Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123981

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Factors inhibiting the use of sharing economy services in Japan

Hiroki Nakamura a, *, Naoya Abe b, Takeshi Mizunoya c
a
Institute of Social Science, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan
b
Department of Transdisciplinary Science and Engineering, School of Environment and Society, Tokyo Institute of Technology, I4-4, 2-12-1 O-okayama,
Meguro-ku, Tokyo, 152-8550 Japan
c
Faculty of Economics, Hokkai-Gakuen University, 4-1-40 Asahimachi, Toyohira-ku, Sapporo, 062-8605 Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The growth of sharing economy services has been led by technological development, an awareness of
Received 9 June 2020 reducing ecological impacts, and change in attitudes toward product ownership and the demands for
Received in revised form social networks. Research on the motivations of the sharing economy help facilitate a better under-
24 August 2020
standing of users’ decision-making processes. However, despite this recent interest, there are limited
Accepted 27 August 2020
Available online 29 August 2020
quantitative studies investigating why only few people use sharing economy services in countries such as
Japan. This study investigated factors inhibiting the use of sharing economy services in Japan. We
^ as de
Handling editor: Cecilia Maria Villas Bo compared five models of such services, considering variables such as income and savings. Results show
Almeida that females tend to not use space-, goods-, money-, or mobility-sharing services, and higher-income
people use mobility-, skills (time)-, and goods-sharing services. Overall, an important factor inhibiting
Keywords: the use of such services was “resistance and anxiety about sharing with strangers.” Space-sharing ser-
Sharing economy service vices are presumed to contribute the most to the efficient use of resources, even though people believe
Inhibiting factor that such services contribute to the efficient use of both time and resources. Furthermore, people are
Japan
interested in the sharing economy and social contribution. For practical implications, service providers
should eliminate resistance and anxiety by facilitating connections among users who are unfamiliar with
each other in local or online communities.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Recently, sharing economy services (SESs) have had a major
impact not only on business but also on society worldwide (Belk,
2014; Cheng, 2016; Bo € cker and Meelen, 2017; Lindblom et al.,
2018; Narasimhan et al., 2018). The growth of SESs has been led
by technological development, an awareness of reducing ecological
impacts, and change in attitudes toward product ownership, as well
as the demand for social networks (Cheng, 2016).
SESs or collaborative consumption are economic and business
models of renting, trading, or sharing of products and services (see
e.g., Botsman and Rogers, 2011; Mo €hlmann, 2015). Belk (2014)
examined why developments of SESs have attracted attention
and established that sharing is a phenomenon that has been in
existence since the beginning of mankind, whereas SESs or
collaborative consumption are based on an online platform, which
is defined as a digital service that facilitates interactions between
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hnakamu@iss.u-tokyo.ac.jp (H. Nakamura).
users through the service via computers and information technol-
ogy such as the Internet. SESs point to businesses that share un-
utilized assets and are basically transactions and matching between
service providers and consumers through the Internet. Before the
introduction of the Internet, it was difficult to carry out transactions
between individuals, but with the recent expansion of personal
computers and smartphones use, matching can easily be done on
the Internet (Yamasawa, 2018).
Research on the motivations of the sharing economy can help
facilitate a better understanding of users’ decision-making pro-
cesses (Piscicelli et al., 2015; Martin, 2016). However, despite recent
interest in the sharing economy, there are limited quantitative
studies on the motivations of people to participate in SESs (Bo €cker
and Meelen, 2017). Moreover, most of previous research has
focused solely on one type of SES (Piscicelli et al., 2015). Although
Mo€hlmann (2015) analyzed both ride- and accommodation-
sharing services, only a few studies have distinguished the
different types of SESs (Hamari et al., 2015).
However, Hellwig et al. (2015) and Bo €cker and Meelen (2017)
indicate that the motivations to use SESs can differ, depending on

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123981
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 H. Nakamura et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123981

Table 1
Five sectors of the sharing economy in Japan.

Sector Detail Service or Company Name

1 Space Private lodging, renting out empty rooms at private houses to guests, and sharing of vacant parking spaces Airbnb, Akippa, Nokisaki
2 Goods Online platform where people can buy and sell goods or things like luxury handbags and dresses by fixed fee Mercari, Laxus, Aircloset
payment
3 Money Crowdfunding service Makuake, Ready for
4 Skills Online platform providing housekeeping, cleaning, and cooking services to families; carpools for children; and Tasukaji, Crowdworks, AsMama
(Time) childcare services
5 Mobility SES of mobility or transportation such as car and bicycle sharing Docomo bike share, Citybike, Times car
share

the type of SESs and the sociodemographic features of user groups.
€ cker and Meelen (2017) demonstrate more comprehensive un-
Bo
derstandings of the motivations of using SESs in a sustainable
manner, taking into consideration economic, environmental, and
social motivations. Thus, it is imperative to examine not only eco-
nomic but also environmental and social motivations as the sharing
economy or collaborative consumption is presumed to be a new
paradigm that has significant potential to change the economic
system and achieve the United Nations’ Sustainable Development
Goals (O’Rourke and Lollo, 2015; Go €ssling and Hall, 2019).
€ cker and Meelen (2017) also selected five types of SESs to
Bo
investigate motivations for participation in Amsterdam. Whereas
the five types of SESs are car-, ride-, accommodation-, tool-, and
meal-sharing services, Yamasawa (2018) chose five different types
of SESs (space, goods, skills [time], mobility, and money) as classi-
fied by the Sharing Economy Association, Japan. This study focuses
on Japan and follows Yamasawa’s (2018) classification
methodology.
What is unique about the sharing economy is that people are not
only the consumers, but can also be the providers of services.
Therefore, in Japan, there is an increasing number of cases where
employed people provide SESs as side businesses (Yamasawa,

Table 2
Definitions of variables.

Variable Symbol Definition

No intention to use SESs NOINT1 1: if the individual has no intention to use space-sharing services; 0: otherwise.
NOINT2 1: if the individual has no intention to use goods-sharing services; 0: otherwise.
NOINT3 1: if the individual has no intention to use money-sharing services; 0: otherwise.
NOINT4 1: if the individual has no intention to use skill (time)-sharing services; 0: otherwise.
NOINT5 1: if the individual has no intention to use mobility-sharing services; 0: otherwise.
Gender MALE 1: if the individual is male; 0: if the individual is female.
Age AGE Current age (in years).
AGESQ ¼ AGEAGE
Education status EDU0 1: if the individual is a high school graduate; 0: otherwise.
EDU1 1: if the individual is a vocational school, technical, or junior college graduate; 0: otherwise.
EDU2 1: if the individual has a bachelor’s degree; 0: otherwise.
EDU3 1: if the individual has a master’s or doctorate degree; 0: otherwise.
EDU4 1: if the education status of the individual is other or unknown; 0: otherwise.
Marital status NOMAR 1: if the individual is not married; 0: otherwise.
Household type HOUS 1: if the individual has a family with no child; 0: otherwise.
０
HOUS1 1: if the individual has a family with 1 child; 0: otherwise.
HOUS2 1: if the individual has a family with 2 children; 0: otherwise.
HOUS3 1: if the individual has a family with 3 or more children; 0: otherwise.
Income INC0 1: if the income of the individual is < 1 million yen; 0: otherwise.
INC1 1: if the income of the individual is 1e3 million yen; 0: otherwise.
INC2 1: if the income of the individual is 3e5 million yen; 0: otherwise.
INC3 1: if the income of the individual is 5e10 million yen; 0: otherwise.
INC4 1: if the income of the individual is > 10 million yen; 0: otherwise.
INC5 1: if the income of the individual is unknown or not answered; 0: otherwise.
Factors inhibiting use of F1 1: if the individual selects “Unable to own a product” as the inhibiting factor; 0: otherwise.
SES F2 1: if the individual selects “There are anxieties for support in the event of an accident” as the inhibiting factor; 0: otherwise.
F3 1: if the individual selects “Service details and how to use the services seem to be difficult to understand” as the inhibiting factor; 0:
otherwise.
F4 1: if the individual selects “Procedures such as registering personal information in advance are bothersome” as the inhibiting factor; 0:
otherwise.
F5 1: if the individual selects “Anxiety about safety” as the inhibiting factor; 0: otherwise.
F6 1: if the individual selects “Anxiety about reliability” as the inhibiting factor; 0: otherwise.
F7 1: if the individual selects “Services provided by companies are more trustworthy” as the inhibiting factor; 0: otherwise.
F8 1: if the individual selects “The legal system for shared services is vague” as the inhibiting factor; 0: otherwise.
F9 1: if the individual selects “There is resistance and anxiety about sharing with strangers” as the inhibiting factor; 0: otherwise.
F10 1: if the individual selects “No benefit of sharing” as the inhibiting factor; 0: otherwise.
Effective use of time TIME The extent to which the individual thinks SESs contribute to using time effectively (1: No, 2: Not very, 3: Neutral, 4: Somewhat, or 5:
Yes).
Effective use of resources RES The extent to which the individual thinks SESs contribute to using resources effectively (1: No, 2: Not very, 3: Neutral, 4: Somewhat, or
5: Yes).
Interest in SESs INTER The extent to which the individual is interested in SESs (1: No, 2: Not very, 3: Neutral, 4: Somewhat, or 5: Yes).
Interest in social SOCIAL The extent to which the individual has interest in social contribution (1: No, 2: Not very, 3: Neutral, 4: Somewhat, or 5: Yes).
contribution
 H. Nakamura et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123981
2018), making the most of their assets, skills, and time. However,
the intention to use car-sharing services is the lowest in Japan when
compared to the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, South
Korea, and China (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications,
Japan, 2016).
Thus, the purpose of this study is to understand the reason few
people have the intention to use SESs in Japandwhere develop-
ment of the sharing economy, although expanding, still lags far
behind that of other developed nations (Yamasawa, 2018)dby
identifying the factors that hinder people from using such services.
Furthermore, this study also clarified the characteristics and dif-
ferences between people who have the intention to use SESs and
those who do not.
2. Background literature
2.1. Practical situation of sharing economy services
SESs offer benefits to both service providers and consumers.
From the macro point of view, SESs are expected to respond to
various individual requirements, which are often unmet in a
traditional market, resulting in the resolution of previously un-
touched social issues (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Simulta-
neously, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and pointed out that
ensuring security and protecting users’ safety remain as potentially
serious issues, which in turn, negatively affect people’s intention to
use sharing services such as vacation rentals and car sharing in the
country.
For instance, the Ministry found that although vacation rentals
are widely known in Japan, the intention to use them is the least
Fig. 1. Respondents’ locations in Japan.
3
preferred among all the above-mentioned SESs. Moreover,
regarding ride-sharing services, the awareness level in Japan
appeared to be low at 48.3%, while that of other countries ranged
between 70% and 90%. The percentage of people who intend to use
such services was also the lowest (31.2%) in Japan, while in China,
South Korea, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany,
the percentages were 86.4%, 71.5%, 53.5%, 42.4%, and 37.2%
respectively.
Regarding the reasons people do not use such SESs, many Jap-
anese respondents selected “There are anxieties for support in the
event of an accident,” while many American respondents generally
selected “Services provided by responsible companies are more
reliable” (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan,
2016).
Although there is a growing body of research focusing on users’
motivation and intention to use SESs, there are few studies that
have analyzed the reasons some people do not want to use these
services. Therefore, taking the case of Japan, this study focuses on
analyzing why few people intend to use SES by identifying the
factors inhibiting them. As mentioned earlier, this study also clar-
ifies the characteristics and differences between people who intend
to use SESs and those who do not.
2.2. Types of sharing economy services
As mentioned earlier, in the context of introduced five types of
SESs as classified by the Sharing Economy Association, Japan: space,
goods, money, skills (and time), and mobility (see Table 1). Ac-
cording to Yamasawa (2018), a typical example of platforms that
provide space-sharing services is “Airbnb,” which rents out rooms
4 H. Nakamura et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123981

Table 3 investment-type crowdfunding is a way to source money for a

Definitions of variables and descriptive statistics. company by asking individual investors to invest a relatively small
Symbol Mean Standard Deviation Min. Max. amount of money and the investors receive equity shares of the
NOINT1 0.558 0.497 0 1
company in return. In purchasing-type crowdfunding, money is
NOINT2 0.519 0.500 0 1 collected from people to develop a new product, and people can
NOINT3 0.626 0.484 0 1 buy that product once it is complete.
NOINT4 0.499 0.500 0 1 For skills- and time-sharing services, there is “Tasukaji,” which
NOINT5 0.544 0.498 0 1
provides housekeeping services such as cleaning and cooking to
MALE 0.497 0.500 0 1
AGE 48.57 16.36 15 79 families; “AsMama,” which facilitates carpools for children and
AGESQ 2626.3 1605.9 225 6241 provides child-care services; and “Crowdworks,” which facilitates
EDU0 0.323 0.468 0 1 activities like website creation. Finally, “mobility sharing” literally
EDU1 0.207 0.405 0 1
means sharing mobility or transportation services, such as car and
EDU2 0.379 0.485 0 1
EDU3 0.0542 0.226 0 1
bicycle sharing. Some academic papers have also focused on
EDU4 0.0374 0.190 0 1 mobility-sharing services in Japan (see e.g., Nakamura and Abe,
NOMAR 0.372 0.483 0 1 2014a, 2014b; 2016; Nakamura et al., 2019).
HOUS0 0.407 0.491 0 1
HOUS1 0.166 0.372 0 1
HOUS2 0.304 0.460 0 1
HOUS3 0.122 0.327 0 1 2.3. Motivation to use sharing economy services
INC0 0.250 0.433 0 1
INC1 0.245 0.430 0 1 Existing studies on the motivation to use SESs include several
INC2 0.197 0.397 0 1 models and theories (Bo € cker and Meelen, 2017). For instance,
INC3 0.155 0.362 0 1
Hamari et al. (2015) introduced self-determination theory (see e.g.,
INC4 0.0272 0.163 0 1
INC5 0.126 0.332 0 1 Deci and Ryan, 2000; Ryan and Deci, 2000). According to this
F1 0.139 0.346 0 1 theory, behavior is presumed to be driven by intrinsic and extrinsic
F2 0.412 0.492 0 1 motivations. The former results from inherent satisfaction with an
F3 0.191 0.393 0 1
activity, and the latter are separate outcomes from the behavior.
F4 0.202 0.402 0 1
F5 0.363 0.481 0 1 Hamari et al. (2015) distinguished between intrinsic and extrinsic
F6 0.388 0.487 0 1 motivations, and investigated people’s motivations for participa-
F7 0.129 0.335 0 1 tion by analyzing the survey data of 168 people registered on a SES
F8 0.214 0.410 0 1 platform.
F9 0.418 0.493 0 1
The results indicated that the motivation of using SESs came
F10 0.158 0.365 0 1
TIME 2.706 1.231 1 5 from many factors, such as enjoyment of the activity, economic and
RES 3.002 1.313 1 5 financial gains, and sustainability. It was found that the sustain-
INTER 2.144 1.233 1 5 ability factor was positively associated with ecological consump-
SOCIAL 2.949 1.090 1 5
tion of SESs but was not directly associated with the use of the
services. This indicates that the sustainability factor may only be
indispensable for those who find the ecological aspect of SESs to be
at private houses to guests, and “Akippa” and “Nokisaki,” which important.
provide temporary parking spaces to car users. Regarding the Early on, SESs connected the idea of accessing rather than
sharing of goods, “Mercari” is a well-known business platform acquiring and consuming goods and services to sustainability
where people can buy and sell goods. Other such platforms are (Heinrichs, 2013; Geissinger et al., 2019). Although the efficient use
“Laxus” and “Aircloset”; the former business provides a sharing of resources can be understood as a driving factor for SESs from the
platform for luxury handbags and the latter for dresses upon pay- viewpoint of sustainability, there are some other factors that led to
ment of a fixed fee. the development of SESs such as individuals providing SESs as full-
The sharing of money often takes the form of crowdfunding, and time jobs and side businesses, participation in SESs for financial
“Makuake” is a well-known company providing this service in reasons, and differences between those accessing and those own-
Japan. Crowdfunding can be classified into three categories: ing the resources (Acquier et al., 2017; Mair and Reischauer, 2017;
donation, investment, and purchasing. Donation-type crowdfund- Geissinger et al., 2019).
ing is a way of raising money by asking people to donate, while Hawlitschek et al. (2018) developed an analytical model of

Fig. 2. Respondents’ interests in and intention to use SESs (N ¼ 5000).

 H. Nakamura et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123981
Fig. 3. Respondents’ perceived contribution to effective use of resources and time.
potential consumer motivation and investigated the importance of
the motivation for and against SESs. The results showed that the
success of SES platforms largely depends on the capability of pro-
viders of SESs such as accommodation- and ride-sharing, and many
niche services for renting specific-purpose products. Hawlitschek
et al. (2018) provided an overview of studies on consumer moti-
vation to use SESs and identified prospective motivations for peer-
to-peer sharing. The results showed that among the prospective
motivations, “financial benefits,” “trust in other users,” “modern
lifestyle,” “effort expectancy,” and “ecological sustainability” were
the five most important factors.
As previously mentioned, Bo € cker and Meelen (2017) also
focused on motivations for using SESs by type, and they investi-
gated the relative importance of the motivations, considering dif-
ferences among the types of SESs, and sociodemographic
characteristics. They also conducted a statistical analysis by build-
ing an analytical model of ordered logit models and found the
differences in the motivations of using SESs. For example, they
found that motivations to take part in SESs differ by user and the
type of services.
Motivation to participate in the sharing economy could also be
enhanced by social aspects of sharing (Ozanne and Ballantine,
2010) such as interactions between consumers and providers of
services and products (Bo €cker and Meelen, 2017). For example, in
the case of accommodation sharing, meeting with and getting
friends among local people who might be introduced by local hosts
in the local community can positively stimulate participation in the
sharing economy and collaborative consumption (Botsman and
Rogers, 2011). However, Tussyadiah (2016) indicated that some
users of accommodation sharing just look for places to stay and do
not necessarily require social networks and interaction with local
people.
2.4. Theory of consumer behavior and the research gap
Existing research on the motivation to use SESs is mostly based
on the theory of consumer behavior. Consumer behavior is inter-
disciplinary and has various approaches developed by diverse
disciplines. For instance, the cognitive approach of consumer
behavior is derived from cognitive psychology and can be classified
into three models: 1. Descriptive, 2. Prescriptive, and 3. Analytic
(Moital, 2007). Descriptive models focus on how a specific behavior
5
develops in a specific situation, and prescriptive models provide
frameworks to understand the structure of consumer behavior.
Finally, analytical models, which mainly include the theory of buyer
behavior (Howard and Sheth, 1969) and the consumer decision
model (Engel et al., 1995), describe the variables that explain con-
sumer behavior.
In both models, many factors are similar, and especially the
consumer decision model is widely used in consumer behavior
research (Erasmus et al., 2001). The consumer decision model
consists of input, information process, decision process, and vari-
ables influencing the decision process. The decision process is
based on seven other processes: need recognition, search, pre-
purchase evaluation of alternatives, purchase, consumption, post-
consumption evaluation, and divestment. The important differ-
ence between the theory of buyer behavior and the consumer de-
cision model is that there is an inhibiting factor in the purchase or
use of products and services, and removing the inhibitors before
the actual purchase behavior is manifested in the theory of buyer
behavior (Howard and Sheth, 1969).
According to Howard and Sheth (1969), environmental forces
are the inhibiting factor (i.e., limited resources of time or economy
that restrain the choice of consumption and influence exogeneous
variables of social class, culture, organization, time pressure, and
financial status). Although the viewpoint of an inhibitor is impor-
tant, existing studies related to SESs have not been focusing on the
inhibiting factor as the main concerns have been the economic,
environmental, and social motivations and aspects of SESs for
sustainability. However, although people generally recognize the
importance of SESs, in some countries such as Japan, few people use
and intend to use such services. Therefore, this study focuses on the
inhibiting factor of the consumer behavior model in the case of
Japan to fill in the gap that exists in research theory and practice in
the field of SESs.
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Analytical method
We built a logit model to investigate the reason why few people
intend to use SESs, as well as which factors inhibit people from
using such services. Consider the likelihood of individual i having
no intention to use each type of SES. Let NOINTi denote a dummy
6 H. Nakamura et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123981

Table 4
Estimation results (coefficients) of the five models.

NOINT1 NOINT2 NOINT3 NOINT4 NOINT5

MALE 0.251** 0.294*** 0.370*** 0.0100 0.292***

(0.100) (0.101) (0.103) (0.100) (0.102)
AGE 0.029 0.057*** 0.068*** 0.027 0.035*
(0.018) (0.018) (0.019) (0.018) (0.019)
AGESQ 5.29  104*** 7.69  104*** 8.04  104*** 4.13  104** 5.02  104***
(1.85  104) (1.85  104) (1.95  104) (1.84  104) (1.88  104)
EDU1 0.010 0.045 0.035 0.055 0.078
(0.120) (0.121) (0.127) (0.121) (0.123)
EDU2 0.204* 0.146 0.157 0.146 0.043
(0.106) (0.106) (0.110) (0.106) (0.108)
EDU3 0.133 0.086 0.068 0.093 0.079
(0.203) (0.203) (0.208) (0.206) (0.210)
EDU4 0.027 0.151 0.050 0.152 0.025
(0.233) (0.236) (0.250) (0.235) (0.237)
NOMAR 0.048 0.099 0.020 0.183 0.014
(0.113) (0.112) (0.118) (0.113) (0.114)
HOUS1 0.052 0.064 0.188 0.242* 0.006
(0.137) (0.136) (0.142) (0.139) (0.140)
HOUS2 0.058 0.055 0.156 0.053 0.063
(0.129) (0.128) (0.135) (0.130) (0.131)
HOUS3 0.043 0.048 0.177 0.044 0.020
(0.160) (0.159) (0.168) (0.161) (0.162)
INC1 0.172 0.085 0.004 0.041 0.226*
(0.124) (0.124) (0.130) (0.126) (0.127)
INC2 0.148 0.009 0.017 0.282** 0.284**
(0.138) (0.139) (0.142) (0.139) (0.140)
INC3 0.315** 0.0131 0.122 0.319** 0.277*
(0.160) (0.160) (0.165) (0.162) (0.164)
INC4 0.299 0.180 0.138 0.228 0.567**
(0.278) (0.279) (0.290) (0.284) (0.284)
INC5 0.238 0.251* 0.215 0.488*** 0.551***
(0.149) (0.149) (0.157) (0.149) (0.153)
F1 0.142 0.224* 0.088 0.238* 0.296**
(0.124) (0.124) (0.128) (0.125) (0.127)
F2 0.311*** 0.0940 0.371*** 0.103 0.00381
(0.099) (0.098) (0.100) (0.099) (0.100)
F3 0.125 0.0178 0.0321 0.0824 0.126
(0.111) (0.111) (0.114) (0.113) (0.112)
F4 0.193* 0.252** 0.0832 0.0109 0.101
(0.113) (0.114) (0.116) (0.116) (0.116)
F5 0.0778 0.124 0.183* 0.0311 0.0504
(0.096) (0.095) (0.099) (0.096) (0.097)
F6 0.123 0.229** 0.144 0.0937 0.245**
(0.094) (0.094) (0.098) (0.095) (0.096)
F7 0.0136 0.0257 0.121 0.0721 0.0673
(0.132) (0.131) (0.138) (0.136) (0.134)
F8 0.270** 0.147 0.155 0.127 0.0764
(0.113) (0.113) (0.115) (0.115) (0.114)
F9 0.184** 0.277*** 0.367*** 0.425*** 0.353***
(0.0922) (0.0923) (0.0946) (0.0933) (0.0943)
F10 0.143 0.220* 0.0385 0.164 0.383***
(0.116) (0.115) (0.123) (0.117) (0.119)
TIME 0.640*** 0.553*** 0.523*** 0.506*** 0.689***
(0.0555) (0.0507) (0.0598) (0.0521) (0.0586)
RES 0.107** 0.322*** 0.273*** 0.286*** 0.111**
(0.0530) (0.0468) (0.0591) (0.0538) (0.0560)
INTER 1.349*** 1.421*** 1.542*** 1.396*** 1.478***
(0.0433) (0.0458) (0.0490) (0.0449) (0.0466)
0.144*** 0.126*** 0.158*** 0.137***
(0.0434) (0.0434) (0.0452) (0.0438) (0.0439)
Constant 5.767*** 6.685*** 7.430*** 5.934*** 6.519***
(0.476) (0.485) (0.507) (0.479) (0.490)
N 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000
Log likelihood 1846.8 1839.5 1733.5 1828.9 1780.8
LR statistics 3171.4 3245.1 3142.6 3273.7 3331.8
Pseudo R2 0.462 0.469 0.476 0.472 0.483

Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses. ***, **, and * indicate the 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels, respectively. N indicates the number of observations.

that represents whether individual i has no intention to use SESs.

expðb0 þ b1 Fi þ b2 Si þ b3 Xi Þ
We estimate the likelihood using the following regression model: ¼ (1)
1 þ expðb0 þ b1 Fi þ b2 Si þ b3 Xi Þ
Pi ¼ PrðNOINTi ¼ 1Þ ¼ f ðb0 þ b1 Fi þ b2 Si þ b3 Xi Þ
 H. Nakamura et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123981 7

Table 5
Estimation results (odds ratios) of the five models.

NOINT1 NOINT2 NOINT3 NOINT4 NOINT5

MALE 0.778** 0.745*** 0.691*** 1.010 0.746***

(0.078) (0.075) (0.071) (0.101) (0.076)
AGE 0.971 0.944*** 0.934*** 0.973 0.965*
(0.018) (0.017) (0.018) (0.018) (0.018)
AGESQ 1.001*** 1.001*** 1.001*** 1.000** 1.001***
(1.86  104) (1.86  104) (1.95  104) (1.84  104) (1.88  104)
EDU1 1.010 1.045 1.036 1.057 0.925
(0.122) (0.126) (0.131) (0.128) (0.114)
EDU2 1.226* 1.157 1.170 1.157 1.044
(0.130) (0.122) (0.129) (0.123) (0.112)
EDU3 0.876 1.089 1.070 1.097 1.083
(0.177) (0.221) (0.223) (0.226) (0.228)
EDU4 1.027 0.860 1.051 0.859 0.976
(0.239) (0.203) (0.262) (0.202) (0.232)
NOMAR 1.049 1.104 0.980 1.201 0.987
(0.118) (0.123) (0.115) (0.136) (0.113)
HOUS1 1.054 0.938 0.829 0.785* 0.994
(0.145) (0.128) (0.118) (0.109) (0.139)
HOUS2 1.059 0.947 0.855 0.948 1.065
(0.137) (0.121) (0.115) (0.123) (0.139)
HOUS3 1.044 0.954 0.838 0.957 1.020
(0.167) (0.151) (0.141) (0.154) (0.165)
INC1 0.842 0.918 0.996 0.960 0.798*
(0.104) (0.114) (0.129) (0.121) (0.101)
INC2 0.863 1.009 0.983 0.754** 0.753**
(0.119) (0.134) (0.140) (0.105) (0.106)
INC3 0.730** 1.013 0.885 0.727** 0.758*
(0.117) (0.162) (0.146) (0.118) (0.124)
INC4 0.741 1.197 0.871 0.796 0.567**
(0.206) (0.333) (0.252) (0.226) (0.161)
INC5 0.788 0.778* 0.807 0.614*** 0.577***
(0.117) (0.116) (0.127) (0.0914) (0.088)
F1 1.153 1.251* 1.092 1.269* 1.345**
(0.143) (0.156) (0.140) (0.159) (0.171)
F2 1.364*** 1.099 1.449*** 1.108 1.004
(0.135) (0.108) (0.145) (0.110) (0.101)
F3 0.882 0.982 0.968 0.921 0.881
(0.098) (0.109) (0.111) (0.104) (0.099)
F4 0.825* 0.778** 0.920 0.989 0.904
(0.093) (0.088) (0.107) (0.114) (0.105)
F5 1.081 1.132 1.201* 1.032 1.052
(0.103) (0.108) (0.118) (0.099) (0.102)
F6 1.131 1.258** 1.155 1.098 1.277**
(0.106) (0.118) (0.113) (0.104) (0.123)
F7 1.014 0.975 0.886 0.930 1.070
(0.134) (0.128) (0.122) (0.126) (0.144)
F8 0.763** 0.863 0.856 0.881 0.926
(0.086) (0.097) (0.099) (0.101) (0.105)
F9 1.203** 1.319*** 1.443*** 1.529*** 1.423***
(0.111) (0.122) (0.136) (0.143) (0.134)
F10 1.154 1.245* 1.039 1.178 1.466***
(0.134) (0.143) (0.128) (0.138) (0.174)
TIME 0.527*** 0.575*** 0.593*** 0.603*** 0.502***
(0.029) (0.029) (0.036) (0.031) (0.029)
RES 0.898** 0.725*** 0.761*** 0.752*** 0.895**
(0.048) (0.034) (0.045) (0.040) (0.050)
INTER 0.259*** 0.241*** 0.214*** 0.248*** 0.228***
(0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011)
SOCIAL 0.848*** 0.866*** 0.881*** 0.854*** 0.872***
(0.037) (0.038) (0.040) (0.037) (0.038)
Constant 319.5*** 800.0*** 1685.8*** 377.8*** 678.0***
(152.0) (388.0) (854.1) (181.1) (332.5)
N 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000
Log likelihood 1846.8 1839.5 1733.5 1828.9 1780.8
LR statistics 3171.4 3245.1 3142.6 3273.7 3331.8
Pseudo R2 0.462 0.469 0.476 0.472 0.483

Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses. ***, **, and * indicate the 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels, respectively. N indicates the number of observations.

 
Pi Pi
ln ¼ b0 þ b1 Fi þ b2 Si þ b3 Xi (2) ¼ expðb0 þ b1 Fi þ b2 Si þ b3 Xi Þ (3)
1  Pi 1  Pi
8 H. Nakamura et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123981
OddsF¼1
ORF ¼ ¼ expðb1 Þ
OddsF¼0
OddsS¼1
ORS ¼ ¼ expðb2 Þ
OddsS¼0
where Fi is a variable (vector) of no intention to use each type of
SES; Si is a vector of subjective variables related to SESs’ effective
use of time or resources, and interests in SESs or social contribu-
tion; and Xiis a vector of control variables such as gender, age, ed-
ucation status, marital status, household type, and income. Further,
f(.) is the cumulative distribution function of an error term, b0 is a
constant term, b1 is the coefficient vector of inhibiting factors, b2 is
the coefficient vector of subjective variables, and b3 is the coeffi-
cient vector of controls.
Table 2 indicates the definitions of variables used. All data were
collected using questionnaire surveys, and the questionnaire
included items related to gender, age, education status, income,
savings, and subjective items such as the intention to use SESs and
factors inhibiting the use of such services.
3.2. Data collection
This study aims to understand the reason Japanese people tend
to have less intention to use SESs compared to people in other
countries. To identify and analyze the factors that inhibit people
from using SESs, necessary data were gathered online and via a
smartphone by the authors, who contracted the Rakuten Insight to
conduct the questionnaire survey, and collected and tabulated the
responses between November 22 and 27, 2018.
Regarding validity and reliability of the data sample, the
Rakuten Insight recruited panel members from over 9.5 million
users (as of December 2017) of Rakuten Group services, using
banners and mail magazines. To ensure the quality of the sample
panel, the Rakuten Insight regularly sent out a survey to the pan-
elists with the same content/survey as the Japanese national census
and other offline random sampling surveys to compare the results.
For instance, compared to the Public Opinion Survey on the Life of
the People in Japan, the level of satisfaction is relatively low;
however, there is no significant difference in the household income.
Further, there has been no major difference among the survey re-
sults in the past several years.
In this study, respondents were randomly selected from the
panel of the Rakuten Insights, and survey invitations were sent. To
acquire samples without a bias, the surveys were sent out accord-
ing to the representation of the targeted population of prefectures,
and the gender and age distribution in Japan. They contacted
66,636 individuals and obtained 7016 responses (response rate:
10.53%). After excluding responses with incomplete answers, a final
sample size of 5000 individuals (males: 2,485, females: 2515) was
obtained (Fig. 1). Regarding the age distribution of the respondents,
the numbers of respondents in their 20s or younger, in their 30s,
40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s or older were 923 (18.5%), 747 (14.9%), 942
(18.8%), 785 (15.7%), 883 (17.7%), and 720 (14.4%), respectively.
3.3. Data summary
Table 3 summarizes the definitions of the variables used in this
study and the descriptive statistics. We collected the data of in-
dividuals regarding their intentions to use SESs, their gender, age,
educational status, marital status, type of household, income, fac-
tors inhibiting the use of SESs, contribution of SESs in the effective
use of time, contribution of SESs in the effective use of resources,
interest in the sharing economy, and interest in social contribution.
Table 2 also shows that the means of variables of no intention of
using SESs (NOINT) of five types (spaces, goods, money, skills [time],
(4)
and mobility) are 0.558, 0.519, 0.626, 0.499, and 0.544, respectively,
indicating that approximately half of the individuals had no
intention of using SESs.
(5)
Fig. 2 shows the respondents’ interest in and intention to use
SESs in five sectors (spaces, goods, money, skills [time], and
mobility). No intention of use was the highest for money-sharing
services, followed by spaces, mobility, goods, and skills (time). In-
terest in the sharing economy was the highest for the skills (time)
sector, followed by goods, spaces, mobility, and money.
Regarding the factors inhibiting the use of SESs, Table 2 shows
that more than 40% of the respondents chose both “There is
resistance and anxiety about sharing with strangers” and “There
are anxieties for support in the event of an accident.” Of the re-
spondents, 41.8% chose the former, whereas 41.2% chose the latter.
“Anxiety about reliability” was the third most common reason
(38.8%).
Fig. 3 shows the relationship between respondents’ perceived
contribution to effective use of resources and time based on the five
types of SESs. The vertical axis indicates the average value of the
RES variable (effective use of resources), which is calculated using
questionnaire data: The extent to which the individual thinks SESs
contribute to using time effectively (1: No, 2: Not very, 3: Neutral, 4:
Somewhat, or 5: Yes). The horizontal axis shows the average value
of the TIME variable (effective use of time) calculated by re-
spondents’ data: The extent to which the individual thinks SESs
contribute to using resources effectively (1: No, 2: Not very, 3:
Neutral, 4: Somewhat, or 5: Yes).
Money-sharing services were placed at a low level in both the
resource and time axes compared to the other types of SESs. Among
the remaining four types, while goods-sharing services were placed
lower in the time axis but higher in the resource axis, SESs related
to skills (time) followed the opposite trend (higher in time, lower in
resource). This indicates that people regard less money-sharing
service as an effective service in terms of time and resource
compared to the other SESs, and goods-sharing services seemed to
contribute more to the effective use of resources, while skills (time)
sharing services seemed to contribute more to the effective use of
time compared to other SESs.
Notes: Vertical axis: average value of RES variable. Horizontal
axis: average value of TIME variable.
4. Analysis results
Tables 4 and 5 indicate the estimated coefficients and odds ratio,
respectively, of the analysis results. As shown in Table 3, the co-
efficients of the gender (male) variable were significantly negative
for all models except NOINT4, indicating that females were less
likely to use SESs, except for those related to skills (time). The co-
efficients of the age variable were also significantly negative for
NOINT2 and NOINT3, and weakly significant for NOINT5, indicating
that older individuals tend to use goods-, money-, and mobility-
sharing services. However, simultaneously, the coefficients of the
age square variable were statistically positive.
There was a weakly significant effect of the education, marital
status, and household variables. Only bachelor’s degree education
level (EDU2) and family with one child (HOUS1) had weakly positive
and weakly negative significance for NOINT1 and NOINT4, respec-
tively. It was also found that the income variables were negatively
associated with NOINT5. The coefficients of higher income level
variables (INC3 and INC4) were negative for NOINT1, NOINT4, and
NOINT5.
Regarding the factors inhibiting the use of SESs, it was found
that the coefficient of F9 (“There is resistance and anxiety about
 H. Nakamura et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123981
sharing with strangers”) was significantly positive for all types of
SESs. Table 4 shows that the odds ratio of F9 to NOINT4 was the
largest. F1 (“Unable to own a product” as a factor inhibiting the use
of SESs) had positive coefficient values for NOINT2, NOINT4, and
NOINT5, and F2 (“There are anxieties for support in the event of an
accident”) also had positive coefficient values for NOINT1 and
NOINT3.
These results indicate that females tend to have no intention to
use space-, goods-, money-, or mobility-sharing services, and that
higher income people tend to use SESs, especially mobility-, skills
(time)-, and goods-sharing services. Although an important factor
inhibiting the use of SESs for all the five sectors was “resistance and
anxiety about sharing with strangers,” for goods- and money-
sharing services, “There are anxieties for support in the event of
an accident” had more impact value than the former factor.
Moreover, “No benefit of sharing” was the most important inhib-
iting factor for mobility-sharing services. This means people might
presume that owning and using a car or bicycle is more useful or
convenient than using mobility-sharing services.
We also found that the coefficients of all the variables of
contribution to effective use of time (TIME) and resources (RES) and
interest in sharing economy (INTER) and social contribution (SO-
CIAL) had negative significance for all five models. The results of the
odds ratio in Table 4 indicate that, in general, the values of RES and
SOCIAL were higher than the others; however, the values of RES and
SOCIAL were the highest for NOINT1 and NOINT3, respectively. These
results indicate that people believe SESs contribute to the efficient
use of time and resources, and they are interested in not only the
sharing economy but also in social contribution. Space-sharing
services, in particular, were presumed to contribute the most to
the efficient use of resources.
5. Discussion and conclusion
While the sharing economy or SESs have been rapidly emerging
as a new type of business and driver of the economy, led by tech-
nological advancement, an awareness of reducing ecological im-
pacts, and change in attitudes toward ownership and the demand
for social networks and connection, the situation in Japan seems
different in that the intention of people to use SESs is lower
compared to that of people in the United States, the United
Kingdom, Germany, South Korea, and China.
The main purpose of this study was to understand why few
people intend to use SESs in Japan. We considered and compared
five models of SESs by considering individuals’ financial variables.
The results showed that females tend to have no intention to use
space-, goods-, money-, and mobility-sharing services, and higher
income people tend to use mobility-, skills (time)-, and goods-
sharing services. Although an important factor inhibiting the use
of SESs for all the five sectors was “resistance and anxiety about
sharing with strangers,” for goods- and money-sharing services,
“There are anxieties for support in the event of an accident” had
more impact value than the former factor. Furthermore, it was
found that space-sharing services were presumed to contribute the
most to the efficient use of resources, although people presumed
that all forms of SESs contribute to the efficient use of time and
resources. Moreover, people are interested not only in the sharing
economy, but also in social contribution.
5.1. Theoretical implication
The sharing economy is a growing and fascinating phenomenon,
and while previous research has shed light on several motivations
for participating in the sharing economy, this study focuses on
factors inhibiting the use of SESs in the case of Japan. According to
9
the theory of buyer behavior by Howard and Sheth (1969), the
inhibiting factor is also important; however, existing studies
related to SESs have not been focusing on the inhibiting factor.
Although the importance of SESs is recognized, in some countries
such as Japan, few people use and intend to use SESs. Therefore, this
study focused on the inhibiting factor to fill in the gap that exists in
research theory and practice in the field of SESs. Our results mainly
show that users’ anxiety-related issues prevent the use of all types
of SESs, and therefore, the theoretical implication is that the users’
anxiety factor has to be included in association with the inhibiting
factor in the theory of consumer behavior.
5.2. Implication for practice
Regarding the implication for practice, it is essential to under-
stand the true barriers of users’ adoption of sharing economy ac-
tivities. People presumed that the most important factor inhibiting
the use of social economy services is “resistance and anxiety about
sharing with strangers.” Therefore, for practical implications, it is
indispensable for service providers to eliminate resistance and
anxiety by providing additional information about their business
platforms and facilitating connections among users who are not
familiar with each other in local or online communities. Building
another community of SES users can be an important aspect in the
sharing economy.
5.3. Limitation and future research
This study was limited in terms of actual behaviors. We notice
that even though users’ intentions to use SESs have been well
examined in previous studies, both the inhibiting factors affecting
the use of SESs and prediction of actual users’ behavior are fairly
weak. Thus, further research and case studies similar to this that
could explore other cities or countries other than Japan are
required, where people do not use SESs, even though they presume
that such services are beneficial.
Funding
This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion
of Science under Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B)
(18H03423); and a Grant-in-Aid for Early-Career Scientists (B)
(19K13808). We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com)
for English language editing.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Hiroki Nakamura: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization,
Project administration, Funding acquisition. Naoya Abe: Concep-
tualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing - review & editing,
Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Takeshi
Mizunoya: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing -
review & editing, Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
Acquier, A., Daudigeos, T., Pinkse, J., 2017. Promises and paradoxes of the sharing
10 H. Nakamura et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123981

economy: an organizing framework. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 125, 1e10. institutional research on the plural forms and practices of sharing economy
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.07.006. organizations. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 125, 11e20. https://doi.org/
Belk, R., 2014. You are what you can access: sharing and collaborative consumption 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.023.
online. J. Bus. Res. 67 (8), 1595e1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Martin, C.J., 2016. The sharing economy: a pathway to sustainability or a night-
j.jbusres.2013.10.001. marish form of neoliberal capitalism? Ecol. Econ. 121, 149e159. https://doi.org/
€cker, L., Meelen, T., 2017. Sharing for people, planet or profit? Analysing moti-
Bo 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.11.027.
vations for intended sharing economy participation. Environ. Innov. Soc. Tr. 23, Mo€hlmann, M., 2015. Collaborative consumption: determinants of satisfaction and
28e39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.004. the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. J. Consum. Behav. 14 (3),
Botsman, R., Rogers, R., 2011. What’s Mine Is Yours: How Collaborative Consump- 193e207.
tion Is Changing the Way We Live. Collins. Moital, M., 2007. An evaluation of the factors influencing the adoption of e-com-
Cheng, M., 2016. Sharing economy: a review and agenda for future research. Int. J. merce in the purchasing of leisure travel by the residents of Cascais, Portugal.
Hospit. Manag. 57, 60e70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.06.003. Bournemouth University. Available at: https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/
Ministry of Internal Affairs, Communications, Japan, 2016. White Paper on Infor- 12239/1/Luis_Miguel_Moital_Rodriques.pdf.
mation and Communications in Japan, p. 2016. https://www.soumu.go.jp/ Nakamura, H., Abe, N., 2014a. The role of a non-profit organisation-run public
johotsusintokei/whitepaper/eng/WP2016/2016-index.html. bicycle-sharing programme: the case of Kitakyushu City, Japan. J. Transport
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 2000. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs Geogr. 41, 338e345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.11.009.
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 11 (4), 227e268. Nakamura, H., Abe, N., 2014b. Evaluation of the hybrid model of public bicycle-
Engel, J., Blackwell, R., Miniard, P., 1995. Consumer Behavior, eighth ed. The Dryden sharing operation and private bicycle parking management. Transport Pol. 35,
Press, Fort Worth. 31e41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.05.009.
Erasmus, A.C., Boshoff, E., Rousseau, C.G., 2001. Consumer decision-making models Nakamura, H., Abe, N., 2016. Tourist decisions in renting various personal travel
within the discipline of consumer science: a critical approach. J. of Fam. Ecol. modes: a case study in Kitakyushu City, Japan. Tourism Manag. 55, 85e93.
and Consum. Sci. 29, 82e90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.02.005.
€
Geissinger, A., Laurell, C., Oberg, € m, C., 2019. How sustainable is the
C., Sandstro Nakamura, H., Uchida, A., Managi, S., 2019. Relationship between community-
sharing economy? On the sustainability connotations of sharing economy sharing of new personal transportation and local residents’ daily life con-
platforms. J. Clean. Prod. 206, 419e429. https://doi.org/10.1016/ sciousness. Econ. Anal. Pol. 61, 104e110. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2018.09.196. j.eap.2016.08.004.
Go€ssling, S., Hall, C.M., 2019. Sharing versus collaborative economy: how to align Narasimhan, C., Papatla, P., Jiang, B., Kopalle, P., Messinger, P., Moorthy, S.,
ICT developments and the SDGs in tourism? J. Sustain. Tourism 27 (1), 74e96. Proserpio, D., Subramanian, U., Wu, C., Zhu, T., 2018. Sharing economy: review
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1560455. of current research and future directions. Cust. Need. and Solut. 5, 93e106.
Hamari, J., Sjo €klint, M., Ukkonen, A., 2015. The sharing economy: why people https://doi.org/10.1007/s40547-017-0079-6.
participate in collaborative consumption. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67 (9), O’Rourke, D., Lollo, N., 2015. Transforming consumption: from decoupling, to
2047e2059. behavior change, to system changes for sustainable consumption. Annu. Rev.
Hawlitschek, F., Teubner, T., Gimpel, H., 2018. Consumer motives for peer-to-peer Environ. Resour. 40, 233e259. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-
sharing. J. Clean. Prod. 204, 144e157. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 102014-021224.
j.jclepro.2018.08.326. Ozanne, L.K., Ballantine, P.W., 2010. Sharing as a form of anti-consumption? An
Heinrichs, H., 2013. Sharing economy: a potential new pathway to sustainability. examination of toy library users. J. Consum. Behav. 9 (6), 485e498.
GAIA 22 (4), 228e231. Piscicelli, L., Cooper, T., Fisher, T., 2015. The role of values in collaborative con-
Hellwig, K., Morhart, F., Girardin, F., Hauser, M., 2015. Exploring different types of sumption: Insights from a product-service system for lending and borrowing in
sharing: a proposed segmentation of the market for sharing businesses. Psy- the UK. J. Clean. Prod. 97, 21e29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.032.
chol. Market. 32 (9), 891e906. Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
Howard, J., Sheth, A., 1969. The Theory of Buyer Behavior. John Wiley and Sons, New intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55 (1),
York. 68e78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
Lindblom, A., Lindblom, T., Wechtler, H., 2018. Collaborative consumption as C2C Tussyadiah, I.P., 2016. Factors of satisfaction and intention to use peer-to-peer ac-
trading: analyzing the effects of materialism and price consciousness. commodation. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 55, 70e80.
J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 44, 244e252. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Yamasawa, N., 2018. Statistical understanding of the sharing economy. Japan
j.jretconser.2018.07.016. SPOTLIGHT 57e60. https://www.jef.or.jp/journal/pdf/222nd_Special_Article_
Mair, J., Reischauer, G., 2017. Capturing the dynamics of the sharing economy: 03.pdf.