Collaborative Consumption

Although the term CC arose in 1978 from Felson and Spaeth’s [33] research, the term still needs to achieve consensus due to the varied activities involved [34]. CC is generally defined as a network of people coordinating the distribution of resources to gain temporary access to goods and services for a fee or other compensation without transferring ownership [13,14]. According to Belk [13], “CC is people coordinating the acquisition and distribution of a resource for a fee or other compensation, such as bartering, trading and swapping, which involve giving and receiving non-monetary compensation.” This definition is inspired by Meelen and Frenken [35], who describe CC as a consumption pattern allowing consumers to grant temporary access to under-utilized assets with a form of (monetary or reputational) compensation.
There is a standard agreement regarding the essential elements on which CC is founded. For instance, online platforms and the availability of assets to be exchanged are fundamental to the existence of CC [2]. Also, the coexistence of compensation and the pro-social aspects represent other peculiar characteristics [36]. Notwithstanding the natural differences between sectors of interest [3], the main drivers that enable or favor habits towards CC are conveniences, accessibility, on-demand nature, trust, social aspects, environmental concerns, and a sense of belonging to a community [37,38]. Furthermore, there is a switch from access, to investment goods for more extended periods, to short-term access to consumption goods [39]. The concept of access in CC is twofold: consumers gain temporary access to tangible/intangible resources without affording purchasing costs [40] and the actor who owns the resource grants temporary property rights to other actors [41]. This new sharing model transforms traditional dyadic relations into triadic ones and involves platform providers who enable the exchange. The main elements are P2P interaction, temporary access, the assets to be exchanged [42], and the existence of a form of monetary or reputational compensation [13,36].

2.2. Sharing Motives

Increasing population, sustainability awareness, desire for community belonging, economic needs, technological expertise, and social network diffusion are the main factors that increase CC participation. In tourism, and more specifically in the accommodation sector, the desire of acting as a more responsible traveler, minimizing environmental impact and the misuse of resources is a significant motivational factor [12,43].
People share for both functional and altruistic reasons [44], and sharing itself impacts environmental and social sustainability [45] by inciting a form of anti-consumption [46] and environmentally conscious behaviors [47,48].
Many authors refer to the self determination Theory [49], which affirms that in CC, the intrinsic motivation arises from the enjoyment of the activity and the internalized value of conforming to the norm. Environmental concerns embody the principal reason for initiating sharing activities [38,50]. In this regard, [9] observes that people perceive environmental benefits only after having shared sustainability.
Economic, social, and environmental aspects have to be considered when discussing sharing motives [51,52]. Together, they reflect the triple bottom line (TBL) lens [53] composed of the three Ps: profit, people and planet. Their aggregate effect results in destroying excessive consumerism, improving social cohesion, and minimizing resource use [45]. In the following sections, each (economic, social, environmental) dimension is explained in detail.

2.2.1. Economic Dimension

The economic value of CC is the most dominant factor when discussing its value [9], and the economic benefits represent the primary motivation for the intention to participate in CC [52].
CC may provide opportunities for lower-income consumers to gain greater access to a reasonable level of services, leading to consequences in the quality of life [2]. Furthermore, an added hedonic value has to be considered. In other words, the temporary owning of an asset that people could not afford allows them to pretend to be someone else in terms of desired status [9] while reducing the risks and responsibilities associated with ownership [40].
Specifically, the P2P solution allows people to access shared, expensive underutilized assets with low costs and a wide variety of cheap alternatives [51,54]. This observation could be explained as a need for “voluntary simplicity” [55]—a reaction to consumerist values and lifestyles. Brown and Vergragt [21] state that reduced purchasing power may be compensated by lifestyles that meet basic subsistence needs, implying increased self-reliance, greater mutual reciprocity, interdependency within a community, and deeply satisfying lifestyle choices.
Following the above statements, the below reported hypothesis is posited:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
The economic dimension positively influences the attitude towards P2P accommodation service.

2.2.2. Social Dimension

Social motives are essential in nourishing CC. CC platforms work like social networks in creating a sense of belonging within a community associated with enjoyment [52]. This sense of community is a peculiar construct of sharing. Concerning shared accommodation, sense of belonging and social connections are strongly activated due to the authenticity of the experience [37]. For instance, the Airbnb case represents a P2P platform successful in creating social ties, thus motivating user participation [56].
The backbone of CC platforms is the trust that strongly influences online social commerce, purchasing, and recommendation [57,58]. Ratings and reviews offered by the network may contribute to building a reputation and convincing users to engage in emergent unknown contexts [42].
From a social perspective, CC has to do with a sense of interdependence, reciprocity, and shared meanings, values and norms [59]. The possibility of forming and maintaining relationships enables the creation of social capital [60]—which refers to resources accumulated through relationships among people [61]—enabling greater “access and use of resources offered on social networks” [62].
Consequently, the following hypothesis is established:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
The social dimension positively influences the attitude towards P2P accommodation service.

2.2.3. Environmental Dimension

Regardless of people’s income and location, well-being depends on the environment [63]. The sharing economy encourages users to adopt sustainable behavior, leading, in turn, further benefits to societies [20].
CC is driven by a sense of environmental awareness due to resource scarcity, which tends to support the transition towards a more sustainable society [43,52]. Hence, the impact of CC in terms of environmental sustainability [45] is mainly affected by the increased efficiency in the production of new goods [3]. In this regard, CC is associated with the circular economy. Selling utilization instead of ownership of goods (a core aspect of the functional economy) is the most relevant sustainable business model for a closed-loop economic system [64].
In tourism and the accommodation sector, the motivation of acting as an environmentally friendly traveler, minimizing impacts and the inefficient use of resources, becomes relevant [5,12,43].
Accordingly, a third hypothesis is set.
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
The environmental dimension positively influences the attitude towards P2P accommodation service.

