Regulating the sharing economy: The effects of day caps on short- and long-term rental markets and stakeholder outcomes

IF 9.5 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Pub Date : 2024-06-15 DOI:10.1007/s11747-024-01028-7
Patrick Gauß, Sonja Gensler, Michael Kortenhaus, Nadine Riedel, Andrea Schneider
{"title":"Regulating the sharing economy: The effects of day caps on short- and long-term rental markets and stakeholder outcomes","authors":"Patrick Gauß, Sonja Gensler, Michael Kortenhaus, Nadine Riedel, Andrea Schneider","doi":"10.1007/s11747-024-01028-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Home sharing platforms have experienced a rapid growth over the last decade. Following negative publicity, many cities have started regulating the short-term rental market. Regulations often involve a cap on the number of days a property can be rented out on a short-term basis. We draw on rich data for short-term rentals on Airbnb and for the long-term rental market to examine the impact of short-term rental regulations with a day cap on various stakeholders: hosts, guests, the platform provider, and residents. Based on a difference-in-differences design, we document a sizable drop in Airbnb activity. Interestingly, not only targeted hosts (i.e., hosts with reservation days larger than the day cap), but also non-targeted hosts reduce their Airbnb activity. The reservation days of non-targeted hosts decrease between 26.27% and 51.89% depending on the treatment. Targeted hosts experience a similar decline. There is, nevertheless, significant non-compliance: more than one third of hosts do not comply with enacted short-term rental regulations. Additional analyses show that few properties are redirected from short-term rental to long-term rental use and that there is no significant drop in long-term rents. Drawing on a theoretical model, we tie the estimated effects to changes in stakeholders’ welfare: Regulations significantly reduce the welfare of hosts, and the loss ranges between 46.30% and 9.02%. The welfare loss of the platform provider is proportional to the loss of the hosts. Welfare of guests decreases moderately ranging between 4.5% to 4.1%. The welfare of residents increases minimal. These results question the effectiveness and desirability of the studied short-term rental regulations.</p>","PeriodicalId":17194,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-024-01028-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Home sharing platforms have experienced a rapid growth over the last decade. Following negative publicity, many cities have started regulating the short-term rental market. Regulations often involve a cap on the number of days a property can be rented out on a short-term basis. We draw on rich data for short-term rentals on Airbnb and for the long-term rental market to examine the impact of short-term rental regulations with a day cap on various stakeholders: hosts, guests, the platform provider, and residents. Based on a difference-in-differences design, we document a sizable drop in Airbnb activity. Interestingly, not only targeted hosts (i.e., hosts with reservation days larger than the day cap), but also non-targeted hosts reduce their Airbnb activity. The reservation days of non-targeted hosts decrease between 26.27% and 51.89% depending on the treatment. Targeted hosts experience a similar decline. There is, nevertheless, significant non-compliance: more than one third of hosts do not comply with enacted short-term rental regulations. Additional analyses show that few properties are redirected from short-term rental to long-term rental use and that there is no significant drop in long-term rents. Drawing on a theoretical model, we tie the estimated effects to changes in stakeholders’ welfare: Regulations significantly reduce the welfare of hosts, and the loss ranges between 46.30% and 9.02%. The welfare loss of the platform provider is proportional to the loss of the hosts. Welfare of guests decreases moderately ranging between 4.5% to 4.1%. The welfare of residents increases minimal. These results question the effectiveness and desirability of the studied short-term rental regulations.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
规范共享经济:日上限对短期和长期租赁市场及利益相关者结果的影响
在过去十年中,房屋共享平台经历了快速发展。随着负面新闻的曝光,许多城市开始对短租市场进行监管。监管措施通常涉及对房产短期出租的天数设置上限。我们利用丰富的 Airbnb 短租数据和长期租赁市场数据,研究了设置天数上限的短租法规对不同利益相关者(房东、客人、平台提供商和居民)的影响。基于差异设计,我们记录了 Airbnb 活动的显著下降。有趣的是,不仅目标房东(即预订天数大于天数上限的房东),非目标房东也减少了他们的 Airbnb 活动。非目标房东的预订天数减少了 26.27% 到 51.89%,这取决于处理方式。目标房东也经历了类似的下降。尽管如此,仍然存在严重的违规现象:超过三分之一的房东没有遵守已颁布的短期租赁法规。其他分析表明,很少有房产从短期租赁转为长期租赁,长期租金也没有显著下降。根据理论模型,我们将估计效果与利益相关者的福利变化联系起来:法规大大降低了房东的福利,损失在 46.30% 到 9.02% 之间。平台提供商的福利损失与房东的损失成正比。客人的福利适度减少,幅度在 4.5% 至 4.1% 之间。住户的福利增长微乎其微。这些结果对所研究的短租法规的有效性和可取性提出了质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
30.00
自引率
7.10%
发文量
82
期刊介绍: JAMS, also known as The Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, plays a crucial role in bridging the gap between scholarly research and practical application in the realm of marketing. Its primary objective is to study and enhance marketing practices by publishing research-driven articles. When manuscripts are submitted to JAMS for publication, they are evaluated based on their potential to contribute to the advancement of marketing science and practice.
期刊最新文献
How generative AI Is shaping the future of marketing The impact of analyst stock recommendations on firms’ relative exploration orientation Shifting perspectives: How communicating user innovations’ self-focus enhances adoption There is business like show business! What marketing scholars and managers can learn from 40 years of entertainment science research Expressions of customer rumination in online posts and firm responses
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1