Airbnb phenomenon: a review of literature and future research directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The paper intends to review academic research on peer to peer (P2P) accommodation sharing, notably Airbnb, for 2010–2022 and to identify the knowledge gaps for future research directions. Design/methodology/approach Numerous databases were searched using keywords. Based on the central theme of the research papers, the papers were divided into eight segments—consumer behavior, host behavior, host–guest relationship (HGR), trust in Airbnb, dominant theories in Airbnb, Airbnb regulation, Airbnb and hotels and macro impacts of Airbnb. In-depth content analysis resulted in the final 101 papers for inclusion. Findings The review advances comprehension of the Airbnb phenomenon by enriching the literature with new and most recent studies. Most existing Airbnb research has been conducted in Europe, USA/Canada, followed by Asian countries like China, Singapore, S. Korea and India. Future studies should include South America, Africa and other developing nations. More cross-cultural studies are required to understand consumer and host behavior in different cultural settings. Numerous proposals to fulfill the research gaps identified by the paper are discussed. Practical implications The study will give better insights into the spiraling P2P accommodation economy. The study will be useful to researchers, scholars, Airbnb, the hotel industry, vacation rental players and destination marketing organizations by relating the study findings to practical competition analysis. The study provides deeper insights into the decision-making process of both guests and hosts by examining the relevant motivators and constraints. It will also assist the Airbnb platform in identifying its strength over the traditional hotel industry and other vacation rentals. The findings will also assist policymakers in better controlling the Airbnb phenomena by providing a comprehensive view of the micro and macro environment. Originality/value The paper includes the most recent studies from Asian countries like India, Singapore, China, Korea and Taiwan, not covered by earlier reviews. Prior studies mainly focused on European and American countries. Also, the paper tried to cover the macro impacts of Airbnb in-depth and the effects of COVID-19.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".