2.3. Attitude towards P2P Accommodation

Currently, travelers declare a positive attitude regarding P2P accommodations [65] that—in opposition to traditional hotels—have the peculiarity of offering authenticity, socialization and experience co-creation [66,67].
Increasingly, tourists choosing a P2P accommodation show particular interest in the local life of the neighborhood they are going to visit [68], seeking an experience reflecting the “living like a local” [69]. This experience comprises several aspects, such as a sense of belonging and socialization with local communities and inhabitants [70]. Indeed, this kind of accommodation service embodies the so-called “homely feeling” [71] by experiencing home away from home [72,73].
In a nutshell, the authentic experience and the related homely feeling benefits attached to P2P accommodation are significantly associated with an overall attitude toward P2P accommodation [74]. Hence, the construct of the attitudes towards P2P accommodation needs to be shaped considering the peculiarity of this context.
Previous studies have explored the relationship of subjective well-being and consumption attitudes (characterized by materialism), detecting a negative relationship between them [75,76]. However, since the sharing economy (SE) differs from materialism—because CC is based on non-ownership consumption—the relation between attitudes towards P2P and well-being is likely to be positive, even though it needs to be tested.
In the light of what previously explained, an ultimate hypothesis is assumed:
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
The attitude towards P2P accommodation positively influences subjective well-being.

2.4. Well-Being and Well-Being in Tourism

Well-being has a variety of definitions in multiple fields [77]; however, it is generally experiential and refers to “what people value being and doing” [78]. Well-being is usually measured in economic terms by gross domestic product (GDP), although this indicator fails to consider the added value of other parameters. Currently, additional material goods and services do not necessarily produce incremental gains in consumer well-being [21,79]. In fact, the definition of well-being stretches beyond economic aspects, particularly from an individual perspective, and has been extended beyond objective measures of wealth [22]. Boosting private consumption does not necessarily mean increasing well-being since there are other issues to consider. As Brown and Vergragt [21] state, well-being needs to incorporate a shift away from consumerist lifestyle choices supported by specific policies. Specifically, service delivery provides experiences with a substantial impact on people’s well-being [80], since these are more self-defining than material possessions [81]. Hence, there is a consensus on the fact that well-being is comprised of multiple dimensions.
Well-being can be divided into the subjective and objective side. Objective well-being is determined by the following indicators: stability of income, conditions of residence, level of education, the quality of the social and natural environment, safety and security, and the opportunity to realize social and civil rights and needs [82]. On the other hand, subjective well-being (SWB) can be described as an internal personal experience. Even though measures of SWB are continually being refined [22], the concept of SWB attempts to understand what makes people happy and content with life [83]. SWB has been described as the general way people evaluate the degree to which they experience a sense of wellness [83]. On its own, SWB can be divided into two types: the hedonic and the eudaimonic [84]. The first refers to the pursuit of pleasure, enjoyment and comfort, whereas the second is achieved by seeking to use and develop the best in oneself [85].
Tourism experiences contribute to self-development, highly involving the consumer in leisure activity [86,87]. Hosts and tourists both engage in their actions and contribute to creating well-being for themselves and others by facilitating the stay, interacting with visitors, and learning from them [88].
A similar aspect renders the sector a relevant context to the study of SWB [22]. Experiential goods such as leisure activities and vacations positively impact the individual self in terms of relaxation, entertainment, and personal development [89]. Haidt [30] advocates that consuming more “experiences” instead of material goods leads to a higher happiness level. These experiences could affect the emotional, intellectual, spiritual, or physical aspects of the individual, and satisfactory leisure experiences can induce positive moods [28], thus enhancing the sense of well-being [23].
In tourism, the construct of “happiness” and SWB are used interchangeably, and researchers often attempt to conceptualize “tourist happiness” as well as the related psychological benefits [90,91].
Within the context of CC, well-being needs to be reframed to be less dependent on traditional indicators, which depend on mass consumption and materialism [21]. Benefits are clearly outlined and affect well-being in several ways. At the social level, there is a consensus that well-being broadly refers to the benefits people receive from their social relationships [62]. There is general knowledge about the link between environmentally friendly consumption and pro-social spending behaviors with well-being [18]. At the economic level, there is evidence of a relationship between material possession and consumer well-being [92,93].
Although theoretical contributions are emerging which investigate the effects of tourism on SWB, happiness, and affective states, there is a need to investigate the sources and drivers of well-being and happiness [22,94].
This study investigates the relation between the economic, social, environmental dimensions of CC, and SWB. It enables the understanding of whether shared services and the related benefits contribute to generating feelings of well-being. The empirical study is applied to the Italian accommodation sector, which was chosen for several reasons. Firstly, tourism is an experiential purchase that produces greater hedonic pleasure [95] and higher levels of well-being [36,96]. Secondly, accommodation is a crucial element as part of people psychological well-being [97]. Thirdly, the choice resides on the widespread diffusion of CC [31].
Based on the theoretical background, Figure 1 shows the proposed research model and the underlying hypotheses (H1, H2, H3 and H4).

3. Materials and Methods

The study adopts a mixed-method approach integrating qualitative and quantitative methods, and analyzes whether and how CC provides benefits in terms of well-being. As illustrated by [98], the design of mixed-methods research allows for the adoption of multiple views that shed light on a specific phenomenon. In this regard, qualitative research has been adopted for understanding individual experiences and their associated interpretations [99]. In contrast, a quantitative study was subsequently performed to refine the insights and measure their magnitude within a larger sample of the population, thus providing adequate and consistent answers to the research hypotheses [100]. The mixed-methods approach is based on sequential logic [98], in which the findings of the qualitative methods are used to inform the quantitative phase of the study.
In the following paragraphs, the different stages of the analysis are described. First, details on qualitative methods and tools used for collecting the data are presented. After that, the research’s quantitative phase is presented, explaining the data collection process and demonstrating the validation of the model.

3.1. Qualitative Analysis: Data Collection

The purpose of the qualitative analysis is to acquire a deep knowledge of the collaborative economy phenomenon and to acquire a deeper understanding of the main motivations contributing to the pursuit of SWB. In order to achieve this goal, five focus groups were conducted, each involving eight people who travel and are aware of CC. The participants were recruited using a snowballing approach [101]. Age, gender and travel habits were balanced, guaranteeing the most suitable level of comparison between the participants. The number of focus groups was defined based on the principle of saturation defined as “informational redundancy” [102,103] or also as the point in coding when the researcher finds that no new codes occur in the data [104].
A topic guide was developed to elicit participant insights, using open-ended questions and probes to facilitate the natural expression of focus group member opinions. The main arguments included in the topic guide were the following: general knowledge of CC; its strengths and weaknesses; the most known platforms and participants’ past purchasing experiences within the CC context; participants’ awareness of CC in the tourism sector; and the main benefits that are obtained from such participation.
The focus groups were transcribed verbatim, and a content analysis was performed based on the four phases of coding, categorizing, thematizing, and integrating [105,106]. Specifically, the data was initially divided into small units. A code was assigned to each one; then, the codes were grouped into main categories; consequently, themes expressing the content for each of the groups were developed [107]. Three researchers were involved in the process. Barratt et al. [108] stated that the use of multiple investigators guarantees better management of the collected data and provides more reliable research findings. Text analysis was performed with the support of MAXQDA software to classify and interpret the acquired knowledge. The results were compared, and a discussion was conducted around the elements that displayed a lack of convergence and an appropriate adaptation of the concept classifications.

3.2. Quantitative Analysis: Data Collection

The questionnaire, significantly projected for the purpose of the research, was structured in five sections, and was composed of 18 items measured using a 7-point Likert scale [109] (1 = completely disagree; 7 = entirely agree). The five areas investigated were the following: economic motivations, social motivations, and environmental motivations, attitude towards P2P accommodation services, and subjective well-being.
Three of the questionnaire dimensions (“economic,” “social,” and “environmental”) were identified through the study of previous studies [51,52,110], the composition of the attitude construct towards P2P accommodation service [69,72,73], and the focus group insights. Regarding the construct of subjective well-being, it was a combination of the qualitative results and the literature [111,112,113]. Table 1 shows the main sources for each dimension.
A control question in the questionnaire excluded all the respondents without previous experience in P2P accommodation. The formulation of the questions and the related sequence were adapted after a pilot survey on a sample of 35 respondents. Then, the final version of the questionnaire was administered online through specialized forums, blogs, and social networks.
The (non-probabilistic) convenience sample used in this study was considered appropriate due to the preliminary nature of the research [114,115]. The factors were extracted through exploratory factor analysis (EFA), using SPSS (release 19.0), whereas the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and the structural equation modelling (SEM) were performed using the MPlus software package [116]. SEM is a widely used modelling technique applied in social sciences to understand and explain the relations between the elements of systems [117,118]. SEM simultaneously estimates and assesses a series of hypothesized interrelated dependent relationships between a set of latent (and observed) constructs. Each of these is measured by one or more manifested (or observed) variables [119]. SEM allows for both the verification of the goodness of fit and the concurrent examination of multiple relationships, incorporating measurement error into the estimation process.

4. Results

4.1. Qualitative Results

The qualitative analysis draws attention to the nature of desired end states that consumers wanted to achieve through the CC adoption. The qualitative results were synthesized through the development of a map, which revealed the key issues and their relations in a visual manner (Figure 2). By aggregating all the emerging attributes, three main dimensions were identified from the focus groups, namely the “economic dimension,” “environmental dimension,” and the “social dimension,” concerning the CC phenomenon in tourism.
The analysis also allowed the detection of the attitude towards P2P accommodation service, the value of SWB, the contents of the constructs, and the relations among them. As shown in Figure 2, motivations can be divided into economic (increasing the purchasing power in various ways), environmental (protecting the environment), and social (creating meaningful social interactions). According to the interviews, the choice of CC accommodations eliminates ancillary and intermediary costs, provides access to an accommodation with an affordable price, and keeps high quality standards due to the feedback/evaluation system. Alongside the economic motivation, the respondents highlighted both social and environmental motivations. The social motivations were mainly related to the possibility of creating strong connections and authentic experiences with local communities. The environmental motivations generated through environmentally friendly practices and enabled by choosing CC accommodation, were energy use reduction, lower consumption, and waste reduction, etc.
The value embodied by well-being—in this context, the state that people pursue by participating in CC—had as an antecedent the attitude towards P2P accommodation services, which includes the various feelings attached to the CC experience; specifically, the latter is linked to the sense of domesticity and to the feeling of expanding the individual’s possessions (“perception of having more houses than those actually owned”), social relations (“perception of having more friends than those actually known”), and community of belonging (“perception of belonging also to different places than the one of residence”).

4.2. Quantitative Results

The number of completed questionnaires was 424, with a sample composed of 48% males and 52% females. The participants were in the 16–24 (28.1%), 25–34 (39.8%), 45–54 (8.5%), 55–64 (7.1%) and over-65 (4.0%) age categories. The predominance of young people and young adults is consistent with the characteristics of the ordinary users of technological services [120,121], such as P2P platforms.
After the EFA, performed to understand whether the items were appropriately assigned to each factor, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) statistic was 0.919, and Bartlett’s test statistic was significant (p = 0.000). The number of factors was chosen based on an eigenvalue more effective than one and a cumulative variance more significant than 60%. The five elements identified explained 76.12% of the total variance, and were named as follows: economic dimension (F1), social dimension (F2), environmental dimension (F3), attitude towards P2P accommodation service (F4), and subjective well-being (SWB) (F5).
Subsequently, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to verify the goodness of fit of the measurement model to the data on the five latent constructs. CFA provided a good fit for the original dimensional structure proposed. In order to analyze the validity of the constructs and their reliability values, some indicators were calculated. The reliability and validity of the multi-item scales were verified according to internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) and convergent validity (average variance extracted (AVE); composite reliability (CR). Table 2 shows the validity and reliability values of the constructs.
All the data appear satisfactory, being above the thresholds considered adequate to affirm construct reliability and validity: 0.7 for Cronbach’s Alpha [122], 0.5 for AVE, and 0.7 for CR [123].
After the CFA, the hypotheses have been tested through SEM to verify the hypothesized theoretical model with the collected data. A maximum likelihood method for the parameter estimation was adopted. The goodness-of-fit parameters are reported in the following graphical representation of the model (Figure 3 and Table 3).
The goodness of fit indicators were located within the acceptable thresholds suggested by the literature (Table 3). As a result, all the hypotheses were supported (Table 4), meaning that the economic, social, and environmental dimensions positively affected the attitude toward P2P accommodation, which, in turn, positively influenced the SWB. Out of the three antecedents of attitude, the social dimension registered the strongest impact (0.659) on attitude, followed by the environmental dimension (0.242), and the economic dimension (0.129). The construct of attitude towards P2P accommodation positively influenced the dependent variable of well-being (0.511).

