1. ENTER 2015 Research TrackSlide Number 1 An Exploratory Study on Drivers and Deterrents of Collaborative Consumption in Travel Iis P. Tussyadiah Washington State University Vancouver, USA iis.tussyadiah@wsu.edu

2. ENTER 2015 Research TrackSlide Number 2 Collaborative Consumption “…the acquisition and distribution of a resource for a fee or other compensation.” Belk, 2014

3. ENTER 2015 Research TrackSlide Number 3

4. ENTER 2015 Research TrackSlide Number 4 Research Goals Identify: 1.Market characteristics: users vs. non-users 2. Drivers of collaborative consumption/P2P accommodation 3. Barriers to collaborative consumption/P2P accommodation

5. ENTER 2015 Research TrackSlide Number 5 Literature/Media “Anecdotal evidence” –Changes in consumer “value” –A low cost alternative –Environmental pressure and desire for community Limited “pool” of theoretical explanation –Innovativeness –Self-determination theory An Exploratory Study

6. ENTER 2015 Research TrackSlide Number 6 Method Online Survey distributed via Amazon Mechanical Turk; –799 US residents; 155 users & 599 non-users. –Demographic characteristics, travel frequency, accommodation use, innovativeness traits T-tests & Chi-square statistics to identify market characteristics. Exploratory factor analyses for drivers and barriers to P2P accommodation.

7. ENTER 2015 Research TrackSlide Number 7 Market Characteristics Demographics: No difference in terms of age and gender Users have higher levels of education Users have higher levels of income → More than just offering low-cost solutions; a greater awareness of the value in collaborative consumption.

8. ENTER 2015 Research TrackSlide Number 8 Market Characteristics Travel Patterns: Users travel more often than non-users More users stay in alternative accommodation (e.g., timeshares, condo rentals) → Users may be more accustomed to different quality standards and experiences.

9. ENTER 2015 Research TrackSlide Number 9 Market Characteristics Innovativeness traits*: No difference in terms of Technology innovativeness Users rated themselves higher in terms of Travel innovativeness Users: Mean = 3.43 (.88); Non-users: Mean = 2.93 (.83); t = -6.49, sig. =.00 *Domain-specific personal innovativeness scale (Goldsmith & Hofacker, 1991; Agarwal & Prasad, 1998)

10. ENTER 2015 Research TrackSlide Number 10 Barriers A list of deterrents from literature 599 Respondents Principal Component Analysis –Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sample adequacy:.78 –Bartlett’s test of sphericity: χ 2 = 2472.12, df = 36, sig. =.00

11. ENTER 2015 Research TrackSlide Number 11 Barriers Factors Factor Loading Eigen Value Cum. Percent Chronbach’s Alpha [Lack of] Trust 2.9132.34%.87 …I was concerned about safety..88 …I was concerned about privacy..86 …I did not trust the host(s)..85 …I did not trust the online platform to execute the transaction..67 [Lack of] Efficacy 2.0254.83%.74 …I did not have enough information about how it works..89 …I did not know what it is..85 …it was not easy to search for the list of vacation rentals online..67 [Lack of] Economic Benefits 1.8074.80%.80 …it was more expensive than staying at hotels..88 …it did not save me enough money..85

12. ENTER 2015 Research TrackSlide Number 12 Barriers Concern and distrust toward hosts and business platform –Olson (2013), Keymolen (2013), Owyang (2013) Insufficient information Consumers will only participate if benefits are higher than cost –Hennig-Thurau, Henning, & Sattler (2007), Lamberton & Rose (2012)

13. ENTER 2015 Research TrackSlide Number 13 Drivers A list of motivational factors from literature 155 Respondents Principal Component Analysis –Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sample adequacy:.82 –Bartlett’s test of sphericity: χ 2 = 973.51, df = 55, sig. =.00

14. ENTER 2015 Research TrackSlide Number 14 Drivers FactorsFactor Loading Eigen Value Cum. Percent Chronbach’ s Alpha Sustainability 3.6833.49%.92 …I would like to reduce the consumption of energy and other resources while traveling..93 …I would like to be a more socially responsible traveller..93 …I would like to reduce the negative impacts of travel on the environment..91 …I would like to support the local economy..71 …it was a more sustainable business model..65 Community 2.3955.20%.82 …I would like to have a more meaningful interaction with the hosts..84 …I would like to get to know people from the local neighbourhoods..83 …I would like to get insiders’ tips on local attractions..79 Economic Benefits 2.0073.37%.73 …it saved me money..85 …it helped me lower my travel cost..84 …I would like to have higher quality accommodation with less money..73

15. ENTER 2015 Research TrackSlide Number 15 Drivers Desire to be responsible travelers – reduce environmental impacts, use resources more responsibly, support local economy –Bostman & Rogers (2010), Gansky (2010) To get to know & interact with local communities (social appeal) Lower cost (economic appeal) –Botsman & Rogers (2010), Gansky (2010), Lamberton & Rose (2012), Owyang (2013), Sacks (2011)

16. ENTER 2015 Research TrackSlide Number 16 Recommendations For P2P rentals to reduce barriers and increase participation: –Develop platforms that increase trust (reputation scoring, regulatory measures) –Educate market to increase familiarity with the system –Highlight sustainability and economic benefits

17. ENTER 2015 Research TrackSlide Number 17 Recommendations For hotels to improve their competitive edge in areas of sustainability, community and cost For tourism destinations to nurture healthy competition and optimize benefits for local economy – sets of regulation

18. ENTER 2015 Research TrackSlide Number 18 Further Research Research is exploratory in nature – needs further verification: –Some factors did not converge – hotel selection criteria –Emerged from open-ended questions: authenticity and regulatory issues

19. ENTER 2015 Research TrackSlide Number 19 THANK YOU iis.tussyadiah@vancouver.wsu.edu