The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0959-6119.htm

Well-being of
The well-being of gig workers in the gig workers
sharing economy during COVID-19
Yanning Li and Shi (Tracy) Xu
School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
Yitong Yu
School of Hotel and Tourism Management, Received 13 January 2022
Revised 14 April 2022
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China, and 12 August 2022
14 September 2022
Robert Meadows Accepted 5 October 2022
Department of Sociology, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to deepen our understanding of the well-being of transient organizations/
groups and to use this to develop a novel conceptual framework of gig worker well-being during times of crisis.
Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative approach was adopted combining in-depth semi-
structured interviews and daily diaries. Twenty-two workers working in the sharing economy were recruited.
Thematic analysis was conducted for the diary and interview data.
Findings – The findings illustrate a complex picture of sharing economy workers’ four dimensions of well-
being, including physical, subjective, psychological and social well-being. A number of the COVID-19
pandemic contexts, such as more time, restriction, economic recession and uncertainty, were seen to influence
these workers’ well-being in different ways including both positive and negative impacts. The precarious
nature of gig work within the sharing economy was also found influential, which includes flexibility,
uncertainty, temporality and diversity. Furthermore, the specific contexts of the hospitality, tourism and
event industry (such as labor-intensive, low esteem, self-value and purpose in life) had also impacted gig
workers physical and psychological well-being in various ways.
Research limitations/implications – This study complements the gig workers’ view of the sharing
economy by investigating their well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, this study reveals the
complex and various influences hospitality, tourism and events industry contexts made, amplified by the
pandemic. Methodologically, the daily diary approach applied in this research has captured gig workers’
instant feelings and thoughts, which enriches the current understanding of gig workers’ well-being.
Practical implications – From the findings and the newly developed conceptual framework, practical
implications are proposed focusing on how the tourism, hospitality and event industries should look after their
gig workers’ well-being in the COVID-ized environment. From the physical well-being perspective, businesses
should consider partnering with gym operators to provide corporate packages or discounted membership to their
gig workers. From psychological well-being perspective, a recognition system integrating gig workers would be
useful to strengthen gig workers’ perception of value in their jobs. In addition, technology can be used to
introduce more resources to their gig workers, particularly when distancing.
Originality/value – A conceptual framework is developed, which captures the influence of both “internal”
and “external” determinants of gig worker well-being during times of crisis. This research contributes to
theory by developing a framework of well-being in the context of the sharing economy, as well as explicitly
addressing how the uncertainty and precariousness of sharing economy work and the hospitality, tourism
and event industry contexts relate to well-being. This model is likely to have applicability beyond COVID-19
as the pandemic made clear many existing challenges – rather than just simply creating new ones.
Keywords Sharing economy, Precarious workforce, Gig workers, Well-being, Covid-19, Diary keeping
Paper type Research paper International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
Management
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-6119
This research is supported by University of Surrey Pump Priming Funding (2020). DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-01-2022-0064
IJCHM Introduction
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, workplaces and working practices of many
sharing economy workers have been fundamentally transformed, with significant
implications for their physical and mental well-being (Chen et al., 2020). For example, this
has been starkly evident in the experiences of sharing economy workers engaged in delivery
services such as meals and passengers. These workers are called “gig workers,” meaning
they are subject to time pressures, paid on the piece rate (per delivery) and have precarious
contracts and incomes (Duggan et al., 2020). Providing an essential service, they are called
“unsung heroes” and, in policy and popular discourses, have been transformed from being
marginal to an indispensable labor force segment (the Economic Times, 2021). Their role is
likely to remain important in possible future pandemics. However, their welfare has
attracted little attention compared to other “key workers” such as health service staff
(Apouey et al., 2020).
Understanding contemporary gig workers’ experiences is becoming increasingly
important with the rise of the sharing economy (Baum, 2019). Although there have been
increasing studies on the sharing economy, especially from the customers’ perspective
(Altinay and Taheri, 2019; Chi et al., 2021), there has been relatively little academic research
into the well-being of these workers and the role of gig work on well-being. Indeed, many
sharing economy workers have been especially vulnerable during the COVID-19 crisis,
falling outside measures to support employment and the self-employed (Chen et al., 2020).
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to develop a framework of sharing economy
workforce well-being, and advance theorizing on the well-being underpinnings of transient
organizations.
Specifically, this study aims, first, to investigate the influence of precarious work on well-
being of the sharing economy workers, including physical (e.g. exposure to weather and traffic,
and social distancing challenges), psychological (e.g. changes in autonomy, environmental
mastery etc.), social (e.g. impact of distancing on recurrent disconnection concerns) and
subjective (e.g. changes in cognitive and affective evaluations of their life such as happiness
and life satisfaction). Outcomes will help the development of an overall understanding about
their well-being at work and provide a detailed illustration on the extent to which different
aspects of precarious work contribute to different facets of their well-being. Second, to
investigate how the nature of gig work and the COVID-19 pandemic influence the well-being of
this growing workforce. This will enable the development of a framework of the roles of the
internal (gig work nature) and external environment (the COVID-19 pandemic) in sharing
economy workforce well-being, explaining relevant factors and their relationships.
Methodologically, this study involves a blending of qualitative approaches, using diaries and
in-depth semi-structured interviews. This research is timely, given the academic, public and
policy discourses on how the pandemic has highlighted the importance of the sharing economy
workers and developing inclusive labor practices for their well-being.
This study is among the first to explore well-being of the sharing economy workers in
the hospitality, tourism and event industry during the COVID-19 pandemic, using a
blending of qualitative approaches. This research advances knowledge and understanding
of the well-being of the sharing economy workers. It will advance theory by building on and
integrating theories relating to four highly relevant dimensions of the well-being of these
workers, including: physical, subjective, psychological and social well-being. This research
will contribute to theory by developing a framework of well-being in the context of sharing
economy, as well as explicitly addressing how the uncertainty and precariousness of
sharing economy work relates to well-being. A framework of the role of gig work (internal
environment) and COVID-19 (external environment) in shaping sharing economy workforce
well-being will also be developed to provide a novel understanding on how internal and Well-being of
external factors influence those working in the sharing economy. Popular, policy and gig workers
academic discourses about the inequalities and the precariousness of the sharing economy,
especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, make this research timely and relevant (Braje
et al., 2022).

Literature review
Gig workers in the sharing economy
Sharing economy is defined as a business model that enables the peer-to-peer commercial
exchange (as opposed to transfer of ownership) of capacity-constrained assets or resources
(e.g. accommodation, transportation and experiences) (Altinay and Taheri, 2019; Mody et al.,
2021). Much sharing economy work, including rideshare platforms such as Uber and Lyft
and delivery platforms such as Deliveroo, is typically contract work enabled by technology
platforms connecting workers with customers directly to sell their labor (Duggan et al., 2020;
Godovykh et al., 2022). These companies often advertise their work in a way suggesting that
workers have full autonomy over their jobs. They promise their workers’ job autonomy as
well as stable earnings. For example, Uber advertisements suggest that their drivers can
“earn anytime, anywhere” and invite drivers to “be your own boss” and “set your own
hours” (Berg and Johnston, 2019; Uber, 2021).
However, this work practice may result in lower well-being (MacDonald and Giazitzoglu,
2019). While these organizations promise autonomy in scheduling, research on gig workers
reveals that scheduling is not entirely autonomous (Wood et al., 2019). Gig work captures a range
of alternative work arrangements, including, but not limited to, part-time work, contract work,
contingent work, temporary work and freelance work (Keith et al., 2020). Gig workers who rely on
earnings from these work patterns feel more pressure to do the work when their compensation is
high, resulting in late evening and/or weekend schedules (Manriquez, 2019). They also often work
part-time or at non-standard times (outside of the traditional 9 a.m–0.5 p.m. schedule) to
accommodate personal and family obligations or to earn more (Vincent et al., 2021). Experiences
of gig work are usually characterized as unpredictable working hours and low wages, which is
typified by precarity (MacDonald and Giazitzoglu, 2019). Precarious work refers to “employment
that is uncertain, unpredictable, and risky from the point of view of the worker” (Kalleberg, 2009,
p. 2). Gig workers may welcome the flexibility afforded in the sharing economy; however, there
are costs resulting from precarity, which can have negative consequences for gig worker’s well-
being, health, work–family conflict and perceived job insecurity (Arnoldi et al., 2021; Baum et al.,
2020; Kim et al., 2022). For instance, research has shown that non-standard work is related to
emotional exhaustion (Wittmer and Martin, 2010), sleep deprivation (Pastuszak et al., 2017) and
poor physical health and mental health (Cho, 2018). Exposures to routine instability in their work
schedules is also related to social isolation as well as unhappiness (Fleming et al., 2019).
In addition to work patterns and time pressures, gig workers also worry about their
ratings (Qiu et al., 2022). Customer ratings measure customer satisfaction with the employee
performing their job (Susskind et al., 2003). Organizations use customer ratings to
incentivize their employees by rewarding employees who maintain a certain score or to
penalize employees whose ratings are below a certain score (Skarlicki et al., 2008). Those
employees whose customer ratings are low would have the fear of deactivation or dismissal
(Duggan et al., 2020). Insecurity around customer ratings may be particularly stressful for
gig workers. Low ratings can have serious consequences, because gig companies use
algorithms to filter work away from workers with low ratings (Wood et al., 2019). Therefore,
this work practice can have a significant negative impact on gig workers’ well-being.
IJCHM Well-being of gig workers
Well-being is deeply intertwined with one’s income, employment and working conditions
(Stiglitz, 2002). Contemporary research on well-being in the workplace (Arnoldi et al., 2021;
Esposito et al., 2021) has acknowledged that well-being is, essentially, a responsibility of the
organization, particularly in the midst of technological, social, economic and demographic
changes. Maintaining an awareness of well-being and making decisions to achieve one’s
well-being is important for gig workers (Kowalski and Loretto, 2017). The notion of well-
being refers not only to the absence of disease or illness, but also to subjective,
psychological, social and physical health, all of which may have a profound influence on
employability, performance, satisfaction and safety in the workplace (Ruggeri et al., 2020).
Research on gig worker’s well-being has been focused on job stress and pressure, resulting
in workers’ physical and mental states in relation to well-being (Arnoldi et al., 2021). For
example, Cram et al. (2022) examined the impact of algorithmic control on Uber drivers’ well-
being in terms of their experience of challenge and threat techno-stressors, and they found
that both gatekeeping and guiding algorithmic control positively related to challenge and
threat techno-stressors, which contributed to important behavioral outcomes including
continuance intentions and workaround use.
The broad concept of well-being has four widely used dimensions (Kou et al., 2018).
Physical well-being refers to “physical health condition” usually “the perception of health by
individuals,” and it is related to positive health outcomes, e.g. longevity and absence of
disease or infirmity (Kou et al., 2018, p. 90). Studies that have looked at the effect of gig work
on physical well-being have focused on overwork and sleep deprivation (Zhang et al., 2022).
Psychological well-being is multidimensional and focuses on one’s control over their life
(autonomy), personal development, sense of purpose (e.g. working toward something they
value), how they feel about themselves (self-acceptance), how they manage external settings/
situations (environmental mastery) and their experience of positive relationships (Huppert,
2009; Ryff and Keyes, 1995). Psychological well-being is associated with a mental state
closely related to employees’ performance, such that positive mental state leads to stronger
performance and vice versa (Arnoldi et al., 2021). Social well-being refers to support
provided by social relations, and has five aspects: social acceptance, social actualization,
social integration, social contribution and social coherence (Keyes, 1998). Social well-being is
particularly insightful for capturing issues associated with gig work, such as disconnection
and inequalities in the often more isolated gig workplaces in the sharing economy (Wright
and Silard, 2021). Subjective well-being refers to individuals’ cognitive and affective
evaluations of their life, such as high levels of positive affect, low levels of negative affect
and life satisfaction (Diener, 2000). Berger et al. (2019) investigated Uber drivers’ happiness
in London and found that they exhibited a higher level of anxiety than the general London
workforce, as a result of precarity and uncertainty, yet a higher level of subjective well-being
due to a genuine affinity for the sharing economy.
There is limited literature on the sharing economy and its workers, much less the
influence of work arrangements or COVID-19 on workers’ well-being related outcomes. The
inadequate studies on this topic in the hospitality and tourism literature is surprising
considering the high attention paid to this topic in the popular press (Keith et al., 2020). In
this research, we propose that the nature of gig work and the context of the pandemic
intersect in complex ways to influence components of well-being (i.e. physical well-being,
psychological well-being, social well-being and subjective well-being). Well-being is shaped
not only by work experiences during the crisis but also by radical changes to future career
prospects (Syrek et al., 2021). While the four dimensions of well-being provide a fundamental
theoretical underpinning to this research, the exploratory nature of the research also allows
for other themes to emerge. Furthermore, determinants on gig workers’ well-being (e.g. Well-being of
flexible scheduling, job insecurity, working conditions and job attitudes) found in key gig workers
studies (Berger et al., 2019) also constitute the theoretical framework of this research.

Research methods
Believing in personal experience being individually and socially constructed, this study is guided
by the research paradigm of constructivism. Given this, and the exploratory nature of this
research, an innovative qualitative approach was adopted combining in-depth semi-structured
interviews and diaries. Based on convenience and accessibility, a number of social media groups
for sharing economy gig workers within the hospitality, tourism and event sectors in the UK,
such as Uber drivers, Deliveroo riders and event freelancers, were used to recruit participants. A
recruitment call for research participant was posted on these social media groups with contact
details of the research team for anyone interested in participating. Snowball sampling was also
used to boost participant recruitment to achieve data saturation. Twenty-two participants were
recruited in this study, all meeting the inclusion criterion that they must be working (entirely or
partly) in the sharing economy as a gig worker during the wave of lockdown caused by the
pandemic. In addition to interviews, 18 diaries were provided as part of the qualitative data
collected in this study. Table 1 provides an overview on the background of the participants,
showing a diverse range of work sectors and a gender balance.
After gaining consent, the participants were asked to keep diaries on a daily basis for one
working week (seven days). These were to record (but were not limited to) their work
experience, good and bad moments during the week, the related physical and social
environment of the week and most importantly, their feelings and emotions during the week.
The diary-based qualitative method has shown to be very useful in exploring participants’
feelings and emotions in social science disciplines as well as in COVID-19-related studies,
because its “intimate” format allows participants the space and opportunity to further reflect
and understand their emotions, and curate rich narratives (Scott, 2022). The diaries also
encourage reflexivity on a range of temporal activities (duration, frequency, planned and
unplanned) and can capture hitherto neglected dimensions of well-being, such as the flexible
and changing nature of the sharing economy and gig working environment. The diaries not
only provide a detailed insight into their day-to-day work-life experiences and well-being,
but also stimulate discussions in, and deepen, the follow-up interviews. Due to different
levels of commitment, 18 participants provided their diaries, whereas four could not in the
end.
After the one-week self-report diary period, in-depth semi-structured interviews were
conducted via telephone or Zoom. The majority of the interviews lasted between 45 min and 1 h.
The interview questions focus on the four dimensions of well-being as summarized in the
literature review, allied with probing questions into potential connections with the COVID-19
pandemic, and contextual issues such as multiple-job holding, temporary employments and the
sharing economy nature. The key questions on this part were adapted from the existing literature
(Packer and Ballantyne, 2011; Petriglieri et al., 2019) where the same or similar questions were
used to explore the various dimensions of well-being in previous studies. Their attitude toward
their future careers within the sharing economy as gig workers formed the last section of the
interview questions. The maximum depth of each interview was reached when no new
information regarding the four dimensions and contextual aspects were provided by the
interview participant. The interview question guide used is provided in Table 2. These questions
were core to the study and were consistently and repeatedly used in all interviews.
Audio recordings of the interviews were professionally transcribed prior to data
analysis. Thematic analysis was used to analyze both the dairies and the interview data,
IJCHM Participant Culture
reference Work sector Gender Age Education background

#1 Events M 24 Postgraduate UK
#2 Events F 32 Postgraduate Greece
#3 Tourism, hospitality M 42 Secondary UK
#4 Hospitality, events M 35 Degree UK
#5 Hospitality, events M 24 Degree UK
#6 Hospitality, events F 25 Secondary UEA
#7 Hospitality M 49 Degree UK
#8 Hospitality, events F 26 Diploma UK
#9 Events F 24 Postgraduate Greece, Brazil
#10 Tourism F 48 Degree USA
#11 Events F 20 Diploma UK
#12 Hospitality, events M 27 Degree UK
#13 Hospitality F 29 Postgraduate UK
#14 Tourism, events F 26 Secondary New Zealand
#15 Hospitality, events M 31 Degree UK
#16 Tourism, hospitality, events F 54 Postgraduate South Africa,
UK
#17 Hospitality, events M 30 Diploma UK
#18 Hospitality, events F 26 Degree UK
Table 1. #19 Events M 70þ Degree UK
Participant #20 Hospitality, events F 29 Degree UK
background #21 Hospitality M 27 Degree UK
overview #22 Hospitality M 18 Diploma UK

with the support of NVivo. The data analysis and collection co-progressed to allow a more accurate
understanding of the data saturation status. In total, 22 in-depth semi-structured interviews were
conducted when data reached saturation and no new themes emerged in the final interviews.
As Leung (2015) notes, while the criteria of validity, reliability and/or trustworthiness
apply to both qualitative and quantitative work, how these are applied does differ. In this
qualitative study, the approach of repeating questions was used in the interviews where the
same questions were asked at different times and in multiple formats (Flicker et al., 2004).
For example, questions such as “could you describe for me a successful day” was asked
earlier in the interview, and then questions such as “could you please summarize your day?”
and “could you please summarize what you just talked about?” were used later in the
interview as a useful approach to triangulate the information interviewees provided.
Additionally, multiple data collection methods were applied for data triangulation, i.e. diary
and interviews. What interview participants said was cross-checked with their diaries.
Following the thematic analysis procedure (Braun and Clarke, 2006), first, template
codes derived from literature were used to support primary data coding and analyses
(Saldaña, 2015). As discussed and summarized in the literature review, these template
codes include, e.g. purpose in life, personal growth, environmental mastery, autonomy,
social integration, social contribution, (un)happy, gig work nature, etc. For example,
when the data revealed that a participant spent more time with their friends and
families, or was able to make more friends, this would be coded as social integration. If
none of the template codes was suitable for conceptualizing the data, new codes were
then developed, e.g. technology facilitation. In the secondary coding and analyses, all of
the codes used from the literature, as well as those newly identified from the data, were
further analyzed, with the inter-relationship carefully examined.
Research aspect (source of interview
questions)
Workplace, attitude and general
experience
Packer and Ballantyne (2011),
Petriglieri et al. (2019)
Physical well-being
McDonald et al. (2015)
Psychological well-being
(Packer and Ballantyne, 2011)
Social well-being
Boateng et al. (2019), Packer and
Ballantyne (2011)
Subjective well-being
Freedman et al. (2012), White et al.
(2017)
COVID-19 impacts
Well-being of
Key interview questions gig workers
 What did you do as a profession before the onset of coronavirus
pandemics?
 What do you do now since the pandemic began?
 How do you feel about your job(s) now?
 Do you remember how you felt when you were at work?
 Could you describe for me a successful day, when you were
working in a way that seemed ideal to you. Try to think of a
specific day recently.
 Could you describe for me a less successful day? How did you cope?
 How do you perceive your health since you started this job?
 How do you think your physical activity has changed after you
started this job?
 How do you feel about the amount of activity you are doing? Are
you happy with the amount of physical activity?
 What do you value most in your job?
 Why is it important?
 Are there things you like about it? why?
 Are there things you do not like about it? why?
 Are there things you have gained from doing this job?
 Has this job changed the way you feel or think about yourself or
about the world?
 How about people at work? How are they like?
 How do you engage with them? Do you do something together?
What are they and how do you feel about this?
 Do you have people you can rely upon in your job?
 How about your engagement with people outside of work?
 How do you feel or think about others or the world after you started
your job?
 Has this job influenced your private life in any way? such as family
life? time with friends? Time for yourself?
 Overall, how satisfied are you with life after you started this job?
Why?
 Overall, to what extent do you feel happy or not happy after you
started this job? Why?
 How have you been feeling since the pandemic started?
 Since then, are there any changes in your life? What are they, and
how things have been changed? How has the pandemic impacted
you, your job, your life? How did you cope with the changes?
(continued) Table 2.
Interview question
guide
IJCHM Research aspect (source of interview
questions) Key interview questions

 Do you need any support during this time? What are they, and why?

Diary elicitation  You mentioned this in your diary, would you mind elaborating a bit
more on that?
 How do you feel about that day/event/job/person mentioned in your
diary?

Attitude toward future careers within  What do you think about working in the sharing economy?
the sharing economy
 How long do you plan to stay in this job? Why?
 What are you planning to do in the post-COVID-19 future? Why?
 How do you perceive your future career? Why?
Table 2.

Findings and discussions

Physical well-being
The data highlight complexity in participant perceptions of physical well-being, especially
with respect to how they (dis)engaged with physical exercise during the pandemic. There
are a few interesting themes that emerged. First, the COVID-19 restrictions in place reduced
some participants’ accessibility to their usual locations for exercise and changed the way
they could do exercise. Some participants were no longer able to go to the gym as freely as
they used to, which led to decreased engagement with physical exercise in alternative
environment such as their own homes. For example, interview Participant #1 indicated in
their diary that there was some disengagement with exercise and that possibly had caused
concern over their physical fitness: “my body feels healthy but in need of exercise. I had a
headache and was quite grumpy.” When this was further explored in the interview, it was
then made clear that the COVID-19 restrictions directly affected their access to exercise: “it’s
decreased a fair bit [. . .] I prefer going to the gym and I get a bit frustrated when I can’t, I
guess I am not too keen on running or home workouts” (Participant #1).
On the other side, the restrictions created alternative formats or more time that actually
motivated and also allowed some participants to engage more in physical exercise. For
example, some participants revealed in their interviews or diaries that: “I think my health’s
probably improved since the lockdown because I’ve been a lot more [active], yeah, you make
sure you get that one walk a day” (participant #11); “(what is the most important to you
today) to get fit, (time spent on boosting a healthy body) cycling up local hill, exercise in
home” (Participant #4, diary). It can be argued that the same environmental changes can
lead to very different responses (engaged/disengaged) from participants with personal
habits and preferences.
The adjustment to participants’ exercise routine was supported by technology such as
social media resources such as YouTube channels. A participant said:
I’ve been doing exercise like YouTube exercise videos and things to try and balance it out. So I
tend to do these kind of, these YouTube tutorial things, it’s like a 30 minute, they call it HITT, this
high intensity intel training and things, so I’ll do that (Participant #13).
It is worth noting that the data also reveal various features of gig work, which played a role
in people’s physical well-being in different ways. The flexible nature of gig work was found
to give participants more options to explore or engage with physical exercise. A participant Well-being of
said: gig workers
Because it’s a lot more flexible I can kind of work at my own pace and I have more time to fit
things in if you’re working. If you’ve got a set workday, you don’t have that luxury of being able
to just kind of go out when you want. So I’d say it probably does help actually (Participant #11).
It can be seen that doing gig work during the pandemic could bring more or flexible time for
people.
However, an opposite situation was identified. The insecure nature of gig work in terms
of income and the “on-demand” requirement could mean unbalanced and unpredictable
workload, which resulted in some participants having to work intense hours and
experiencing physical tiredness and deprivation of sleep. A participant revealed:
You often have to work back-to-back on jobs to maintain a decent level of income. You’d often
find that you’d have to work one job after another, with less than the normal amount of sleep.
That was probably the worst part [. . .] Sometimes it was a real problem, which definitely had a
negative impact; not only on physical well-being, but, without a doubt, mental well-being
(Participant #15).
Furthermore, the specific context of hospitality, tourism and events gig work appears to add
further complexity here. It can be seen that hospitality/tourism/events gig work is more
labor-intensive than many other industries, such labor-intensive works include typical food/
meal delivery (e.g. Uber Eats and Deliveroo) and event production. Some participants
suggested that they could actually benefit from the “exercise” at work during the pandemic
when their usual exercise options were limited. For example, some said:
The main thing I’ve gained is just more money and fitness. I do it, I do it quite a lot just for fitness
[. . .] I think I’m very fit. I really don’t get tired physically easily at all. I think it’s from this job
definitely (Participant #21)
“I think actually it’s one positive thing that is in my job. I’m walking over time” (Participant
#6).
The complex impact on gig workers’ physical well-being is summarized in Figure 1,
which also depicts how the context of COVID-19, nature of gig work and the industrial
context of hospitality, tourism and events play a role. While it is easily understood in most
traditional industries and stable and long-term employment that the COVID-19 pandemic
created both restrictions (reduced accessibility) and benefits (more time) on people’s exercise
and physical well-being, it can be argued from the data that the specific nature of gig work
has revealed rather complex impacts on gig workers’ physical well-being. The unique
precarious pattern (Baum, 2019) and labor-intensive nature of the hospitality, tourism and
events industry further extend our understanding on impacts on physical well-being during
the pandemic.

Psychological well-being
Psychological well-being has six aspects: purpose in life, self-acceptance, personal growth,
autonomy, environmental mastery and positive relations (Ryff and Keyes, 1995). The data
reveal how working in the sharing economy within the tourism, hospitality and event
industries during the pandemic has influenced one or a combination of these aspects in
participants’ lives.
The data highlighted how a number of changes caused by the pandemic negatively
impacted some participants’ sense of purpose in life. These include the reduction or lack of
work during the pandemic, and the types of gig work they did or were only able to do (i.e.
IJCHM

Figure 1.
COVID-19 impact on
gig workers’ physical
well-being

foods delivery) in comparison with what was deemed “valuable” under the COVID-19
context (i.e. key workers). For example, a participant said: “I guess without being able to
work and be productive in the same way, it’s made me question what I enjoy about life. I
mean obviously when I’m working and feeling productive, that’s your main focus, when I
haven’t really got work to do, it’s difficult to find out what holds value in your life”
(Participant #4).
The flexible/on-demand nature of gig work seems to influence participants’ perception of
autonomy in different ways. Some perceived they had more control on what they wanted to do
and when, e.g. “you have your own flexibility, you decide what you work on, what you don’t,
you kind of, you’re just in control that’s the main appeal I think for most people especially is
that you choose what you’re doing and how you’re going to do it”(Participant #11). On the
other hand, some perceived limited control due to the uncertain demands in the market, e.g. “I
guess though the only negatives of that has been the anxiety of being let go from my job just
because I’m on zero hours and also the anxiety of like maybe only being given two shifts a
week or something [. . .] So like not when you’re having like a stable income because you’re not
sure like how much you’ll make next week and, yeah, and just also being overworked as well,
underworked, not being enough work then too much work” (Participant #14). This was
amplified by the pandemic crisis with uncertainty over what supports were provided and when
they would be available:
It’s very difficult for people who are working independently and self-employed because they don’t
know what’s going to happen, we don’t really know in terms of what the government is going to offer-
It seems a long way away, it’s into June when maybe we’ll get some cash but we don’t know exactly
how much that’s going to be and how they’re working it out or anything else (Participant #7).
It appears that the two sides of gig work – flexibility and uncertainty, create different
perceptions of autonomy to the participants.
A positive influence observed in the data would be personal growth. The challenging
environment either helped participants develop new skills/abilities or made them realize
what more they could achieve. For example, some of them said: “because obviously every Well-being of
job is different, you are going into a new environment, meeting new people and you know gig workers
they’ve got an expectation of what you need to deliver. So yeah, I think it’s really helped like
with my confidence as a person and just like in going into an unknown situation”
(Participant #8); “I’m quite happy myself I’ve managed to cope, the night shift and then
coming home [to look after] a baby. I think of it quite well and see, that’s kind of changed my
perspective, I kind of pride myself being able to do that” (Participant #6). The availability of
time due to the pandemic restriction also provided the foundation for personal development
and learning: “well, you know, if you haven’t learnt a new skill, you haven’t developed
yourself as a person during this free time then, you know, when are you going to do it?
Because you have the time” (Participant #12). At the same time as highlighting how
independence, work ethics, adaptivity, coping skills, confidence and multi-tasking could be
improved during the pandemic, this also illustrates a positive perception of managing
external situations (environmental mastery) and self-acceptance.
Furthermore, when investigating participants’ experiences in relationships during the
COVID-19 lockdown, it emerged that individual circumstances during the pandemic could
lead to very different experiences. As shown in the data, the isolation from the pandemic and
the irregular work patterns of gig work led to reduced interactions with others, resulting in
negative experiences of relationships. One said: “I didn’t really make any friends I’ve been
up for three months. But because of the social distancing, I tried to keep to myself”
(Participant #6); “with my friends and I think my relationships have gone down a bit,
because if they want, my friends, they say they want to hang out, maybe in the park or
something. I’m too tired to do that” (Participant #6). On the other hand, some received more
support and care from families and friends during the challenging time: “everybody has
said, don’t worry about the money, we can help you as a family, we will support you. So, that
has been very good and has helped my worries a lot” (Participant #16). It can be argued that
while the pandemic imposed physical barriers and pressure on personal relationships, it also
impacted positively on care and support. Further findings on relationships are discussed in
social well-being below.
It can be concluded that while isolation, uncertainty and lack of work were common
across many industries during the COVID-19 pandemic (Chen et al., 2020), the data show
that the precarious nature of gig work contributed to more complex impact on gig workers’
psychological well-being particularly on the dimensions of autonomy, relations and self-
acceptance. Furthermore, the lower self-worth and self-esteem found to be present in the
hospitality, tourism and events industry (Sun et al., 2021) was amplified under the pandemic,
and the designation of “key workers” by government and society led to more complex and
negative impact on those gig workers’ psychological well-being. Figure 2 presents this
complex picture of gig workers’ psychological well-being identified in this study, illustrating
how various pandemic contexts play a role and interact with the nature of gig work as well
as the context of hospitality, tourism and events.

Social well-being
Social well-being is reflected in people’s perception of their integration into and contribution
to society, acceptance of others and their perception of the coherence and growth of society
(Keyes and Shapiro, 2019). The data reveal participants’ perception of social integration,
contribution and acceptance (Keyes, 1998) in relation to their families, friends and colleagues
both inside and outside the workplace.
First, it is identified that the on-demand nature of gig work presented challenges to some
participants’ social integration particularly the uncertain timetable and unstable incomes.
IJCHM

Figure 2.
COVID-19 impact on
gig workers’
psychological well-
being

Some reflected: “so I think it can be a bit anti-social because I’m doing the hours in the
evening. And also because I’m doing the hours when other people are eating. So it tends to
be between six and eight, because that’s when the most deliveries come through, because
that’s when people want to eat food. So it means that my eating changes and things like that.
And obviously eating’s quite social, so normally I would have dinner with my flatmate, but
you know if I’m out, she’ll eat whilst I’m out. And then I’ll get something when I get back in.
So, I guess it can have a bit of an impact” (Participant #13). Interview Participant #15
revealed how they struggled with the separation from friends and families in their diary.
Four days out of the week they mentioned missing family and friends. For example, one day,
they noted a not-so-good moment of the day, which was “missing my parents and family,”
another day they wrote “I feel lonely today. Missing my family and friends.” While further
probed during the interview, they responded that “I’d say it did influence my personal and
private life, because it very much dictates how much free time you do, or don’t, have.
Because there is not any weekly schedule, every week [. . .] every day can be completely
different. It made it difficult to plan for social things like holidays, or relationships. It made it
difficult to see friends regularly, because most of my friends would be working set days and
times and I would have no set days or times” (Participant #15). It was also shown in the
diaries that the COVID-19 restriction on gathering had made seeing friends and families
much more difficult.
Some participants also felt that it was difficult to integrate and be accepted in their
workplace because of the temporary nature of gig work. One said: “I’ve also found that a lot
of the colleagues that I have that, like the regular staff that work there all the time could be
quite patronizing, kind of mean to like us temporary staff” (Participant #14). However, some
benefited from gig work by getting more free time to integrate into society: “I think I’ve
gained time, yeah, I’ve gained more time with my son and, yeah, more time with the family”
(Participant #3 diary). Some benefited from the many different jobs they did in a gig
economy nature by making more new friends: “I do go to lots of events where I meet lots of
other lovely people in the industry. So, I have met and made friends with some people that Well-being of
I’ve met through industry events” (Participant #10). gig workers
The data also reveal enhanced social acceptance of others. For example, a participant
said: “I think maybe just an ability to accept a situation, where you have no control over it is
probably the only thing that I’ve gained out of this [. . .] One thing that has been apparent
over the last few weeks has been just being a bit more forgiving of others. I’ve ended up
communicating with people that I wasn’t communicating with before the crisis and just
trying to be accepting and forgiving if I can, because you minimize the negativity in your life
and also, it’s just one less negative thing to worry about” (Participant #15).
Furthermore, some participants reflected on how they had become compassionate and
socially aware during the pandemic and perceived positively on their contribution to society.
One said: “I’ve probably been making more of an effort to arrange plans with them to speak
sort of like, you know, to do these video conference calls and things a lot more because we all
know that we’re isolated and we all know we’re lonely [. . .] I’m definitely speaking to my
friends more regularly than I would be and to video call them is nice [. . .] In fact that has
been really fun too so, yeah, again I feel a lot closer to my friends even though physically
we’re not close, you know? It’d be nice to sort of spend that time” (Participant #13).
As summarized in Figure 3, the restriction imposed by the pandemic provided more free
time for people to (re)connect with friends and families, while the negativity and challenges
brought by the pandemic encouraged people’s social contribution and acceptance. While
technology facilitated positive impact on social well-being during the pandemic, the temporary
and uncertain nature of gig work created barriers for gig workers to integrate into their
workplace or their friends and family circle.

Subjective well-being
Subjective well-being refers to people’s perception of happiness and satisfaction of their life
(Diener, 2000). The pandemic brought with it an unprecedented set of challenges, and this

Figure 3.
COVID impacts on
gig workers’ social
well-being
IJCHM could be clearly seen in the data. This is also observed in the data that people were not happy or
satisfied with their life due to uncertainty, challenges and restrictions the pandemic caused. For
example, some participants said: “in the first two weeks, I felt pretty bad, I didn’t sleep, I lost a
lot of weight and I was very worried about the future” (Participant #16); “I’ve moved away
from my parents to keep them safe because my boyfriend is still working, because he’s an
essential worker, he’s a builder. So, to keep my parents safe we moved away. I’ve moved out, so
I’ve found that really, that’s been a really big transition for me, so that’s been upsetting”
(Participant #18).
The perceived impact on economies and jobs in combination with the unstable nature of
gig work seems to cause lots of stress and anxiety and lower participants’ subjective well-
being further. Some participants said: “drained, numb, unhappy. Need to exercise but
haven’t been out of the house today. It’s my birthday tomorrow and obviously not how I was
expecting it to be at all [. . .] Also, last night I got really upset and cried for a while feeling
overwhelmed, sitting on the sofa with one of my housemates (and long-time friend since
1998) because I unexpectedly received an email from a company I regularly work with,
questioning my amount on the last invoice that I sent them [. . .] they sent all their freelance
technicians (of which I am one of) a new ‘rate card,’ explicitly outlining the amount of pay for
the work that we do. I invoiced to this rate card exactly and I’m relying on every penny
seeing as I’ve lost all my self-employed work for the foreseeable future” (Participant #15
diary); “you kind of don’t really know where you stand, unknown feelings which is quite
anxious really, kind of like, you know [. . .] At the moment I’m working month to month,
there is no guarantee that each month clients will stay, money will keep coming through, so
it’s quite uneasy in that sense” (Participant #11).
However, positive or improved subjective well-being was also observed in this study. For
example, some shared that: “It makes me feel very grateful for the things that I have in my
life” (Participant #13 diary); “I’m appreciating the good things in my life, you know, quite a
lot, so it’s making me feel good. Like we’re going out for walks and I just think, like I feel so
lucky that I’m not in a flat for example. That we’ve got space outside, and I feel lucky that
we’re not in some of the European countries where they can’t go out at all. So, every time we
go out for a walk, I really appreciate it and it makes me feel good” (Participant #18). Rather
than associating it with increased support or opportunity, these participants were feeling
more positive or satisfactory about their life due to a change to their attitude, value or
perception. Arguably, the loss brought by the pandemic served as a comparison and
provoked a reflection and change of focus on what they have rather than what they do not
have, which contributed to a more positive subjective well-being.
Finally, it is worth noting that the diaries revealed how weather and scenery influenced
subjective well-being. Participants “spoke” of feeling chilled, excited, fresh, bright, happy or
depressed and miserable. For example, interview Participant #7 noted in their diary that
they enjoyed the day because “the warm sunshine on my face”; interview Participant #16
connected with cheerful when seeing “blossom in my garden,” but felt “disappointing” when
looking at “twilight at the park.” Interview Participant #17 wrote in their diary that they felt
worst in the day when “it was raining really, really heavily.” It could be argued that under
the stressful nature of gig work and the pandemic, everyday things such as weather and
scenery took on more salience and significance on their subjective well-being.

Conceptual framework
The findings reveal complex and diverse dynamics between the COVID-19 pandemic, the
precarious gig work nature of the sharing economy and each of gig workers’ four dimensions of
well-being. A number of the pandemic contexts, such as more time, restriction, economic
recession and uncertainty, were seen to influence these workers’ well-being in different ways, Well-being of
including both positive and negative impacts. Also influential was the precarious nature of gig gig workers
work and the associated flexibility, uncertainty, temporality and diversity. Furthermore, the
specific contexts of the hospitality, tourism and events industry, i.e. labor intensive, low self-
esteem, self-worth and purpose of life (Sun et al., 2021), further contributed complex and various
impacts on gig workers’ physical and psychological well-being. Furthermore, the impact of the
most common things in their daily life (weather and scenery) is amplified under the nature of
gig work and context of the pandemic. A conceptual framework is developed to illustrate an
enhanced understanding of gig workers’ well-being under the influences of the pandemic
within the tourism, hospitality and events industry, which extends our existing understanding
of well-being and the workforce in the sharing economy (Figure 4).

Conclusions
This research aims to fill the gap and provide further insight into gig workers’ well-being in
the sharing economy in the hospitality, tourism and event industry. Developed from the key
findings in this study, theoretical and practical implications are identified, providing a
critical understanding on the limitations of this study and offering directions for future
research.

Theoretical implications
This study makes key contributions to the existing literature. First, this study is among the
first in the hospitality and tourism literature to focus on gig worker’s well-being during the
COVID-19 pandemic, using a blending of qualitative approaches, including in-depth semi-
structured interviews and daily diaries. While there has been an increasing amount of
research on gig workers’ well-being (Aboobaker et al., 2021), these studies have not
systematically examined the concept of well-being. This study provides a comprehensive
understanding about gig workers’ well-being at work under the influence of the COVID-19
pandemic, including physical, psychological, social and subjective well-being. By
comprehensively investigating gig worker’s well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic

Figure 4.
Conceptual
framework of
COVID-19 impacts on
gig workers’ well-
being
IJCHM systematically, this study provides a vital insight and a valid reference point for future
research, especially the topic related to the relationships amongst different aspects of well-
being of gig workers in a pandemic context.
Second, given the dominating consumer-oriented understanding of the sharing economy
(Schor and Attwood-Charles, 2017), this study complements the employees’ (gig workers’)
view of the sharing economy by investigating their well-being during the COVID-19
pandemic. It provides a novel understanding on how internal (the precarious nature of gig
work and the specific contexts of the hospitality, tourism and events industry) and external
(the COVID-19 pandemic) factors influence working in the sharing economy. This
perspective is important because although these gig workers are deemed “essential” under
the COVID-19 context, their well-being has attracted little attention. The pandemic impacted
gig workers’ well-being and their attitudes toward the sharing economy, with some now
doubting their whole career that lasts for years (Interviewees #3, #4, #7, #10 and #15). This
view gives an empirical example of the unstable character of the sharing economy.
Third, the specific contexts of the hospitality, tourism and events contexts (such as labor-
intensive, low esteem, self-value and purpose in life) (Sun et al., 2021) had also impacted gig
workers’ well-being in various ways and further revise our usual expectation of COVID-19
impacts in more traditional industries. This study provides novel understanding of
employee well-being in the sharing economy by revealing the complex and various
influences our industry contexts made, amplified by the pandemic.
Fourth, methodologically, the daily diary approach applied in this research has allowed for
the contemporaneous capture of gig workers’ feelings and thoughts during the COVID-19
pandemic. Different from other qualitative methods or cross-sectional quantitative approach,
the daily diary can capture rich insights into detailed signals, settings, relationships, processes
and instant feelings (e.g. the weather and scenery) (Patterson, 2005; Scott, 2022), which enriches
the current understanding of gig workers’ well-being.

Practical implications
A few practical implications are developed from the findings and the newly developed
conceptual framework, with a focus on how the tourism, hospitality and event industries
should look after their workers’ well-being in the sharing economy. First, as the uncertain
and irregular work pattern negatively impacts gig workers’ physical well-being, tourism,
hospitality and events businesses should consider partnering with big chain gym operators
that often run 24/7 to provide corporate package or discounted membership to their gig
workers. This can widen their accessibility to exercise facilities under COVID-19 restrictions
and associated unstable work patterns.
Second, as indicated in the conceptual framework, a global crisis like the COVID-19
pandemic can cause various social restrictions and economic recession, which influence
people’s psychological well-being. It is suggested that a recognition system integrating gig
workers in their businesses would be useful to strengthen gig workers’ perception of value
in their jobs, such as campaign branding these gig workers as “key workers.” Additionally,
workplaces should consider providing a wider range of in-house or external trainings or
workshops for personal development. Both could boost gig workers’ sense of purpose and
psychological well-being.
Third, the benefit of technology has been received positively; thus, tourism, hospitality
and event businesses can look to provide more technological resources for their gig workers,
particularly when distancing. For example, workplaces can use online channels or apps for
fitness, providing 24/7 and instant access to online fitness sessions to enhance gig workers’
physical well-being. Workplaces can also introduce communication platforms or accessories
on specific platforms for more active communication, such as Yapster, a messaging app Well-being of
designed for companies with teams that rarely have access to a work computer. This would gig workers
allow workers to send messages in a safe virtual workspace and to enhance their social well-
being.

Limitations and future research directions

A few limitations are worth noticing, which can also inform future research directions. Without
quantifying the sample, it can be seen that the sample’s education level was largely
undergraduate degree or above, and over a half of the sample was under the age of 30.
Although the data did not reveal connections between education or age, and well-being, this
research design and methodology is not suited to investigate any potential association between
them. Therefore, it is recommended that future studies consider potential associations between
socio-demographic factors and gig workers’ well-being.
Similarly, this study did not examine associations between gig workers’ residential
status and their well-being, given that the majority of the samples were local residents
rather than migrants. However, migrants’ loose ties in their workplace or community and
locals’ strong and long ties present potentially contrast influences on their social well-being.
It is suggested that by applying quantitative or mixed methods to examine the influence of
demographic characteristics, including education level, age, residential status, etc., future
studies could enrich the understanding of their influence on gig workers’ well-being.
Furthermore, the sample in this qualitative study was from multiple sectors in the
hospitality, tourism and event industry; nevertheless, future research focusing on each
sector or comparisons across various sectors could provide meaningful insights. Finally,
while this paper does offer a conceptual framework on gig workers’ well-being, this is likely
to be a western model. Future studies are highly encouraged to investigate gig workers’
well-being in other cultures such as the east. Different culture could influence gig workers’
well-being within a pandemic era differently.

References
Aboobaker, N., Edward, M. and Zakkariya, K.A. (2021), “Workplace spirituality, well-being at work
and employee loyalty in a gig economy”, Personnel Review.
Altinay, L. and Taheri, B. (2019), “Emerging themes and theories in the sharing economy: a critical note
for hospitality and tourism”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 180-193.
Apouey, B., Roulet, A., Solal, I. and Stabile, M. (2020), “Gig workers during the COVID-19 crisis in
France: financial precarity and mental well-being”, Journal of Urban Health, Vol. 97 No. 6,
pp. 776-795.
Arnoldi, E., Bosua, R. and Dirksen, V. (2021), “Mapping themes for the well-being of low-skilled gig
workers: implications for digital platform design”, Transitions: Journal of Transient Migration,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 55-75.
Baum, T. (2019), “Does the hospitality industry need or deserve talent?”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 10, pp. 3823-3837.
Baum, T., Mooney, S.K., Robinson, R.N. and Solnet, D. (2020), “COVID-19’s impact on the hospitality
workforce-new crisis or amplification of the norm?”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 2813-2829.
Berg, J. and Johnston, H. (2019), “Too good to be true? A comment on Hall and Krueger’s analysis of the
labor market for Uber’s driver-partners”, ILR Review, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 39-68.
IJCHM Berger, T., Frey, C.B., Levin, G. and Danda, S.R. (2019), “Uber happy? Work and well-being in the ‘gig
economy’”, Economic Policy, Vol. 34 No. 99, pp. 429-477.
Boateng, G.O., Schuster, R.C. and Boateng, M.O. (2019), “Uncovering a health and wellbeing gap among
professional nurses: situated experiences of direct care nurses in two Canadian cities”, Social
Science and Medicine, Vol. 242, p. 112568.
Braje, IN., Pechurina, A., Bıçakcıo glu-Peynirci, N., Miguel, C., Alonso-Almeida, M. and Giglio, C.d.
(2022), “The changing determinants of tourists’ repurchase intention: the case of short-term
rentals during the COVID-19 pandemic”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 159-183.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, Qualitative Research in
Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 77-101.
Chen, G., Cheng, M., Edwards, D. and Xu, L. (2020), “COVID-19 pandemic exposes the
vulnerability of the sharing economy: a novel accounting framework”, Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, pp. 1-18.
Chi, M., Wang, J., Luo, X. and Li, H. (2021), “Why travelers switch to the sharing accommodation
platforms? A push-pull-mooring framework”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 33 No. 12, pp. 4286-4310.
Cho, Y. (2018), “The effects of nonstandard work schedules on workers’ health: a mediating role
of work-to-family conflict”, International Journal of Social Welfare, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 74-87.
Cram, W.A., Wiener, M., Tarafdar, M. and Benlian, A. (2022), “Examining the impact of algorithmic
control on Uber drivers’ technostress”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 39,
pp. 426-453.
Diener, E. (2000), “Subjective well-being: the science of happiness and a proposal for a national index”,
American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 34-43.
Duggan, J., Sherman, U., Carbery, R. and McDonnell, A. (2020), “Algorithmic management and app-
work in the gig economy: a research agenda for employment relations and HRM”, Human
Resource Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 114-132.
Esposito, C., Di Napoli, I., Agueli, B., Marino, L., Procentese, F. and Arcidiacono, C. (2021), “Well-being
and the COVID-19 pandemic: a community psychology systematic review”, European
Psychologist, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 285-297.
Fleming, P., Rhodes, C. and Yu, K.H. (2019), “On why Uber has not taken over the world”, Economy and
Society, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 488-509.
Flicker, S., Haans, D. and Skinner, H. (2004), “Ethical dilemmas in research on internet communities”,
Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 124-134.
Freedman, V.A., Stafford, F., Schwarz, N., Conrad, F. and Cornman, J.C. (2012), “Disability,
participation, and subjective wellbeing among older couples”, Social Science and Medicine,
Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 588-596.
Godovykh, M., Back, R.M., Bufquin, D., Baker, C. and Park, J.-Y. (2022), “Peer-to-peer accommodation
amid COVID-19: the effects of Airbnb cleanliness information on guests’ trust and behavioral
intentions”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management.
Huppert, F.A. (2009), “Psychological well-being: evidence regarding its causes and consequences”,
Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, Vol. 1, pp. 137-164.
Kalleberg, A.L. (2009), “Precarious work, insecure workers: employment relations in transition”,
American Sociological Review, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Keith, M.G., Harms, P.D. and Long, A.C. (2020), “Worker health and well-being in the gig economy: a
proposed framework and research agenda”, in Perrewé, P.L., Harms, P.D. and Chang, C.-H. (Eds),
Research in Occupational Stress and Well-Being, Emerald Publishing, Bingley, Vol. 18, pp. 1-34.
Keyes, C.L. (1998), “Social well-being”, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 121-140.
Keyes, C.L. and Shapiro, A.D. (2019), Chapter Twelve. Social Well-Being in the United States: A Well-being of
Descriptive Epidemiology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 350-372.
gig workers
Kim, H., Shin, H.H. and So, K.K.F. (2022), “Actor value formation in Airbnb: insight from multi-source
data”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 2773-2797.
Kou, L., Xu, H. and Kwan, M.P. (2018), “Seasonal mobility and well-being of older people: the case of
‘snowbirds’ to Sanya, China”, Health and Place, Vol. 54, pp. 155-163.
Kowalski, T.H. and Loretto, W. (2017), “Well-being and HRM in the changing workplace”, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 28 No. 16, pp. 2229-2255.
Leung, L. (2015), “Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research”, Journal of Family
Medicine and Primary Care, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 324-327.
McDonald, S., O’Brien, N., White, M. and Sniehotta, F.F. (2015), “Changes in physical activity during the
retirement transition: a theory-based, qualitative interview study”, International Journal of
Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
MacDonald, R. and Giazitzoglu, A. (2019), “Youth, enterprise and precarity: or, what is, and what is
wrong with, the ‘gig economy’?”, Journal of Sociology, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 724-740.
Manriquez, M. (2019), “Work-games in the gig-economy: a case study of uber drivers in the city of
Monterrey, Mexico”, in Vallas, S.P. and Kovalainen, A. (Eds), Work and Labor in the Digital Age,
Research in the Sociology of Work, Emerald Publishing, Bingley, Vol. 33, pp. 165-188.
Mody, M.A., Hanks, L. and Cheng, M. (2021), “Sharing economy research in hospitality and tourism: a critical
review using bibliometric analysis, content analysis and a quantitative systematic literature review”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 1711-1745.
Packer, J. and Ballantyne, J. (2011), “The impact of music festival attendance on young people’s
psychological and social well-being”, Psychology of Music, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 164-181.
Pastuszak, A.W., Moon, Y.M., Scovell, J., Badal, J., Lamb, D.J., Link, R.E. and Lipshultz, L.I. (2017), “Poor
sleep quality predicts hypogonadal symptoms and sexual dysfunction in male nonstandard shift
workers”, Urology, Vol. 102, pp. 121-125.
Patterson, A. (2005), “Processes, relationships, settings, products and consumers: the case for qualitative
diary research”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 142-156.
Petriglieri, G., Ashford, S.J. and Wrzesniewski, A. (2019), “Agony and ecstasy in the gig economy:
cultivating holding environments for precarious and personalized work identities”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 124-170.
Qiu, H., Chen, D., Bi, J.-W., Lyu, J. and Li, Q. (2022), “The construction of the affinity-seeking strategies
of Airbnb homestay hosts”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 861-884.
Ruggeri, K., Garcia-Garzon, E., Maguire, Á., Matz, S. and Huppert, F.A. (2020), “Well-being is more than
happiness and life satisfaction: a multidimensional analysis of 21 countries”, Health and Quality
of Life Outcomes, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Ryff, C.D. and Keyes, C.L.M. (1995), “The structure of psychological well-being revisited”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 719-727.
Saldaña, J. (2015), The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Schor, J.B. and Attwood-Charles, W. (2017), “The ‘sharing’ economy: labor, inequality, and social
connection on for-profit platforms”, Sociology Compass, Vol. 11 No. 8, pp. 1-16.
Scott, S. (2022), “‘I enjoy having someone to rant to, I feel like someone is listening to me’: exploring
emotion in the use of qualitative, longitudinal diary-based methods”, International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, Vol. 21.
Skarlicki, D.P., Van Jaarsveld, D.D. and Walker, D.D. (2008), “Getting even for customer mistreatment:
the role of moral identity in the relationship between customer interpersonal injustice and
employee sabotage”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 6, pp. 1335-1347.
IJCHM Stiglitz, J.E. (2002), “Employment, social justice and societal well-being”, International Labour Review,
Vol. 141 Nos 1/2, pp. 9-29.
Sun, N., Song, H. and Li, H. (2021), “Idiosyncratic deals and occupational well-being in the hospitality
industry: the mediating role of organization-based self-esteem”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 33 No. 10, pp. 3797-3813.
Susskind, A.M., Kacmar, K.M. and Borchgrevink, C.P. (2003), “Customer service providers’ attitudes
relating to customer service and customer satisfaction in the customer-server exchange”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 179-187.
Syrek, C., Kühnel, J., Vahle-Hinz, T. and de Bloom, J. (2021), “Being an accountant, cook, entertainer and
teacher-all at the same time: changes in employees’ work and work-related well-being during the
coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic”, International Journal of Psychology.
The Economic Times (2021), “COVID’s unsung heroes”, available at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/
tech/newsletters/morning-dispatch/covids-unsung-heroes/articleshow/82207572.cms?from=mdr
Uber (2021), Available at: www.uber.com/in/en/drive/
Vincent, G.E., Kovac, K., Signal, L., Reynolds, A.C., Paterson, J., Sprajcer, M. and Ferguson, S.A. (2021), “What
factors influence the sleep of on-call workers?”, Behavioral Sleep Medicine, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 255-272.
White, M.P., Pahl, S., Wheeler, B.W., Depledge, M.H. and Fleming, L.E. (2017), “Natural environments
and subjective wellbeing: different types of exposure are associated with different aspects of
wellbeing”, Health and Place, Vol. 45, pp. 77-84.
Wittmer, J.L. and Martin, J.E. (2010), “Emotional exhaustion among employees without social or client
contact: the key role of nonstandard work schedules”, Journal of Business and Psychology,
Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 607-623.
Wood, A.J., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V. and Hjorth, I. (2019), “Good gig, bad gig: autonomy and algorithmic
control in the global gig economy”, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 56-75.
Wright, S. and Silard, A. (2021), “Unravelling the antecedents of loneliness in the workplace”, Human
Relations, Vol. 74 No. 7, pp. 1060-1081.
Zhang, A., Boltz, A., Wang, C.W. and Lee, M.K. (2022), “Algorithmic management reimagined for
workers and by workers: centering worker well-being in gig work”, CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1-20.

Further reading
Korstjens, I. and Moser, A. (2018), “Series: practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4:
trustworthiness and publishing”, European Journal of General Practice, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 120-124.
Noble, H. and Smith, J. (2015), “Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research”, Evidence Based
Nursing, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 34-35.
Ragin, C.C. (2009), “Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fsQCA)”, Configurational
Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques, Vol. 51,
pp. 87-121.

Corresponding author
Shi (Tracy) Xu can be contacted at: s.xu@surrey.ac.uk

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com