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The present study is a response to contributions that suggest the opportunity to investigate the link between service and well-being, embedding a more holistic view of sustainability into service provisions.
The research was structured to determine the insights that allow for a better understanding of the relationship between CC and individual well-being. An empirical analysis was carried out in the accommodation context (P2P accommodation) in which CC is widely diffused. The tourism context has been considered particularly suitable for filling existing literature gaps since previous studies asserted that experiential services positively impact moods, happiness and, thus, enhance the sense of well-being [23,28,29,30].
The qualitative analysis showed the role covered by the economic, social and environmental dimensions in determining the attitude towards the P2P accommodation. The economic motivations were related to the perception of P2P service as affordable to a different target group of consumers; the social reasons concerned the possibility of creating strong-tie networks with local communities; the environmental motivations referred to all the possible practices that can be adopted for protecting the environment by choosing P2P accommodation. Hence, the qualitative results confirm these three motivations aligning to previous studies in the literature [2,43,59] on the one hand. On the other hand, the qualitative results demonstrate a link to the attitude towards P2P accommodation. This construct was characterized by specific feelings: a sense of domesticity, territory and community belonging, and extending house possessions and social relations. The qualitative analysis was used to enlighten the content and relations among the economic, social, environmental dimensions, attitude, and well-being. The latter plays a key role as the terminal value that consumers intend to pursue by adopting P2P accommodation. Accordingly, the results of the qualitative analysis were used as input for the quantitative phase, in which a theoretical model based on four hypotheses was proposed and then tested through SEM. The hypotheses of the proposed model aimed to observe the impacts of the economic (H1), social (H2) and environmental (H3) dimensions on the attitude towards P2P accommodation, and of the latter on subjective well-being (H4). All the included constructs were reliable and validated, supporting the posited hypotheses. The results confirm that the attitude towards P2P accommodation has three antecedents (the economic, social and environmental dimensions), and that it directly influences well-being.
In particular, it is proved that the role the construct of attitude towards P2P accommodation service plays in positively influencing the dependent variable of well-being, also represents an aspect of novelty brought to light by this study. Attitude has a strong impact on well-being, demonstrating that the sense of belonging, sense of domesticity, and the authentic relations with locals and communities all contribute to enhancing well-being. Among the three antecedents, the “social dimension” registers the strongest impact on attitude, followed by the “environmental dimension” and then the “economic dimension.” This result confirms the marginal impact of economic aspects when consumers are involved in CC and in P2P accommodation.
The proposed model was empirically confirmed. It allowed us to deepen the knowledge on the topic since prior studies mainly focused on the collective impact of CC without analyzing the relationship between CC and well-being at the individual level. Moreover, this research allows us to propose a twofold innovative relation: a direct one between attitude towards P2P and well-being and the role of attitude as a mediator of the economic, social, environmental motivations towards well-being.
The results produce theoretical and managerial implications for P2P platforms operating in the CC field.
From a theoretical perspective, the research contributes to transformative service research by empirically investigating the relationship between P2P accommodation services and well-being [25,26]. As previous authors observed a lack of studies, this study begins to fill this gap [27] by integrating qualitative and quantitative methods and testing a conceptual model. The model illustrates that attitude towards P2P accommodation is affected mainly by the social dimension, followed by the environmental, and at last the economic dimension. Furthermore, the novelty of this study is the relationship between attitude towards P2P accommodation and well-being, particularly between the sense of domesticity, sense of belonging, local relations, and well-being. This paper also contributes to the literature by studying sustainable consumption, which represents a core element of sustainable development [127]: CC allows the use of assets that satisfy consumer needs while minimizing the use of natural resources.
Furthermore, the managerial implications concern the possibility of exploiting these results by policymakers, municipalities, and P2P companies; P2P companies could exploit the insights of this research to plan accommodation services in a manner consistent with the needs of potential users by rethinking accommodation as a place in which guests can consider as a “home away from home” by experiencing domestic comfort, gaining a sense of belonging, and living a local lifestyle. This insight could be helpful also in terms of business and service positioning. Policymakers and municipalities can improve tourism hospitality by widening the offerings available outside the city centers. Indeed, they could include residential and suburban areas in their accommodation offerings to propose a more authentic experience. Hence, tourist experience needs to be managed as a whole, including also accommodation experiences besides those geared towards core touristic activities. In this way, it is possible to launch the tourism sector at the national and regional levels by enhancing the overall experience, improving tourist satisfaction and attracting, in turn, further tourists. On this strength, traditional intermediaries could be currently asked to reshape their offerings in a consumer-centric view by considering these insights to remain competitive on the market. Since use of P2P accommodation has a positive impact on well-being, another practical implication concerns investing in promotion and communication about the social, environmental, and economic benefits from a consumer perspective, in order to create a positive attitude towards P2P accommodation.
Currently, well-being and sustainability are vital requirements for both consumers and firms. Thus, businesses are called upon to consider well-being in planning new services and to include the triple bottom line approach in a comprehensive overview that includes economic, ecological, and social outcomes from the individual standpoint. These economic, social, and environmental dimensions are at the basis of CC, and they are consistent with the triple bottom line (TBL) approach by inhibiting excessive consumerism, improving social cohesion and minimizing resource use/waste. Indeed, CC satisfies new consumption patterns and avoids the inefficient use of resources. In the tourism sector, CC supports the local economy by increasing the demand for under-utilized resources; moreover, it provides an authentic experience to residents and visitors by connecting them with the local community. By widening the accommodation offerings outside the city center, CC supports distributing the flow of tourists to different areas, contrasting the adverse effects caused by mass tourism. Adopting a comprehensive view that considers the three facets of sustainability allows for the exploration of services, such as CC, as a driver to advance the well-being of individuals and society.

6. Limitations and Future Researches

This study has certain limitations that should be addressed in further studies on this topic.
First, due to the complexity of the domain, this study focuses on the positive effects of CC on SWB, since the negative effects are only beginning to emerge. Emerging literature revealed certain negative consequences of SE that could manifest in the medium-long run, such as social discrimination, employment issues, income inequality distribution, and local issues between tourists and neighbors. It must also be noted that undesired and unintended ecological effects (“rebound effect”) need to be analyzed, referring to the case in which earnings or savings lead people to buy additional assets, implying negative environmental consequences. Therefore, it would be desirable that any future research investigate the negative economic, social, and environmental implications of CC at both the individual and collective levels.
Second, future research should be conducted to test the observed model and results in other relevant sectors of the CC to establish a convergence among different contexts. The insights presented offer the potential for a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of CC and its relationship with well-being. Other sectors of interest for applying the proposed model include transportation (car-sharing, carpooling), hospitality (meal sharing and tour sharing), and on-demand services. Third, this type of study could be conducted in other countries to investigate whether cultural issues could affect the proposed model in different contexts. Forth, this paper focuses on the individual sphere, and further studies need to explore and extend the relationship of CC and well-being at the collective level by considering the micro (such as consumers and employees), meso (such as families and communities), and macro levels (ecosystems). Fifth, this paper calls for future research to measure P2P service performance and investigate whether the attached sense of well-being affects the attractiveness of collaborative services.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: M.T. and M.F.R.; methodology and data curation: M.T., L.D.P., R.G.M.; review and editing: M.T. and L.D.P.; supervision: M.F.R. and G.M.; project administration: M.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Rudmin, F. The consumer science of sharing: A discussant’s observations. J. Assoc. Consum. Res. 2016, 1, 198–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Benoit, S.; Baker, T.L.; Bolton, R.N.; Gruber, T.; Kandampully, J. A triadic framework for collaborative Consumption (CC): Motives, activities and resources & capabilities of actors. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 79, 219–227. [Google Scholar]
  3. Böcker, L.; Meelen, T. Sharing for people, planet or profit? Analysing motivations for intended sharing economy participation. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2017, 23, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Stokes, K.; Clarence, E.; Anderson, L.; Rinne, A. Making Sense of the UK Collaborative Economy; Nesta: London, UK, 2014; Volume 49. [Google Scholar]
  5. Gansky, L. The Mesh: Why the Future of Business is Sharing; Penguin: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cheng, Y.H.; Huang, T.Y. High-speed rail passengers’ mobile ticketing adoption. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2013, 30, 143–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Di Pietro, L.; Mugion, R.G.; Mattia, G.; Renzi, M.F.; Toni, M. The Integrated Model on Mobile Payment Acceptance (IMMPA): An empirical application to public transport. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2015, 56, 463–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sigala, M. Customer involvement in sustainable supply chain management: A research framework and implications in tourism. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2014, 55, 76–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Barnes, S.J.; Mattsson, J. Understanding current and future issues in collaborative Consumption: A four-stage Delphi study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016, 104, 200–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Belk, R.W. Possessions and the Extended Self. J. Consum. Res. 1988, 15, 139–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Van Esterick, P. Generating status symbols: You are what you own. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Toronto, ON, Canada, 16–19 October 1986. [Google Scholar]
  12. Botsman, R.; Rogers, R. What’s Mine is Yours: How Collaborative Consumption is Changing the Way We Live; Collins: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  13. Belk, R.W. You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 1595–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bardhi, F.; Eckhardt, G.M. Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing. J. Consum. Res. 2012, 39, 881–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rifkin, J. The Age of Access: The New Culture of Cybercapitalism Where All of Life is a Paid-for Experience; Tarcher-Putman Books: New York, NY, USA, 2000; p. 228. [Google Scholar]
  16. Botsman, R.; Rogers, R. What’s Mine is Yours—The Rise of Collaborative Consumption? Harper Business: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hall, S.; Pennington, J. How Much is the Sharing Economy Worth to GDP? In World Economic Forum. 2016. Available online: www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/10/what-s-the-sharing-economy-doing-togdp-numbers/ (accessed on 1 September 2018).
  18. Agyeman, J.; McLaren, D.; Schaefer-Borrego, A. Sharing cities. Friends Earth Brief. 2013, 1–32. Available online: http://media.ontheplatform.org.uk/sites/default/files/agyeman_sharing_cities.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2013). [CrossRef]
  19. Phipps, M.; Ozanne, L.K.; Luchs, M.G.; Subrahmanyan, S.; Kapitan, S.; Catlin, J.R.; Weaver, T. Understanding the inherent complexity of sustainable Consumption: A social cognitive framework. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1227–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Toni, M.; Renzi, M.F.; Mattia, G. Understanding the link between Collaborative Economy and sustainable behaviour: An empirical investigation. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 172, 4467–4477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Brown, H.S.; Vergragt, P.J. From consumerism to well-being: Toward a cultural transition? J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 132, 308–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. McCabe, S.; Johnson, S. The happiness factor in tourism: Subjective well-being and social tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2013, 41, 42–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gilbert, D.; Abdullah, J. Holiday taking and the sense of well-being. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 103–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ostrom, A.L.; Bitner, M.J.; Brown, S.W.; Burkhard, K.A.; Goul, M.; Smith-Daniels, V.; Demirkan, H.; Rabinovich, E. Moving forward and making a difference: Research priorities for the science of service. J. Serv. Res. 2010, 13, 4–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Ostrom, A.L.; Parasuraman, A.; Bowen, D.E.; Patricio, L.; Voss, C.A. Service research priorities in a rapidly changing context. J. Serv. Res. 2015, 18, 127–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Anderson, L.; Ostrom, A.L.; Corus, C.; Fisk, R.P.; Gallan, A.S.; Giraldo, M.; Shirahada, K. Transformative service research: An agenda for the future. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1203–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kuppelwieser, V.G.; Finsterwalder, J. Transformative service research and service dominant logic: Quo Vaditis? J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 28, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Argyle, M.; Crossland, J. The Dimensions of Positive Emotions. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 1987, 26, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mannell, R. Social Psychological Techniques and Strategies for Studying Leisure Experiences. In Social Psychological Perspectives on Leisure and Recreation; Iso-Ahola, S., Ed.; Charles C. Thomas: Springfield, IL, USA, 1980; pp. 62–88. [Google Scholar]
  30. Haidt, J. The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  31. Guttentag, D. Airbnb: Disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism accommodation sector. Curr. Issues Tour. 2015, 18, 1192–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Veludo-de-Oliveira, T.M.; Ikeda, A.A.; Campomar, M.C. Discussing laddering application by the means-end chain theory. Qual. Rep. 2006, 11, 626–642. [Google Scholar]
  33. Felson, M.; Spaeth, J.L. Community Structure and Collaborative Consumption: A Routine Activity Approach. Am. Behav. Sci. 1978, 21, 614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Schor, J. Debating the sharing economy. J. Self Gov. Manag. Econ. 2016, 4, 7–22. [Google Scholar]
  35. Meelen, T.; Frenken, K. Stop Saying Uber Is Part of the Sharing Economy. Fast Co. 2015. Available online: https://www.fastcompany.com/3040863/stop-saying-uber-is-part-of-the-sharing-economy (accessed on 14 January 2015).
  36. Milanova, V.; Maas, P. Sharing intangibles: Uncovering individual motives for engagement in a sharing service setting. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 75, 159–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Botsman, R.; Capelin, L. Airbnb: Building a revolutionary travel company. In Said Business School Case; 2016; April 2015. (Revised January 2016); Available online: https://collaborativeeconomy.com/research/airbnb-building-a-revolutionary-travel-company/ (accessed on 29 April 2019).
  38. Tussyadiah, I.P. Factors of satisfaction and intention to use peer-to-peer accommodation. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 55, 70–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Moeller, S.; Wittkowski, K. The burdens of ownership: Reasons for preferring renting. Manag. Serv. Qual. An Int. J. 2010, 20, 176–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wittkowski, K.; Moeller, S.; Wirtz, J. Firms’ intentions to use nonownership services. J. Serv. Res. 2013, 16, 171–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Haase, M.; Kleinaltenkamp, M. Property rights design and market process: Implications for market theory, marketing theory, and SD Logic. J. Macromarketing 2011, 31, 148–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Frenken, K.; Schor, J. Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2017, 23, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Tussyadiah, I.P. An exploratory study on drivers and deterrents of collaborative consumption in travel. In Information & Communication Technologies in Tourism; Tussyadiah, I., Inversini, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 817–830. [Google Scholar]
  44. Belk, R. Sharing versus pseudo-sharing in Web 2.0. Anthropologist 2014, 18, 7–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Heinrichs, H. Sharing economy: A potential new pathway to sustainability. GAIA Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2013, 22, 228–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ozanne, L.K.; Ballantine, P.W. Sharing as a form of anti-consumption? An examination of toy library users. J. Consum. Behav. 2010, 9, 485–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ozanne, L.; Ozanne, J. A child’s right to play: The social construction of civic virtues in toy libraries. J. Public Policy Mark. 2011, 30, 264–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Prothero, A.; Dobscha, S.; Freund, J.; Kilbourne, W.E.; Luchs, M.G.; Ozanne, L.K.; Thøgersen, J. Sustainable Consumption: Opportunities for consumer research and public policy. J. Public Policy Mark. 2011, 30, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self determination of behaviour. Psychol. Inq. 2000, 11, 227–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bellotti, V.; Ambard, A.; Turner, D.; Gossmann, C.; Demkova, K.; Carroll, J.M. A muddle of models of motivation for using peer-to-peer economy systems. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul, Korea, 18–23 April 2015; pp. 1085–1094. [Google Scholar]
  51. Möhlmann, M. Collaborative consumption: Determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. J. Consum. Behav. 2015, 14, 193–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hamari, J.; Sjöklint, M.; Ukkonen, A. The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2016, 67, 2047–2059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Elkington, J. Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1994, 36, 90–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lamberton, C.P.; Rose, R.L. When is ours better than mine? A framework for understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. J. Mark. 2012, 76, 109–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Elgin, D. Voluntary Simplicity: Toward the Way of Life that is Outwardly Simple and Inwardly Rich; William Morrow and Company: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  56. Schor, J.B. The Sharing Economy: Reports from Stage One. 2015. Unpublished Manuscript. Available online: http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/cas_sites/sociology/pdf/TheSharingEconomy.Pdf (accessed on 15 November 2015).
  57. Barnes, S.J.; Mattsson, J. Building tribal communities in the collaborative economy: An innovation framework. Prometheus 2017, 34, 95–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. See-To, E.W.; Ho, K.K. Value co-creation and purchase intention in social network sites: The role of electronic Word-of-Mouth and trust–A theoretical analysis. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 31, 182–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Albinsson, P.A.; Yasanthi Perera, B. Alternative marketplaces in the 21st century: Building community through sharing events. J. Consum. Behav. 2012, 11, 303–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Putnam, R.D. Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. J. Democr. 1995, 6, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Coleman, J.S. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am. J. Sociol. 1988, 94, S95–S120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lin, N. Building a network theory of social capital. Connections 1999, 22, 28–51. [Google Scholar]
  63. European Environment Agency. Well-Being and the Environment. Building a Resource-Efficient and Circular Economy in Europe. EEA Signals. 2014. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/signals-2014 (accessed on 15 May 2014).
  64. Geissdoerfer, M.; Savaget, P.; Bocken, N.M.; Hultink, E.J. The Circular Economy. A new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 143, 757–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Kuhzady, S.; Seyfi, S.; Béal, L. Peer-to-peer (P2P) accommodation in the sharing economy: A review. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sigala, M. Collaborative commerce in tourism: Implications for research and industry. Curr. Issues Tour. 2017, 20, 346–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Swig, R. Alt-Accommodation Impact Felt in San Francisco. 2014. Hotel News Now. Available online: http://www.hotelnewsnow.com/Articles/23683/Alt-accommodation-impact-felt-in-San-Francisco (accessed on 29 August 2014).
  68. Marques, L.; Gondim Matos, B. Network relationality in the tourism experience: Staging sociality in homestays. Curr. Issues Tour. 2019, 23, 1153–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. 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, 619–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. De Freitas Coelho, M.; De Sevilha Gosling, M.d.S.; De Almeida, A.S.A. Tourism experiences: Core processes of memorable trips. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2018, 37, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zhu, Y.; Cheng, M.; Wang, J.; Ma, L.; Jiang, R. The construction of home feeling by Airbnb guests in the sharing economy: A semantics perspective. Ann. Tour. Res. 2019, 75, 308–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Johnson, A.G.; Neuhofer, B. Airbnb–An exploration of value co-creation experiences in Jamaica. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Tussyadiah, I.P.; Zach, F. Identifying salient attributes of peer-to-peer accommodation experience. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2017, 34, 636–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. So, K.K.F.; Oh, H.; Min, S. Motivations and constraints of Airbnb consumers: Findings from a mixed-methods approach. Tour. Manag. 2018, 67, 224–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Iyer, R.; Muncy, J.A. Attitude toward consumption and subjective well-being. J. Consum. Aff. 2016, 50, 48–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Dittmar, H.; Bond, R.; Hurst, M.; Kasser, T. The relationship between materialism and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2014, 107, 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Adler, P.S.; Kwon, S.W. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002, 27, 17–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Smith, C.; Clay, P. Measuring subjective and objective well-being: Analyses from five marine commercial fisheries. Hum. Organ. 2010, 69, 158–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Frey, B.S.; Stutzer, A. What can economists learn from happiness research? J. Econ. Lit. 2002, 40, 402–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Gilovich, T.; Kumar, A. We’ll always have Paris: The hedonic payoff from experiential and material investments. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Zanna, M., Olson, J., Eds.; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 2015; Volume 51, pp. 147–187. [Google Scholar]
  81. Hornik, A.; Diesendruck, G. Extending the Self Via Experiences: Undermining Aspects of One’s Sense of Self Impacts the Desire for Unique Experiences. Soc. Cogn. 2017, 35, 181–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Alatartseva, E.; Barysheva, G. Well-being: Subjective and objective aspects. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 166, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Diener, E. Subjective well-being. Psychol. Bull. 1984, 95, 542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001, 52, 141–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Huta, V.; Ryan, R.M. Pursuing pleasure or virtue: The differential and overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. J. Happiness Stud. 2010, 11, 735–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Li, Y. Geographical consciousness and tourism experience. Ann. Tour. Res. 2000, 27, 863–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Richards, G. Vacations and the quality of life: Patterns and structures. J. Bus. Res. 1999, 44, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Buhalis, D.; Andreu, L.; Gnoth, J. The dark side of the sharing economy: Balancing value co-creation and value co-destruction. Psychol. Mark. 2020, 37, 689–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Dumazedier, J. Towards a Society of Leisure; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
  90. Filep, S. Moving beyond subjective well-being: A tourism critique. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Nawijn, J. Determinants of daily happiness on vacation. J. Travel Res. 2011, 50, 559–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Nakano, N.; MacDonald, M.; Douthitt, R. Toward consumer well-being: Consumer socialisation effects of work experience. In New Dimensions of Marketing/Quality-of-Life Research; Quorum Books: Westport, CT, USA, 1995; pp. 151–175. [Google Scholar]
  93. Day, R.L. Beyond social indicators: Quality of life at the individual level. In The Marketing and the Quality of Life; American Marketing Association: Chicago, IL, USA, 1978; p. 1. [Google Scholar]
  94. Henderson, L.W.; Knight, T. Integrating the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives to more comprehensively understand well-being and pathways to well-being. Int. J. Wellbeing 2012, 2, 196–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Carter, T.J.; Gilovich, T. Getting the most for the money: The hedonic return on experiential and material purchases. In Consumption and Well-Being in the Material World; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 49–62. [Google Scholar]
  96. Caprariello, P.A.; Reis, H.T. To do, to have, or to share? Valuing experiences over material possessions depends on the involvement of others. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2013, 104, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  97. Gorman-Murray, A. Materiality, masculinity and the home: Men and interior design. In Masculinities and Place; Routledge: London, UK, 2014; pp. 209–226. [Google Scholar]
  98. Venkatesh, V.; Brown, S.A.; Bala, H. Research article bridging the Qualitative—Quantitative Divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods. Mis Q. 2013, 37, 21–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Bluhm, D.J.; Harman, W.; Lee, T.W.; Mitchell, T.R. Qualitative research in management: A decade of progress. J. Manag. Stud. 2011, 48, 1866–1891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Hesse-Biber, S.; Johnson, R.B. Coming at Things Differently. J. Mixed Methods Res. 2013, 7, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Malhotra, N.K.; Nunan, D.; Birks, D.F. Marketing Research an Applied Approach, 5th ed.; Prentice-Hall Inc.: Hoboken NJ, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  102. Francis, J.J.; Johnston, M.; Robertson, C.; Glidewell, L.; Entwistle, V.; Eccles, M.P.; Grimshaw, J.M. What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol. Health 2010, 25, 1229–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Guest, G.; Bunce, A.; Johnson, L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 2006, 18, 59–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Urquhart, C. Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  105. Mayan, M.J. Essentials of Qualitative Inquiry; Leaf Coast Press: Walnut Creek, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  106. Thompson, C.J. Interpreting Consumers: A Hermeneutical Framework for Deriving Marketing Insights from the Texts of Consumers’ Consumption Stories. J. Mark. Res. 1997, 34, 438–455. [Google Scholar]
  107. Strauss, A.; Corbin, J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Procedures and Techniques for Developing Grounded Theory; Saga Publication: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  108. Barratt, M.; Choi, T.Y.; Lì, M. Qualitative Case Studies in Operations Management: Trends, Research Outcomes, and Future Research Implications. J. Oper. Manag. 2011, 29, 329–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Malhotra, N.K. Marketing Research. An applied Orientation; Pearson: London, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  110. Tussyadiah, I.P.; Pesonen, J. Impacts of peer-to-peer accommodation use on travel patterns. J. Travel Res. 2015, 55, 1022–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Nicolao, L.; Irwin, J.R.; Goodman, J.K. Happiness for sale: Do experiential purchases make consumers happier than material purchases? J. Consum. Res. 2009, 36, 188–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Bradburn, N.M. The Structure of Psychological Well-Being; Aldine: Oxford, UK, 1969. [Google Scholar]
  113. Bradburn, N.M.; Caplovitz, D. Reports on Happiness: A Pilot Study of Behaviour Related to Mental Health (No. 3); Aldine Publishing Company: Chicago, IL, USA, 1965. [Google Scholar]
  114. Grewal, R.; Mehta, R.; Kardes, F. The role of the social identity function of attitudes in consumer innovativeness and opinion leadership. J. Econ. Psychol. 2000, 21, 233–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. O’Cass, A. A psychometric evaluation of a revised version of the Lennox and Wolfe revised self-monitoring scale. Psychol. Mark. 2000, 17, 397–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Muthen, L.; Muthen, B. MPLUS: Users’ Guide; Muthen & Muthen: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  117. Reisinger, Y.; Turner, L. Structural equation modeling with Lisrel: Application in tourism. Tour. Manag. 1999, 20, 71–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Yi, M.Y.; Jackson, J.D.; Park, J.S.; Probst, J.C. Understanding information technology acceptance by individual professionals: Towards an integrative view. Inf. Manag. 2006, 43, 350–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Reisinger, Y.; Mavondo, F. Structural equation modeling: Critical issues and new developments. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2007, 21, 41–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Parasuraman, A.; Colby, C.L. An updated and streamlined technology readiness index TRI 2.0. J. Serv. Res. 2015, 18, 59–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Liébana-Cabanillas, F.; Sánchez-Fernández, J.; Muñoz-Leiva, F. Antecedents of the adoption of the new mobile payment systems: The moderating effect of age. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 35, 464–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NU, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  123. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to under-parameterised model misspecification. Psychol. Methods 1998, 3, 424–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Modeling a Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Bentler, P.M. EQS Structural Equations Program Manual; Multivariate Software: Encino, CA, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  127. Maciejewski, G. Consumers Towards Sustainable Food Consumption. Mark. Sci. Res. Organ. 2020, 36, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 13 05818 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual research model and hypotheses.
Figure 1. Conceptual research model and hypotheses.
Sustainability 13 05818 g001
Sustainability 13 05818 g002 550
Figure 2. Qualitative results—focus group map.
Figure 2. Qualitative results—focus group map.
Sustainability 13 05818 g002
Sustainability 13 05818 g003 550
Figure 3. Graphical representation of the observed model.
Figure 3. Graphical representation of the observed model.
Sustainability 13 05818 g003
Table
Table 1. The structure of the questionnaire.
Table 1. The structure of the questionnaire.
ConstructsItems NumberReferenceMeasurement Scale
Economic dimension3[51,52,110]Likert scale (1 = completely disagree to 7 = completely agree)
Social dimension3[110]Likert scale (1 = completely disagree to 7 = completely agree)
Environmental dimension 3[51,52]Likert scale (1 = completely disagree to 7 = completely agree)
Attitude towards P2P accommodation service5Qualitative results
and [69,72,73]		Likert scale (1 = completely disagree to 7 = completely agree)
Subjective well-being5Qualitative results and [111,112,113]Likert scale (1 = completely disagree to 7 = completely agree)
Table
Table 2. Construct reliability and validity.
Table 2. Construct reliability and validity.
FactorCronbach’s Alpha
>0.7
Nunnally, 1978 [122]		AVE
>0.5
Fornell and Larcker, 1981 [123]		CR
>0.7
Fornell and Larcker, 1981 [123]
Economic dimension (F1)0.8240.6130.826
Social dimension (F2)0.8130.5930.814
Environmental dimension (F3)0.8450.6440.844
Attitude towards P2P accommodation service (F4)0.8820.5630.866
Subjective well-being (F5)0.9440.7790.946
Table
Table 3. Goodness-of-fit parameters.
Table 3. Goodness-of-fit parameters.
Goodness-of-Fit-IndexObserved ValueCommonly Used Threshold
χ2 (chi-square)
Degrees of freedom
p-value 		4425.809
171
0.000
RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation)0.077<0.05 → minimal error
0.05 ≤ RMSEA ≤ 0.08 → acceptable
0.08 → rejected the model
SRMR (standardised root mean square residual)0.067<0.08 (Hu e Bentler, 1998, 1999) [124,125]
CFI (comparative fit index)0.915≥0.90 (Bentler, 1992) [126]
Table
Table 4. Status of the research hypotheses.
Table 4. Status of the research hypotheses.
HypothesesPredictorDependentEstimatep-ValueStatus
H1Economic
dimension		Attitude towards
P2P accommodation service		0.1290.009supported
H2Social
dimension		Attitude towards
P2P accommodation service		0.6590.002supported
H3Environmental dimensionAttitude towards
P2P accommodation service		0.2420.003supported
H4Attitude towards P2P accommodation serviceSubjective
Well-being		0.5110.000supported
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Toni, M.; Renzi, M.F.; Di Pietro, L.; Guglielmetti Mugion, R.; Mattia, G. The Relation between Collaborative Consumption and Subjective Well-Being: An Analysis of P2P Accommodation. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5818. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115818

AMA Style

Toni M, Renzi MF, Di Pietro L, Guglielmetti Mugion R, Mattia G. The Relation between Collaborative Consumption and Subjective Well-Being: An Analysis of P2P Accommodation. Sustainability. 2021; 13(11):5818. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115818

Chicago/Turabian Style

Toni, Martina, Maria Francesca Renzi, Laura Di Pietro, Roberta Guglielmetti Mugion, and Giovanni Mattia. 2021. "The Relation between Collaborative Consumption and Subjective Well-Being: An Analysis of P2P Accommodation" Sustainability 13, no. 11: 5818. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115818

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop