Sustainability of shared economy in the agri-food, tourism, and hospitality industries

Abstract

Introduction:

This study aims to provide a systematic literature review on the sustainability of shared economy in the food, agricultural, and hospitality sectors. We assess relationships between the sharing economy and sustainability in the examined industries. Furthermore, we identify gaps in knowledge and recommend possible research directions for future studies.

Methods:

This study provides a systematic literature review on sustainable sharing economy in the hospitality and agri-food sectors. We applied the Procedure for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Based on the mentioned methodological procedure, we conducted a literature search through scientific databases Scopus and Web of Science. The research period is 2014–2023.

Results:

Using the Procedure for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), we extracted 2185 scientific articles from the Scopus and Web of Science databases published between 2014 and 2023. A total of 117 studies met the eligibility criteria. Based on the review, we identified the following frequently researched areas in the literature: sustainable housing sharing, urban and community sustainability, energy efficiency and carbon footprint, public sector regulation and sustainability, food sharing, exchanges and networks, food waste-reducing platforms, and food-based applications.

Conclusion:

The studies reviewed confirmed growing research interest in the sustainability of the shared economy in agri-food and hospitality. The number of studies in the Web of Science and Scopus databases has increased over the last decade. Our systematic review indicates that shared accommodation and food sharing are dominant topics in the literature. The sustainability of shared accommodation has been examined in previous studies, mainly concerning the impacts on cities and communities. In food sharing, we identified relevant linkages between food waste and sharing platforms.

1 Introduction

The term sharing economy refers to a business model that uses information technology and marketing to facilitate sharing goods and services between individuals (Wirtz et al., 2019; Mody et al., 2021). These practices are usually mediated by online platforms and peer communities (Guyader and Piscicelli, 2019).

Shared models have significant environmental and social impacts (Ma et al., 2019; Hossain, 2020). The sharing economy fosters a new culture where customers prioritize access over ownership (Pouri and Hilty, 2018). Alternative sharing approaches have the potential for more efficient and sustainable use of resources (Hong and Yoo, 2020; Dabbous and Tarhini, 2021). The sustainability of the sharing economy model includes environmental, social, and economic aspects (Laukkanen and Tura, 2020). The social dimension focuses on increasing wellbeing and sustainable innovations (Martin et al., 2015; Lan et al., 2017). The economic dimension includes cost-effectiveness and customer attractiveness (Colapinto et al., 2020). Environmental benefits are associated with higher resource utilization and energy savings (Curtis and Lehner, 2019; Curtis and Mont, 2020).

Interest in sustainability research is growing worldwide. Despite the number of published research articles and literature reviews, a relatively large group of authors emphasize that the sustainability impacts of the sharing economy are ambiguous and not sufficiently explored in the contemporary literature (Demailly and Novel, 2014; Griffiths et al., 2019; Leung and Xue, 2019; Curto et al., 2022; Haqqani et al., 2022). Table 1 shows an overview of systematic literature reviews focusing on the sustainable sharing economy. Most published reviews analyzed only shared transport and accommodation platforms (Cheng, 2016; Martin, 2016; Boar et al., 2020; Curtis and Mont, 2020; Liu and Chen, 2020). Our systematic review enriches existing research, especially in food sharing. We identify new topics such as food waste, alternative food networks, carbon footprint, etc. We deepen and complement existing hospitality research in community impact and regulation. The methodological procedure is also original. A few pieces of research on the sharing economy use the PRISMA systematic review and meta-analysis. This method enables better identification of gaps in research and future thematic opportunities. Our literature review only includes studies from the Web of Science and Scopus databases to ensure the quality of the articles. The last 10 years (2014–2023) make it possible to follow the scientific literature in years and the latest trends.

This study provides a systematic literature review on sustainable sharing economy in the hospitality and agri-food sectors. More specifically, we established the following objectives: (1) to access the relationships that exist in the literature between the sharing economy in the examined sectors and sustainability; (2) to examine emerging topics on sustainability in the hospitality and agri-food sectors; (3) to identify gaps in knowledge and recommend possible research directions for future studies.

2 Literature review

The sharing economy, often called the collaborative economy or collaborative consumption, encompasses a broad category of business and consumption practices aimed at sharing underutilized resources such as goods, services, and space, either for free or for a fee. These practices are usually mediated by online platforms and peer communities (Guyader and Piscicelli, 2019). This phenomenon began to take shape in the early twentieth century in response to the growing importance of natural resource constraints and the development of information and communication technologies (Cheng, 2016). Since its inception, the sharing economy has experienced remarkable growth and has considerable potential for the future (Hamari et al., 2016). Although it is a subject of ongoing debate given its multifaceted nature and conceptual aspects (Martin et al., 2015), the sharing economy broadly refers to systems that facilitate collective access to and ownership of resources, commodities, and services for their joint use and consumption by multiple actors, which entails the dilution of individual ownership (Colapinto et al., 2020).

In recent years, the sharing economy has seen a significant rise, with projections indicating a substantial impact on the economy and society (Hamari et al., 2016). The concept revolves around the collaborative use of underutilized or idle assets, where individuals engage in various sharing practices such as renting, lending, trading, bartering, or exchanging goods and services (Heo, 2016). The sharing economy represents an alternative consumption paradigm and embodies a particular manifestation of social innovation (Soltysova and Modrak, 2020). This concept fits seamlessly with the basic principles of the social economy, emphasizing activities aimed at the common good, where the primary social outcome is social rather than profit maximization. It encompasses the essential components of social innovation, including novelty, efficiency, meeting societal needs, and increasing society's capacity to act together (Kumar Gupta et al., 2018). The concept of the sharing economy is gaining widespread popularity, helped by the convergence of technological advances, particularly in the field of information and communication technologies and the requirements of economic and environmental sustainability. This convergence has led to the spread of the sharing economy in various sectors (Schor et al., 2016; Griggio and Oxenswärdh, 2021). Various sharing economy initiatives have emerged worldwide, encompassing sectors such as accommodation, utilities, automobiles, and others (Martin, 2016; Hönig et al., 2020). The concept of sharing is familiar, as human exchange is a long-standing reflection of social relations and the consolidation of cultural traditions (Hati et al., 2021). At the same time, the risks associated with sharing are increasing, a challenge that online platforms address by implementing robust rating and reputation systems (Frenken and Schor, 2017; Lee and Kim, 2018).

An example of a broader definition of sustainability in the case of the sharing economy can be the inclusion of the influence of shared accommodation platforms on real estate prices in a given region. Although sharing economy platforms are primarily driven by financial motivation for customers, due to the nature of the business model, many sharing economy firms are committed to sustainability (Hossain, 2020). Some European cities are already promoting the usage of shared transport platforms, attempting to solve traffic problems in city centers. It is a fact that shared transport platforms simultaneously bring with them new issues to cities. Shared e-scooters, for example, endanger pedestrians in pedestrian zones, their inappropriate location on the street hinders blind residents, and so on. According to Lan et al. (2017), however, through a continuous learning process, these problems lead to social innovations that correct them over time. The sharing economy can also positively affect the development of regions and local communities (Abrham, 2017; Burda et al., 2017; Amore et al., 2022).

The sharing economy has also penetrated the agri-food sector through innovative concepts such as food exchanges (Schor et al., 2016), food sharing (Choi et al., 2019), and food networks (Martin, 2016). The food system encompasses all people and food-related activities, including agricultural cultivation, processing, packaging, distribution, marketing, consumption, and waste management (Miralles et al., 2017; Mazzucchelli et al., 2021). Food sharing combines elements of entrepreneurship, charity, the digital economy, and shared agriculture (Wang et al., 2020). However, some authors have highlighted the importance of food sharing and specific platforms, emphasizing the need for government regulations to be uniformly supported in these areas (Zurek, 2016). Food exchanges involve exchanging home-grown, home-raised, and home-harvested food between participants, but even this can be risky for some. In a broader sense, leftovers are often seen as food that has lost its original qualities and appeal. That highlights the complex interconnection between food waste and safety underscored by previous research (Garrone et al., 2014; Kera and Sulaiman, 2014).

Food sharing focuses on redistributing surplus edible items to those in need, thereby alleviating food waste (Schor et al., 2016). Several initiatives and practical measures, such as innovative packaging and alternative storage techniques, have recently emerged to alleviate food waste. These solutions also address household behavior through non-traditional consumption patterns (Fine et al., 2015; Lazell, 2016). A growing body of literature has examined this phenomenon from a different perspective. In recent years, food-sharing initiatives have proliferated in most developed societies, taking various forms, including internet food networks, clandestine eating facilities, community refrigerators, and individual efforts within unrelated households (Zurek, 2016). Food sharing can encompass various activities, including sales, donations, and barter arrangements (Hua et al., 2023).

The demand for food is global, and the aim is to prevent over-consumption, waste, and wastage and ultimately provide sustainable food solutions (Davies and Doyle, 2015; Maitah et al., 2019). Consumers and the media attach deep cultural significance to food and celebrate chefs as culinary masters of the kitchen. Food takes center stage in various forms, from television programs and films to sharing and displaying on social media (Harvey et al., 2020). Food's critical role in reducing waste is the subject of intense debate, especially regarding the social sustainability of our food systems (Mazzucchelli et al., 2021). Consumption has the potential to unite an online community that favors different solutions, especially in innovating new entertainment options (Privitera, 2016).

3 Materials and methods

We applied the Procedure for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) to thoroughly examine the relevant scientific literature. The PRISMA guidelines contain a set of standards for reporting literature reviews. The purpose is to provide more sophisticated and uniform procedures for systematic literature reviews (Page et al., 2021; Rethlefsen et al., 2021; Sarkis-Onofre et al., 2021; Swartz, 2021). In our article, we used the version published by Page et al. (2021). This article has more than 43433 citations in the literature (Google Scholar, 2023). Based on the mentioned methodological procedure, we conducted a literature search through important electronic databases, Scopus and Web of Science. The search strategy included a carefully selected set of keywords to include areas related to the specific objectives of our study. We analyzed the following keywords: sharing and economy and agriculture and food; sharing and economy and agri-food; sharing and economy and hospitality; sharing and economy and sustainability; food sharing and sustainability; shared economy and cities, food waste and sharing economy; Airbnb and sustainability; carbon footprint and shared economy.

Figure 1 shows the flow diagram of this systematic literature review. To refine the search results and ensure the relevance of the identified literature, we define inclusion criteria. We excluded articles in several steps for the following reasons: duplicate articles in both databases, inadequate targeting of titles, abstracts, and keywords, and unavailability of full texts of articles in databases (see Figure 1). Subsequently, we screened all of the articles' texts in detail. We excluded studies that did not meet the objectives of our review.

Figure 1

On the one hand, these articles did not appear relevant to the discussion on sustainability. Furthermore, we did not include in the research studies focused on non-relevant sectors of the shared economy (transportation, financial services, tool sharing, bike sharing, etc.). The criteria also included a specific time frame (2014–2023) and a language parameter (we included articles published in English).

4 Results

Using the Procedure for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), we extracted 2185 scientific articles from the Scopus and Web of Science databases published between 2014 and 2023. A total of 117 studies met the criteria for further analysis. Figure 2 shows the growing number of publications in the 2014–2023 period and confirms the increasing research interest in the sustainability of the shared economy in the hospitality and agri-food industries.

Figure 2

The distribution of articles across journals indicates (see Table 2) that the journals with the highest number of articles on the sustainable shared economy of the hospitality and agri-food sector were Sustainability (n = 15), Journal of Cleaner Production (n = 13), International Journal of Hospitality Management (n = 7), Current Issues in Tourism (n = 4) and British Food Journal (n = 4).

Table 3 shows that the ten most cited articles have over 500 citations. Hamari et al. (2016) had 4,914 citations, Guttentag (2015) 2,474 citations, Martin (2016) 1,828 citations, Frenken and Schor (2017) 1,765 citations, and Tussyadiah and Pesonen (2016) 1,004 citations (Google Scholar, 2023).

Table 4 shows thematic clusters, areas, and examples of articles. We designed research clusters to access the main aims of our research. The first cluster includes the relationship between the sharing economy in hospitality and sustainability. The second cluster contains studies that examined the links between the sharing economy in the agri-food sector and sustainability. Thematic areas are the most researched topics in the literature. We identified the following seven research areas: (1) sustainable sharing accommodation, (2) urban and community sustainability, (3) energy efficiency and carbon footprint, (4) public sector regulation and sustainability, (5) food sharing, exchanges, networks, (6) food waste-reducing platforms, (7) food-based services, and applications.

The studies in our literature evaluate various theoretical concepts and methodological procedures. Authors of research articles have used social exchange theory (Wang et al., 2019; Akarsu et al., 2020), transaction cost theory (Akbar and Tracogna, 2018), a game theory (Aznar et al., 2019), disruptive innovation theory (Guttentag, 2015), customer repurchase intention theory (Huarng and Yu, 2019), gentrification theory (Katsinas, 2021; Mermet, 2022), theory of hypercapitalism (Nnajiofor, 2017), uses and gratification theory (Ray et al., 2019), theory of planned behavior (Tajeddini et al., 2021; Kirmani et al., 2023), Aristotle's rhetorical theory (Yang et al., 2018), convenience theory (Zhang and Chen, 2019), rent gap theory (Amore et al., 2022), theory of change (Michelini et al., 2020) and Weber's Theory of Rationality (Mody et al., 2023). The most common research methods were statistical data analyses (Asian et al., 2019; Dabbous and Tarhini, 2021), social media analysis (Geissinger et al., 2019; Harvey et al., 2020), quantitative surveys (Hashem et al., 2018; Ketter, 2019; Lho et al., 2022), case studies (Battino and Lampreu, 2019; Ciulli and Kolk, 2019; Guyader and Piscicelli, 2019), conceptual papers (Daunoriene et al., 2015; Martin et al., 2015; Acquier et al., 2019) and systematic literature reviews (Hofmann et al., 2019; De las Heras et al., 2021; Kuhzady et al., 2021; Puram and Gurumurthy, 2023).

5 Discussion and future research

The reviewed studies confirmed growing research interest in the sustainability of the shared economy in agri-food and hospitality. The number of studies in the Web of Science and Scopus databases has increased over the last decade. The relationships between the sharing economy and sustainability are complex. An intense debate in the scientific literature includes different perspectives and approaches. Proponents of the concept assume a positive potential for the sustainability of the shared economy (Acquier et al., 2019). The authors highlight a better use of resources and assets (Laurenti et al., 2019; Meshulam et al., 2023), the social ties creation, and community building (Akande et al., 2020). On the other hand, economic factors generally prevail over ecological interests (Tussyadiah and Pesonen, 2016; Frenken and Schor, 2017; Curtis and Mont, 2020). Some sharing economy practices can lead to price increases and depletion of available goods (e.g., housing). A series of recent studies have indicated that more agile regulation and support from the public administration is vital to use the sustainability potential of the sharing economy (O'Regan and Choe, 2017; Hofmann et al., 2019; Mont et al., 2020). Public authorities should provide economic and non-economic incentives to private operators who have undergone a full life cycle assessment that estimates environmental impacts (Mi and Coffman, 2019).

Our systematic review indicates that shared accommodation and food sharing are dominant topics in the literature. The sustainability of shared accommodation has been examined in previous studies, mainly concerning the impacts on cities and communities. In the food-sharing area, we identified relevant linkages between food waste and sharing platforms. As has been advocated in several research papers, digital shared platforms are essential for food waste management (Davies and Evans, 2019; Mu et al., 2019; Cane and Parra, 2020; Mullick et al., 2021). Shared platforms enable the connection between food supply and demand (Schanes and Stagl, 2019). Within the social dimension, food sharing enables lower-income consumers to access food at reduced prices (Secondi et al., 2019; De Almeida Oroski and da Silva, 2023; Stehrenberger and Schneider, 2023). Various forms of alternative food networks and markets have been mentioned in the literature as other forms of food sharing (Hashem et al., 2018). Organic farmers' markets tend to facilitate the sharing economy more than online stores because it helps them build value and trust (Baldi et al., 2019; Dangi and Narula, 2021). Despite the positive potential of shared platforms, many authors identified rebound effects when consumers spend the money they saved by consuming free food (Makov et al., 2020). In such a case, the environmental benefits of food sharing are questionable (Meshulam et al., 2023). Adopting food-sharing practices by households does not automatically translate into reducing food waste (Morone et al., 2018).

The operation of shared accommodation affects residential neighborhoods positively and negatively (Ioannides et al., 2019). Most authors agree that the shared accommodation business model has the potential to be more open, inclusive, and environmentally friendly than the traditional economy (Hong and Yoo, 2020). Shared accommodation creates communities and partnerships between providers and users. Sustainability is a fundamental prerequisite for consumer trust and loyalty to a P2P accommodation platform (Garrod et al., 2023). This prognostic presented mainly supporters of shared accommodation (Oskam and Boswijk, 2016). Shared service providers and platforms are also crucial in promoting sustainability and energy efficiency in the hospitality sector. Accommodation platforms can contribute to energy efficiency by mentoring and training hosts. An ecologically friendly stay includes the efficiency of water and energy management and the usage of sustainable household items (Mi and Coffman, 2019). An increased number of tourists can lead to an increase in income and an overload of monuments and cultural attractions (Gutiérrez et al., 2017; Jaremen et al., 2019). Opponents of sharing accommodation emphasize the negative social impacts on the functioning of cities and communities. Digital platforms enable more affordable access to services such as accommodation, which can increase demand for other goods and services and unsustainable consumption (Pouri and Hilty, 2018). The reviewed studies indicate that the growing number of Airbnb accommodations increases the price of real estate in particular city districts (Martin, 2016; Amore et al., 2022). That mirrors the characteristic called Airbnbifcation (Guttentag, 2015). Real estate inflation and growing flat rentals negatively influence communities' coherence (Mermet, 2022). Low-income sociological groups leave the downtown and residential city areas involuntarily. That's why shared accommodation evokes gentrification (Curtis and Mont, 2020; Katsinas, 2021). Travel industry management should promote the transfer of accommodation entities from the overwhelmed districts to less affected ones (Álvarez-Herranz and Macedo-Ruíz, 2021). City transformation as the result of Airbnb proved (Amore et al., 2022) for Athens, Lisbon, and Milano. Álvarez-Herranz and Macedo-Ruíz (2021) for Madrid, Ayouba et al. (2020) for Marseille, and Paris, Gutiérrez et al. (2017) for Barcelona. Therefore, many published studies have examined ways of regulating Airbnb in cities (Oskam and Boswijk, 2016; Nieuwland and van Melik, 2018).

This review has identified several limitations and directions for further research. Our literature review confirmed many opportunities for sustainable development in agriculture, the food industry, and hospitality. However, most studies examine potential and prognostic frameworks. Concrete empirical frameworks are often neglected (Palgan et al., 2017). There are still supply-side and demand-side factors that may limit the adoption of sustainable shared services.

Further research should focus on the specific providers' needs and consumers' preferences. An integral part of the proposed research is also understanding the barriers providers face in promoting ecologically and socially sustainable approaches. Possible obstacles could reduce the willingness of consumers and entrepreneurs to participate in the sustainable sharing of products and services. Understanding the interactions between the preferences of consumers and providers will enable the setting of the optimal format of sustainable services in agriculture, food, hospitality, and tourism. Explanation and comparison of instruments and policies in individual countries and cities can also be a topic of future research (Martin, 2016; Álvarez-Herranz and Macedo-Ruíz, 2021). Many destinations are just beginning to respond to peer-to-peer accommodation's social and environmental challenges. Issues of sustainability of shared accommodation are essential for a broad group of actors - visitors to the destination, businesses, residents, and public authorities (Guttentag, 2015). The importance of addressing negative impacts is growing in line with the worldwide expansion of sharing economy platforms. The effect of the shared economy on climate change is also a promising research topic (Morfeldt and Johansson, 2022; Vélez, 2023). The carbon footprint is related to agricultural production, food consumption, and the energy intensity of accommodation facilities. Except for a few case studies of comprehensive car-sharing research, there is still no empirical evidence on greenhouse gas emissions (Frenken and Schor, 2017; Jung and Koo, 2018; Cheng et al., 2020).

References

• 1

  AbrhamJ. (2017). Project management and funding in the Euroregions. Polish J. Manage. Studies16, 7–20. 10.17512/pjms.2017.16.1.01

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AcquierA.CarboneV.Mass,éD. (2019). How to create value (s) in the sharing economy: business models, scalability, and sustainability. Technol. Innov. Manage. Rev.9, 1215. 10.22215/timreview/1215

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AkandeA.CabralP.CasteleynS. (2020). Understanding the sharing economy and its implication on sustainability in smart cities. J. Clean. Prod.277, 1–11. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124077

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AkarsuT. N.ForoudiP.MelewarT. C. (2020). What makes Airbnb likeable? Exploring the nexus between service attractiveness, country image, perceived authenticity and experience from a social exchange theory perspective within an emerging economy context. Int. J. Hosp. Manage.91, 102635. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102635

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  AkbarY. H.TracognaA. (2018). The sharing economy and the future of the hotel industry: transaction cost theory and platform economics. Int. J. Hosp. Manage.71, 91–101. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.12.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  Álvarez-HerranzA.Macedo-RuízE. (2021). An evaluation of the three pillars of sustainability in cities with high Airbnb presence: a case study of the city of Madrid. Sustainability13, 3220. 10.3390/su13063220

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  AmoreA.Bernardid. e.ArvanitisC. (2022). The impacts of Airbnb in Athens, Lisbon and Milan: a rent gap theory perspective. Current Issues in Tourism25, 3329–3342. 10.1080/13683500.2020.1742674

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  AsianS.HafezalkotobA.JohnJ. J. (2019). Sharing economy in organic food supply chains: a pathway to sustainable development. Int. J. Prod. Econ.218, 322–338. 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.06.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  AyoubaK.Breuill,éM. L.GrivaultC.Le GalloJ. (2020). Does Airbnb disrupt the private rental market? An empirical analysis for French cities. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev.43, 76–104. 10.1177/0160017618821428

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  AznarJ.MasperaJ.QuerX. (2019). A game theory approach to airbnb and hotels competition. Eur. J. Tour. Res.21, 119–123. 10.54055/ejtr.v21i.362

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  BaldiL.BertoniD.MiglioreG.PeriM. (2019). How alternative food networks work in a metropolitan area? An analysis of Solidarity Purchase Groups in Northern Italy. Agric. Food Econ.7, 1–21. 10.1186/s40100-019-0139-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  BattinoS.LampreuS. (2019). The role of the sharing economy for a sustainable and innovative development of rural areas: a case study in Sardinia (Italy). Sustainability11, 1–20. 10.3390/su11113004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  BoarA.BastidaR.MarimonF. (2020). A systematic literature review. Relationships between the sharing economy, sustainability and sustainable development goals. Sustainability 12. 10.3390/su12176744

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  BurdaP.AbrhamJ.HorvathovaZ. (2017). Factors influencing online civic participation in mid-sized Czech towns. Transf. Bus. Econ.16, 607–618.

  • Google Scholar

• 15

  CaneM.ParraC. (2020). Digital platforms: mapping the territory of new technologies to fight food waste. Br. Food J.122, 1647–1669. 10.1108/BFJ-06-2019-0391

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  ChengM. (2016). Sharing economy: a review and agenda for future research. Int. J. Hosp. Manage.57, 60–70. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.06.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  ChengM.ChenG.WiedmannT.HadjikakouM.XuL.WangY.et al. (2020). The sharing economy and sustainability–assessing Airbnb's direct, indirect and induced carbon footprint in Sydney. J. Sust. Tour.28, 1083–1099. 10.1080/09669582.2020.1720698

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  ChoiT. M.GuoS.LiuN.ShiX. (2019). Values of food leftover sharing platforms in the sharing economy. Int. J. Prod. Econ.213, 23–31. 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.03.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  CiulliF.KolkA. (2019). Incumbents and business model innovation for the sharing economy: implications for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod.214, 995–1010. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.295

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  ColapintoC.JayaramanR.Ben AbdelazizF. (2020). Environmental sustainability and multifaceted development: multi-criteria decision models with applications. Annal. Oper. Res.293, 405–432. 10.1007/s10479-019-03403-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  CurtisS. K.LehnerM. (2019). Defining the sharing economy for sustainability. Sustainability11, 1–25. 10.3390/su11030567

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  CurtisS. K.MontO. (2020). Sharing economy business models for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod.266, 1–15. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121519

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  CurtoR. A.RubinoI.VerderosaA. (2022). Investigating Airbnb evolution in an urban tourism context: the application of mathematical modelling and spatial analysis. Curr. Issues Tour.25, 1666–1681. 10.1080/13683500.2021.1932767

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  DabbousA.TarhiniA. (2021). Does sharing economy promote sustainable economic development and energy efficiency? Evidence from OECD countries. J. Innov. Knowledge6, 58–68. 10.1016/j.jik.2020.11.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  DangiN.NarulaS. A. (2021). Sharing economy approach for the development of the organic food market in India. Manage. Environ. Q.32, 114–126. 10.1108/MEQ-03-2020-0060

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  DaunorieneA.DrakšaiteA.SnieškaV.ValodkieneG. (2015). Evaluating sustainability of sharing economy business models. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci.213, 836–841. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.486

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  DaviesA.EvansD. (2019). Urban food sharing: emerging geographies of production, consumption and exchange. Geoforum99, 154–159. 10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.11.015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  DaviesA. R.DoyleR. (2015). Transforming household consumption: from backcasting to HomeLabs experiments. Annal. Assoc. Am. Geographers105, 425–436. 10.1080/00045608.2014.1000948

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  De Almeida OroskiD.da SilvaF. J. M. (2023). Understanding food waste-reducing platforms: a mini-review. Waste Manage. Res.41, 816–827. 10.1177/0734242X221135248

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  De las HerasA.Relinque-MedinaF.Zamora-PoloF.Luque-SendraA. (2021). Analysis of the evolution of the sharing economy towards sustainability. Trends and transformations of the concept. J. Clean. Prod.291, 1–29. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125227

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  DemaillyD.NovelA. S. (2014). The sharing economy: make it sustainable. Studies3, 14–30.

  • Google Scholar

• 32

  DiekmannL.GermelmannC. C. (2021). Leftover consumption as a means of food waste reduction in public space? Qualitative insights from online discussions. Sustainability13, 1–30. 10.3390/su132413564

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  FineF.LucasJ. L.ChardignyJ. M.RedlingshöferB.RenardM. (2015). Food losses and waste in the French oilcrops sector. OCL J.22, 1–14. 10.1051/ocl/2015012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  FrenkenK.SchorJ. (2017). Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans.23, 3–10. 10.1016/j.eist.2017.01.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  GantA. C. (2016). Holiday rentals: the new gentrification battlefront. Sociol. Res. Online21, 112–120. 10.5153/sro.4071

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  GarrodB.ZhaoA. L.Koenig-LewisN. (2023). A greener way to stay: the role of perceived sustainability in generating loyalty to Airbnb. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 110:103432. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2023.103432

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  GarroneP.MelaciniM.PeregoA. (2014). Opening the black box of food waste reduction. Food Policy46, 129–139. 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.03.014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  GeissingerA.LaurellC.ÖbergC.SandströmC. (2019). How sustainable is the sharing economy? On the sustainability connotations of sharing economy platforms. J. Clean. Prod.206, 419–429. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.196

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  Google Scholar (2023). Articles. Available online at: https://scholar.google.com/ (accessed December 22, 2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 40

  GriffithsM. A.PereraB. Y.AlbinssonP. A. (2019). Contrived surplus and negative externalities in the sharing economy. J. Market. Theory Pract.27, 445–463. 10.1080/10696679.2019.1644957

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  GriggioC.OxenswärdhA. (2021). Human capital and sustainability challenges for Airbnb Bed and Breakfast lifestyle entrepreneurs. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour.21, 286–312. 10.1080/15022250.2021.1927828

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  GuJ. (2022). Sharing economy, technological innovation and carbon emissions: evidence from Chinese cities. J. Innov. Know.7, 1–11. 10.1016/j.jik.2022.100228

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  GuptaP.ChauhanS. (2021). Mapping intellectual structure and sustainability claims of sharing economy research–A literature review. Sust. Prod. Consump.25, 347–362. 10.1016/j.spc.2020.09.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  GutiérrezJ.García-PalomaresJ. C.RomanillosG.Salas-OlmedoM. H. (2017). The eruption of Airbnb in tourist cities: comparing spatial patterns of hotels and peer-to-peer accommodation in Barcelona. Tour. Manage.62, 278–291. 10.1016/j.tourman.2017.05.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  GuttentagD. (2015). Airbnb: disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism accommodation sector. Curr. Issues Tour.18, 1192–1217. 10.1080/13683500.2013.827159

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  GuyaderH.PiscicelliL. (2019). Business model diversification in the Sharing economy: the case of GoMore. J. Cleaner Prod.215, 1059–1069. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.114

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  HamariJ.SjöklintM.UkkonenA. (2016). The sharing economy: why people participate in collaborative consumption. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol.67, 2047–2059. 10.1002/asi.23552

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  HaqqaniA. A. H.ElomriA.KerbacheL. (2022). Sharing economy: a systematic review of definitions, drivers, applications, industry status and business models. IFAC-PapersOnLine55, 490–495. 10.1016/j.ifacol.2022.09.441

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  HarveyJ.SmithA.GouldingJ.Branco IllodoI. (2020). Food sharing, redistribution, and waste reduction via mobile applications: a social network analysis. Ind. Market. Manage.88, 437–448. 10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.02.019

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  HashemS.MiglioreG.SchifaniG.SchimmentiE.PadelS. (2018). Motives for buying local, organic food through English box schemes. Br. Food J.120, 1600–1614. 10.1108/BFJ-08-2017-0426

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  HatiS. R. H.BalqiahT. E.HanantoA.YuliatiE. (2021). A decade of systematic literature review on Airbnb: the sharing economy from a multiple stakeholder perspective. Heliyon7, e08222. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08222

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  HeoY. (2016). Sharing economy and prospects in tourism research. Ann. Tour. Res.58, 166–170. 10.1016/j.annals.2016.02.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  HofmannS.SæbøØ.BracciniA. M.ZaS. (2019). The public sector's roles in the sharing economy and the implications for public values. Gov. Inf. Q.36, 101399. 10.1016/j.giq.2019.101399

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  HongI.YooC. (2020). Analyzing spatial variance of airbnb pricing determinants using multiscale GWR approach. Sustainability12, 1–18. 10.3390/su12114710

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  HönigV.ProcházkaP.ObergruberM.KučerováV.MejstríkP.MackuJ.et al. (2020). Determination of tractor engine oil change interval based on material properties. Materials13, 1–26. 10.3390/ma13235403

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  HossainM. (2020). Sharing economy: a comprehensive literature review. Int. J. Hosp. Manage.87, 1–11. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102470

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  HuaN.ShannonR.HaiderM.MoschisG. P. (2023). Factors influencing purchase intention of food surplus through a food-sharing platform. Sustainability15, 1–20. 10.3390/su151713000

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  HuarngK. H.YuM. F. (2019). Customer satisfaction and repurchase intention theory for the online sharing economy. Rev. Manage. Sci.13, 635–647. 10.1007/s11846-018-0321-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  IoannidesD.RöslmaierM.Van Der ZeeE. (2019). Airbnb as an instigator of 'tourism bubble'expansion in Utrecht's Lombok neighbourhood. Tour. Geograph.21, 822–840. 10.1080/14616688.2018.1454505

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  JaremenD. E.NawrockaE.ŻemłaM. (2019). Sharing the economy in tourism and sustainable city development in the light of agenda 2030. Economies7, 1–15. 109. 10.3390/economies7040109

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  JungJ.KooY. (2018). Analyzing the effects of car sharing services on the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Sustainability10, 1–17. 10.3390/su10020539

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  KatsinasP. (2021). Professionalisation of short-term rentals and emergent tourism gentrification in post-crisis Thessaloniki. Environ. Planning Econ. Space53, 1652–1670. 10.1177/0308518X21988940

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  KeraD.SulaimanN. L. (2014). FridgeMatch: design probe into the future of urban food commensality. Futures62, 194–201. 10.1016/j.futures.2014.04.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  KetterE. (2019). Eating with EatWith: analysing tourism-sharing economy consumers. Curr. Issues Tour.22, 1062–1075. 10.1080/13683500.2017.1357682

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  KirmaniM. D.UddinS. F.SadiqM. A.AhmadA.HaqueM. A. (2023). Food-leftover sharing intentions of consumers: an extension of the theory of planned behavior. J. Retailing Consum. Serv.73, 103328. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103328

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  KuhzadyS.OlyaH.FarmakiA.ErtaşÇ. (2021). Sharing economy in hospitality and tourism: A review and the future pathways. J. Hosp. Market. Manage.30, 549–570. 10.1080/19368623.2021.1867281

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  Kumar GuptaS.GuptaS.GayathiriS. (2018). Pollution prevention is the key to drive sustainability: Preliminary findings from a tannery unit in India. Manage. Environ. Q.29, 416–426. 10.1108/MEQ-10-2017-0124

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  LanJ.MaY.MangalagiuD.ThorntonT. (2017). Enabling value co-creation in the sharing economy: the case of mobike. Sustainability9, 1–20. 10.3390/su9091504

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  LaukkanenM.TuraN. (2020). The potential of sharing economy business models for sustainable value creation. J. Cleaner Prod.253, 1–9. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  LaurentiR.SinghJ.CotrimJ. M.ToniM.SinhaR. (2019). Characterizing the sharing economy state of the research: a systematic map. Sustainability11, 1–21. 10.3390/su11205729

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  LazellJ. (2016). Consumer food waste behaviour in universities: sharing as a means of prevention. J. Consumer Behav.15, 430–439. 10.1002/cb.1581

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  LeeS.KimD. Y. (2018). The effect of hedonic and utilitarian values on satisfaction and loyalty of Airbnb users. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage.30, 1332–1351. 10.1108/IJCHM-09-2016-0504

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  LeungX. Y.XueL. (2019). Framing the sharing economy: toward a sustainable ecosystem. Tour. Manage.71, 44–53. 10.1016/j.tourman.2018.09.021

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  LhoL. H.QuanW.YuJ.HanH. (2022). The sharing economy in the hospitality sector: The role of social interaction, social presence, and reciprocity in eliciting satisfaction and continuance behavior. Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun.9, 1–12. 10.1057/s41599-022-01379-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  LiuX.ChenH. (2020). Sharing economy: promote its potential to sustainability by regulation. Sustainability12, 1–13. 10.3390/su12030919

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  MaY.RongK.LuoY.WangY.MangalagiuD.ThorntonT. F.et al. (2019). Value Co-creation for sustainable consumption and production in the sharing economy in China. J. Cleaner Prod.208, 1148–1158. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.135

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  MaitahM.ProcházkaP.SmutkaL.MaitahK.HonigV. (2019). Analysis of the impact of ethanol production on agricultural product prices in Brazil. Sugar Tech21, 773–779. 10.1007/s12355-019-00709-w

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  MakovT.SheponA.KronesJ.GuptaC.ChertowM. (2020). Social and environmental analysis of food waste abatement via the peer-to-peer sharing economy. Nat. Commun.11, 1–8. 10.1038/s41467-020-14899-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  MartinC. J. (2016). The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism?. Ecol. Econ.121, 149–159. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.11.027

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  MartinC. J.UphamP.BuddL. (2015). Commercial orientation in grassroots social innovation: insights from the sharing economy. Ecol. Econ.118, 240–251. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.08.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  MazzucchelliA.GurioliM.GrazianoD.QuacquarelliB.Aouina-MejriC. (2021). How to fight against food waste in the digital era: key factors for a successful food sharing platform. J. Bus. Res.124, 47–58. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.055

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  MermetA. C. (2022). Can gentrification theory learn from Airbnb? Airbnbfication and the asset economy in Reykjavík. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space54, 1147–1164. 10.1177/0308518X221094616

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  MeshulamT.Font-VivancoD.BlassV.MakovT. (2023). Sharing economy rebound: the case of peer-to-peer sharing of food waste. J. Ind. Ecol.27, 882–895. 10.1111/jiec.13319

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  MiZ.CoffmanD. (2019). The sharing economy promotes sustainable societies. Nat. Commun.10, 1–3. 10.1038/s41467-019-09260-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  MicheelsE. T.BoeckerA. (2017). Competitive strategies among Ontario farms marketing direct to consumers. Agric. Food Econ.5, 1–23. 10.1186/s40100-017-0079-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  MicheliniL.GriecoC.CiulliF.Di LeoA. (2020). Uncovering the impact of food sharing platform business models: a theory of change approach. Br. Food J.122, 1437–1462. 10.1108/BFJ-06-2019-0422

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  MirallesI.DentoniD.PascucciS. (2017). Understanding the organization of sharing economy in agri-food systems: evidence from alternative food networks in Valencia. Agric. Hum. Values34, 833–854. 10.1007/s10460-017-9778-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  ModyM.WoosnamK. M.SuessC.DogruT. (2023). Hapless victims or empowered citizens? Understanding residents' attitudes towards Airbnb using Weber's Theory of Rationality and Foucauldian concepts. J. Sust. Tour.31, 284–306. 10.1080/09669582.2020.1834567

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  ModyM. A.HanksL.ChengM. (2021). Sharing economy research in hospitality and tourism: a critical review using bibliometric analysis, content analysis and a quantitative systematic literature review. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage.33, 1711–1745. 10.1108/IJCHM-12-2020-1457

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  MontO.PalganY. V.BradleyK.ZvolskaL. (2020). A decade of the sharing economy: concepts, users, business and governance perspectives. J. Cleaner Prod.269, 1–9. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122215

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  MorfeldtJ.JohanssonD. J. (2022). Impacts of shared mobility on vehicle lifetimes and on the carbon footprint of electric vehicles. Nat. Commun.13, 1–11. 10.1038/s41467-022-33666-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  MoroneP.FalconeP. M.ImbertE.MoroneA. (2018). Does food sharing lead to food waste reduction? An experimental analysis to assess challenges and opportunities of a new consumption model. J. Cleaner Prod.185, 749–760. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.208

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  MuW.SpaargarenG.Oude LansinkA. (2019). Mobile apps for green food practices and the role for consumers: a case study on dining out practices with Chinese and Dutch young consumers. Sustainability11, 1–19. 10.3390/su11051275

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  MullickS.RaassensN.HaansH.NijssenE. J. (2021). Reducing food waste through digital platforms: A quantification of cross-side network effects. Ind. Marketing Manage.93, 533–544. 10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.09.021

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  NieuwlandS.van MelikR. (2018). Regulating airbnb: how cities deal with perceived negative externalities of short-term rentals. Curr. Issues Tour.23, 811–825. 10.1080/13683500.2018.1504899

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  NnajioforP. (2017). The New Sharing Economy: creation of a new serfdom?. Persp. Glob. Dev. Technol.16, 297–314. 10.1163/15691497-12341435

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  O'ReganM.ChoeJ. (2017). Airbnb and cultural capitalism: enclosure and control within the sharing economy. Anatolia28, 163–172. 10.1080/13032917.2017.1283634

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  OskamJ.BoswijkA. (2016). Airbnb: the future of networked hospitality businesses. J. Tour. Futures2, 22–42. 10.1108/JTF-11-2015-0048

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int. J. Surg.88, 1–9. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  PalganY. V.ZvolskaL.MontO. (2017). Sustainability framings of accommodation sharing. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans.23, 70–83. 10.1016/j.eist.2016.12.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  PouriM. J.HiltyL. M. (2018). Conceptualizing the digital sharing economy in the context of sustainability. Sustainability10, 1–19. 10.3390/su10124453

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  PriviteraD. (2016). Describing the collaborative economy: forms of food sharing initiatives. Econ. Sci. Rural Dev. Conf. Proc.43, 92–98.

  • Google Scholar

• 103

  PuramP.GurumurthyA. (2023). Sharing economy in the food sector: a systematic literature review and future research agenda. J. Hosp. Tour. Manage.56, 229–244. 10.1016/j.jhtm.2023.06.027

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  RayA.DhirA.BalaP. K.KaurP. (2019). Why do people use food delivery apps (FDA)? A uses and gratification theory perspective. J. Retailing Consum. Serv.51, 221–230. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.025

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  RethlefsenM. L.KirtleyS.WaffenschmidtS.AyalaA. P.MoherD.PageM. J.et al. (2021). PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Syst. Rev.10, 1–19. 10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  RichardsT. J.HamiltonS. F. (2018). Food waste in the sharing economy. Food Policy75, 109–123. 10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.01.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  RodriguesT. C.LeitaoF. O.ThomeK. M.CappellessoG. (2021). Sharing economy practices in agri-food settlements: integration of resources, interdependence and interdefinition. J. Clean. Prod.294, 126357. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126357

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  Sarkis-OnofreR.Catalá-LópezF.AromatarisE.LockwoodC. (2021). How to properly use the PRISMA Statement. Syst. Rev.10, 1–3. 10.1186/s13643-021-01671-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  SchanesK.StaglS. (2019). Food waste fighters: What motivates people to engage in food sharing?. J. Cleaner Prod.211, 1491–1501. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.162

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  SchorJ. B.FitzmauriceC.CarfagnaL. B.Attwood-CharlesW.PoteatE. D. (2016). Paradoxes of openness and distinction in the sharing economy. Poetics54, 66–81. 10.1016/j.poetic.2015.11.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  Scopus Preview (2023). Sources. Available online at: https://www.scopus.com/sources.uri?zone=TopNavBarandorigin= (accessed October 30, 2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 112

  SecondiL.PrincipatoL.MattiaG. (2019). Can digital solutions help in the minimization of out-of-home waste? An analysis from the client and business perspective. Br. Food J.122, 1341–1359. 10.1108/BFJ-03-2019-0205

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  SoltysovaZ.ModrakV. (2020). Challenges of the sharing economy for SMEs: a literature review. Sustainability12, 1–14. 10.3390/su12166504

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  StehrenbergerA.SchneiderT. (2023). “At first, I was only a subscriber”: re-mediating food citizens' solidarity practices through digital technologies. Front. Sust. Food Syst.7, 1–11. 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1214354

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  SwartzM. K. (2021). PRISMA 2020: an update. J. Pediatric Health Care35, 351. 10.1016/j.pedhc.2021.04.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  TajeddiniK.RasoolimaneshS. M.GamageT. C.MartinE. (2021). Exploring the visitors' decision-making process for Airbnb and hotel accommodations using value-attitude-behavior and theory of planned behavior. Int. J. Hosp. Manage.96, 102950. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.102950

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  TussyadiahI. P.PesonenJ. (2016). Impacts of peer-to-peer accommodation use on travel patterns. J. Travel Res.55, 1022–1040. 10.1177/0047287515608505

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  VélezA. M. A. (2023). Economic impacts, carbon footprint and rebound effects of car sharing: Scenario analysis assessing business-to-consumer and peer-to-peer car sharing. Sust. Prod. Consump.35, 238–249. 10.1016/j.spc.2022.11.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  WangC.HuangJ.LiaoJ.WanX. (2020). Food sharing with choice: influence on social evaluation. Front. Psychol.11, 1–8. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02070

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  WangY.XiangD.YangZ.MaS. S. (2019). Unraveling customer sustainable consumption behaviors in sharing economy: A socio-economic approach based on social exchange theory. J. Cleaner Prod.208, 869–879. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.139

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  Web of Science (2023). Documents. Available online at: https://www-webofscience-com.infozdroje.czu.cz/wos/woscc/smart-search (accessed October 28, 2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 122

  WirtzJ.SoK. K. F.ModyM. A.LiuS. Q.ChunH. H. (2019). Platforms in the peer-to-peer sharing economy. J. Service Manage.30, 452–483. 10.1108/JOSM-11-2018-0369

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  YangS. B.LeeH.LeeK.KooC. (2018). The application of Aristotle's rhetorical theory to the sharing economy: an empirical study of Airbnb. J. Travel Tour. Marketing35, 938–957. 10.1080/10548408.2018.1455622

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  ZhangZ.ChenR. J. (2019). Assessing Airbnb logistics in cities: geographic information system and convenience theory. Sustainability11, 1–11. 10.3390/su11092462

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  ZurekK. (2016). Food sharing in Europe: between regulating risks and the risks of regulating. Eur. J. Risk Reg.7, 675–687. 10.1017/S1867299X00010114

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar