The Driving Path of Customer Sustainable Consumption Behaviors in the Context of the Sharing Economy—Based on the Interaction Effect of Customer Signal, Service Provider Signal, and Platform Signal
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Sharing Economy and Sustainable Consumption Behavior
2.2. Shared Accommodation and Airbnb
2.3. Signal-Interpretation-Response Theory
3. Research Framework and Hypotheses
3.1. The Impact of Customer Signal on Consumer Sustainable Consumption Behaviors
3.2. The Impact of Service Provider Signals on Consumer Sustainable Consumption Behaviors
3.3. The Impact of Platform Signals on Consumer Sustainable Consumption Behaviors
3.4. Interaction Effect
3.5. The Result of Consumer Sustainable Consumption Behaviors
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Data Preprocessing
4.2. Selection and Measurement of Indicators
4.3. Regression Analysis Results
5. FsQCA Analysis of Customer Sustainable Consumption Behaviors
5.1. FsQCA Variable Selection and Calibration
5.2. Empirical Results of FsQCA
- The whole house
- Economy-driven type: The core condition of the W1 configuration included ~price, and super_host also appeared as a core condition in this configuration. It showed that low prices can effectively promote customer sustainable consumption behaviors. This is because low prices can reduce the risk of customers’ economic losses, thereby prompting customers to reward economic transfer through sustainable behaviors. Therefore, for homeowners who are committed to attracting customers at low prices, they need to strengthen the professionalism of services and maintain the continuity of orders. At the same time, in terms of sustainability, they should respond to the sustainability policies proposed by the platform or the government, provide sustainable solutions in line with the characteristics of the house, and take the initiative to convey green and low-carbon views and behaviors to customers through communication with customers, reflecting the sustainability of their products.
- Full-process-driven type: The core conditions of the W2 configuration included sustainable_services, super_host, review_score, and distance, indicating that many factors affect the sustainable consumption behavior of customers, including sustainable services, professionalism, higher scores, and the location away from the city center. Among them, the geographical location can be interpreted as the property is located on the outskirts of the center, with an incompletely urbanized outdoor environment. The original ecological environment encourages customers to maintain the unity and coordination of indoor hygiene and the outdoor environment. For such customers, the homeowner should attack in an all-around way, letting the concept of sustainable consumption be reflected in all aspects of the consumption process, which will have a subtle impact on customers. They should also place indoor facilities and products according to the environment of the house to fully reflect the low-carbon, green, and sustainable atmosphere.
- Private house
- Reputation-driven type: The core conditions of the P1 configuration included super_host and review_score, which indicates that the high reputation of super-hosts and scores can bring a high probability of sustainable consumption behavior, which fully reflects the power of reputation and word of mouth. This type of homeowner can consider using the reputation system launched by the platform and work hard on customer feedback after purchase. The homeowner can attract customers to make clear and positive comments on the sustainability of the house and the homeowner through rewards or gifts. The publicity of word-of-mouth reviews influences subsequent customers to make more sustainable consumption behaviors that also clean up and reduce waste; on the other hand, the platform can design a corresponding display or reward system based on the sustainable behavior of homeowners and customers to encourage the proactiveness of buyers and sellers.
- Quality-driven type: The core conditions of the P2 configuration included super_host and price, which indicates that a high-quality, high-priced property owned by a super host will bring sustainable behavior. Comparing P2 with W1, it can be seen that distance appeared in P2 as an auxiliary condition. This may be explained by the fact that the houses in P2 were independent houses with higher overall quality and were far from the city center, meeting the needs of customers for quiet, clean, and small houses. For such customers, exquisiteness, independence, and cleanliness can meet their needs. Moreover, such customers may have relatively high levels of education and lifestyle. Therefore, they have a more independent and comprehensive understanding of environmental protection and waste reduction. Therefore, on this basis, homeowners can maintain a clean living environment and use eye-catching green products to stimulate customer sustainable consumption behaviors.
- Shared house
6. Conclusions and Suggestions
6.1. Conclusions
6.2. Suggestion
- Platform
- Platform rules related to sustainable consumption behaviors should be set up, such as setting up push messages to remind customers to keep the environment clean and tidy during their stay and to generally reduce waste.
- The platform should improve customer evaluation and feedback mechanisms by providing certification labels such as “green” and “sustainability” in the certification or review mechanism for homeowners, and by encouraging homeowners and consumers to actively demonstrate the relevant information about sustainable consumption behaviors, awakening customers’ awareness of sustainable consumption through visual text.
- The platform should set up incentive policies to encourage customer sustainable behaviors and homeowner sustainable behaviors. Platform administrators can give economic or point rewards to homeowners who provide environmentally sustainable products and customers who highlight sustainable consumption trends in their reviews. They could also provide price concessions for platform products or related services.
- The platform should reasonably use online marketing channels to strengthen the advocacy and publicity of sustainable consumption behaviors, establish shared interest communities, actively encourage customers to participate in online and offline activities, and provide a good atmosphere for customers to participate in sustainable consumption behaviors.
- Service providers
- They should comprehensively understand and recognize customer needs and characteristics based on different product types, so as to “prescribe the right medicine” for their characteristics, cut into services from different aspects, and have a targeted and focused product, environmental, and professional service.
- They should increase investment in sustainable products and services, use sustainable products as much as possible, and reflect on the use of such products in personal introductions, so that customers can have a real experience and feelings in the consumption process, thereby driving sustainable consumption behavior.
- Effective use of the reputation system is important. Service providers can encourage customers to evaluate and rate the sustainability of products after consumption, thereby enhancing the influence of user-generated signals on sustainable consumption behavior.
- They should actively strive to obtain relevant certification of the platform for sustainable products, and realize the importance of the influence of platform endorsement on customer behavior.
6.3. Limitations
- The research object selected in this article is the specific shared accommodation platform Airbnb, but given that the sharing economy has multiple types of operations and models, future research can be extended to other shared economy fields or accommodation platforms. Future research should carry out horizontal and vertical comparisons to test the influence paths of signals based on different platform backgrounds on customer sustainable consumption behaviors.
- The research data were limited to Beijing, China, mainly because the InsideAirbnb.Com website only provides information in mainland China. Beijing’s data has limitations on the universality of research results. In the future, we can study whether different countries and cultural backgrounds will affect customer sustainable consumption behaviors.
- Future research can also expand data sources and use interview or questionnaire data to further verify the research conclusions.
7. Patents
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bansal, P. Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strat. Manag. J. 2005, 26, 197–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hawn, O.; Chatterji, A.K.; Mitchell, W. Do investors actually value sustainability? New evidence from investor reactions to the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI). Strat. Manag. J. 2018, 39, 949–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheng, G.; Yue, P.; Xie, F. The Driving Mechhanism of China Residents’ Green Consumption Behavior from the Perspective of Environmental Co-Governance. Stat. Inf. Forum 2019, 34, 109–116. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals: Seventeen Goals to Transform Our World. 2019. Available online: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed on 8 September 2019).
- Cheng, M.; Jin, X. What do Airbnb users care about? An analysis of online review comments. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 76, 58–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serrano, L.; Ariza-Montes, A.; Nader, M.; Sianes, A.; Law, R. Exploring preferences and sustainable attitudes of Airbnb green users in the review comments and ratings: A text mining approach. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaefers, T.; Wittkowski, K.; Benoit, S.; Ferraro, R. Contagious Effects of Customer Misbehavior in Access-Based Services. J. Serv. Res. 2016, 19, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yates, L. Sharing, households and sustainable consumption. J. Consum. Cult. 2016, 18, 433–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mavlanova, T.; Koufaris, M.; Benbunan-Fich, R.; Lang, G. The Effect of Positive and Negative Signals on Perceived Deceptiveness of Websites in Online Markets. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2015, 10, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Guttentag, D.; Smith, S.; Potwarka, L.; Havitz, M. Why Tourists Choose Airbnb: A Motivation-Based Segmentation Study. J. Travel Res. 2017, 57, 342–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dellaert, B.G.C. The Consumer Production Journey: Marketing to Consumers as Co-Producers in the Sharing Economy. SSRN Electron. J. 2019, 47, 238–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Acquier, A.; Daudigeos, T.; Pinkse, J. Promises and paradoxes of the sharing economy: An organizing framework. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 125, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tu, K.; Yang, X. What Exactly is the Sharing Economy? Based on the Integration Perspective of Individuals and Organizations. Econ. Manag. J. 2020, 42, 192–208. [Google Scholar]
- Belk, R. You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 1595–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, W.; Oosterveer, P.; Spaargaren, G. Promoting sustainable consumption in China: A conceptual framework and research review. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 134, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Xing, B.; Wang, Q. A Configuration Research on the Impact of Tourism Product Innovation on Perceived Value of Tour-ism Experience. Econ. Manag. J. 2018, 40, 157–173. [Google Scholar]
- Wells, J.D.; Valacich, J.S.; Hess, T.J. What Signal Are You Sending? How Website Quality Influences Perceptions of Product Quality and Purchase Intentions. MIS Q. 2011, 35, 373–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jia, L.; Liu, X.; Liu, Y. Impact of Different Stakeholders of Bike-Sharing Industry on Users’ Intention of Civilized Use of Bike-Sharing. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sanne, C. Willing consumers—or locked-in? Policies for a sustainable consumption. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 42, 273–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Möhlmann, M. Collaborative consumption: Determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. J. Consum. Behav. 2015, 14, 193–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, C.J. The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism? Ecol. Econ. 2016, 121, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Xiang, D.; Yang, Z.; Ma, S.S. Unraveling customer sustainable consumption behaviors in sharing economy: A so-cio-economic approach based on social exchange theory. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 869–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, Y.; Ying, B. Analysis on the Commercial Development of Collaborative Consumption under the Internet Background. J. Commer. Econ. 2018, 56–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curtis, S.K.; Lehner, M. Defining the Sharing Economy for Sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Geissinger, A.; Laurell, C.; Öberg, C.; Sandström, C. How sustainable is the sharing economy? On the sustainability connotations of sharing economy platforms. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 206, 419–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, P.; Liu, Q.; Qi, Y. Factors influencing sustainable consumption behaviors: A survey of the rural residents in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 63, 152–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heinrichs, H. Sharing Economy: A Potential New Pathway to Sustainability. GAIA Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2013, 22, 228–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lao, K.; Wu, J. Research on Influencing Mechanism of Consumer Green Consumption Behavior Referring to TPB. Financ. Econ. 2013, 2, 91–100. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, X.; Fu, J.; Pang, X. Study on Urban Residents’ Green Consumption Behaviors and Their Influencing Factors. For. Resour. Manag. 2020, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, S.; Ogden, D.T. To buy or not to buy? A social dilemma perspective on green buying. J. Consum. Mark. 2009, 26, 376–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liobikien, G.; Bernatonien, J. Why determinants of green purchase cannot be treated equally? The case of green cosmetics: Literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Xiong, L. Research on the Influencing Factors of Customer Participation in Value Co-creation under the Background of Sharing Economy. J. Commer. Econ. 2018, 43–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, K. Opportunities for green marketing: Young consumers. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2008, 26, 573–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, G.; Wan, C. Investigation on the Status Quo and Influencing Factors of Urban Residents’ Green Consumption. Consum. Econ. 2012, 28, 92–94. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.; Yu, Q.; Wang, L. Socioeconomic Status, Environmental Concern and Green Consumption of Urban Residents. J. Beijing Inst. Technol. 2019, 21, 56–63. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Du, W. Empirical Research on Green Consumption Using Behavioral Reasoning Theory. J. Dalian Univ. Technol. (Soc. Sci.) 2016, 37, 13–18. [Google Scholar]
- Gössling, S.; Hall, C.M. Sharing versus collaborative economy: How to align ICT developments and the SDGs in tourism? J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 74–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, Q.; Fan, W. The impact of collaborative consumption on users’ sustainable consumption behavior. Enterp. Econ. 2020, 39, 37–45. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, X.; Zhi, Q. Impact of Shared Economy on Urban Sustainability: From the Perspective of Social, Economic, and Environmental Sustainability. Energy Procedia 2016, 104, 191–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, M. Sharing economy: A review and agenda for future research. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 57, 60–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cleantech-Group. Environmental Impacts of Home Sharing: Phase 1 Report. 2014. Available online: https://www.airbnbaction.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Cleanteach_Airbnb-Environmental-Impact-Report.pdf (accessed on 30 July 2020).
- Airbnb: Sharing Accommodation Makes Travel Greener. 2017. Available online: http://science.china.com.cn/2017-06/05/content_9508115.html (accessed on 30 July 2020).
- Robertson, T.S.; Eliashberg, J.; Rymon, T. New Product Announcement Signals and Incumbent Reactions. J. Mark. 1995, 59, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewart, P.D.W. Signaling Strategies in Competitive Interaction: Building Reputations and Hiding the Truth. J. Mark. Res. 2001, 38, 62–72. [Google Scholar]
- He, M.; Liang, X. Effect of Platform’s and Service Providers’ Reputation on Consumers’Continuous Intention to Use a Sharing Option in the Context of Sharing Economy—An Empirical Study Based on Didi Chuxing Platform. Reform Econ. Syst. 2018, 85–92. [Google Scholar]
- Chi, M.; Pan, M.; Yan, W. An Empirical Study of Tenants’ Sustainable Consumption Behaviors in the Sharing Accommodation: Interaction Effects of User-generated Signals and the Platform Certification Signal. Tour. Trib. 2020, 35, 36–48. [Google Scholar]
- Kirmani, A.; Rao, A.R. No Pain, No Gain: A Critical Review of the Literature on Signaling Unobservable Product Quality. J. Mark. 2000, 64, 66–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, H.S.; Ko, M.S.; Medlin, D.; Chen, C. The effect of intrinsic and extrinsic quality cues of digital video games on sales: An empirical investigation. Decis. Support Syst. 2018, 106, 86–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ko, E.J.; Mckelvie, A. Signaling for more money: The roles of founders’ human capital and investor prominence in resource acquisition across different stages of firm development. J. Bus. Ventur. 2018, 33, 438–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tussyadiah, I.P.; Pesonen, J. Impacts of Peer-to-Peer Accommodation Use on Travel Patterns. J. Travel Res. 2016, 55, 1022–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Racherla, P.; Friske, W. Perceived ‘usefulness’ of online consumer reviews: An exploratory investigation across three services categories. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2012, 11, 548–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blazevic, V.; Hammedi, W.; Gamefeld, I.; Rust, R.T.; Keiningham, T.; Andreassen, T.W.; Donthu, N.; Carl, W. Beyond traditional word-of-mouth: An expanded model of customer-driven influence. J. Serv. Manag. 2013, 24, 294–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, X.; Feng, Y. The Value of Internet Word of Mouth—An Empirical Study Based on Online Restaurant Reviews. Manag. World 2009, 42, 126–132. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, L.; Yan, Q.; Zhang, L. A Computational Framework for Understanding Antecedents of Guests’ Perceived Trust towards Hosts on Airbnb. Decis. Support Syst. 2018, 115, 105–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keh, H.T.; Yi, X. Corporate reputation and customer behavioral intentions: The roles of trust, identification and commitment. Ind. Market. Manag. 2009, 38, 732–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bae, S.J.; Lee, H.; Suh, E.; Suh, K.S. Shared experience in pretrip and experience sharing in posttrip: A survey of Airbnb users. Inform. Manag. 2016, 54, 714–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ert, E.; Fleischer, A.; Magen, N. Trust and reputation in the sharing economy: The role of personal photos in Airbnb. Tour. Manag. 2016, 55, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sridhar, S.; Srinivasan, R. Social Influence Effects in Online Product Ratings. J. Mark. 2012, 76, 70–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Y.C.; Cai, S.; Kim, H.W. Cue consistency and page value perception: Implications for web-based catalog design. Inform. Manag. 2013, 50, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Croce, A.; Martí, J.; Murtinu, S. The impact of venture capital on the productivity growth of European entrepreneurial firms: ‘Screening’ or ‘value added’ effect? J. Bus. Ventur. 2013, 28, 489–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, S.; Viswanathan, S.; Hann, I.H. The Value of Reciprocity in Online Barter Markets: An Empirical Investigation. SSRN Electron. J. 2016, 42, 521–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Park, J.; Lee, H.; Lee, J. Applying social exchange theory in IT service relationships: Exploring roles of exchange characteristics in knowledge sharing. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2015, 16, 193–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, K.H.; Stein, L.; Heo, C.Y.; Lee, S. Consumers’ willingness to pay for green initiatives of the hotel industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 564–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, X.; Qiu, J. A study of Airbnb listing price determinants: Based on data from 36 cities in China. Tour. Trib. 2019, 34, 13–28. [Google Scholar]
- Hurley, P. A Concise Introduction to Logic, 13th ed.; Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Han, H.; Yoon, H.J. Hotel customers’ environmentally responsible behavioral intention: Impact of key constructs on decision in green consumerism. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 45, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, Y.; Han, H. Intention to pay conventional-hotel prices at a green hotel—A modification of the theory of planned behavior. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 997–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, C.S.; Zhou, X.X.; Song, M. Sustainable consumer behavior in China: An empirical analysis from the Midwest regions. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 134, 147–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camilleri, J.; Neuhofer, B. Value co-creation and co-destruction in the Airbnb sharing economy. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 29, 2322–2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, S.; Schuckert, M.; Law, R.; Chen, C.C. Be a “Superhost”: The importance of badge systems for peer-to-peer rental accommodations. Tour. Manag. 2017, 60, 454–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, D.; Nicolau, J.L. Price determinants of sharing economy based accommodation rental: A study of listings from 33 cities on Airbnb.com. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 62, 120–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y.; Phillips, L.W. Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research. Admin. Sci. Quart. 1991, 36, 421–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiss, P.C. A Set-Theoretic Approach to Organizational Configurations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 1180–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Variable | Definition | Measurement | |
---|---|---|---|
Dependent variables | customer_sustainable_consumption_behaviors | Customers support environmental sustainability through voluntary behaviors such as waste reduction and voluntary cleaning [26,69,70] | It was measured by the number words about sustainability mentioned in the customers reviews. [22] |
sales_performance | The number of orders for the house during the T period [70] | Comment data [61] | |
Independent variables | sustainable_services | Whether the homeowner uses green products or services [58] | “1” denotes that the homeowner uses green products or services, “0” denotes otherwise. |
super_host | Whether the host is certified as a super host. | “1” denotes a super host, “0” denotes otherwise. | |
review_score | A score for “cleanliness and hygiene”. | Downloaded from the website | |
Control variables | distance | The location of the property [71] | The distance between the house and the city center calculated by latitude and longitude. |
number_of_guests | Number of customers that the property can hold [22] | The maximum number of customers that the property can hold. | |
number_of _rooms | Number of rooms owned by the property | The maximum number of rooms. | |
check_as_ described | Whether the property is the same as described | The customer’s score for the accuracy of the property. | |
price | The price of the property [70] | Price and cleaning fee. |
Varibles | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sales_performance | 1 | |||||||||
customer_sustainable_consumption_behaviors | 0.603 * | 1 | ||||||||
sustainable_services | 0.061 | 0.069 ** | 1 | |||||||
super_host | 0.275 ** | 0.224 * | 0.009 ** | 1 | ||||||
review_score | 0.161 | 0.118 ** | −0.023 | 0.217 * | 1 | |||||
price | −0.005 * | 0.044 ** | 0.027 | −0.100 | −0.069 | 1 | ||||
distance | −0.086 ** | −0.041 | −0.077 | −0.029 * | 0.129 | 0.031 * | 1 | |||
number_of_guests | 0.088 | 0.059 * | 0.089 | 0.073 | 0.274 * | 0.021 | 0.015 * | 1 | ||
number_of_rooms | 0.018 * | −0.014 * | 0.012 ** | 0.002 | 0.544 * | −0.074 * | −0.074 | 0.124 * | 1 | |
check_as_ described | 0.147 | 0.099 * | −0.021 | 0.189 * | −0.041 | 0.675 | 0.687 ** | 0.029 | 0.025 * | 1 |
mean | 25.847 | 2.968 | 0.264 | 0.219 | 9.637 | 350.36 | 49.944 | 2.499 | 3.226 | 9.667 |
SD | 32.847 | 5.995 | 0.441 | 0.413 | 0.573 | 198.57 | 17.526 | 1.385 | 2.514 | 0.719 |
min | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 47 | 13.003 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
max | 307 | 134 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 995 | 161.405 | 16 | 16 | 10 |
Variables | Customer_Sustainable_Consumption_Behaviors | Sales_Performance | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model1 | Model2 | Model3 | Model4 | Model5 | |
Dependent variables | |||||
customer_sustainable_consumption_behaviors | 0.565 *** (0.000) | ||||
Sustainable_services | 0.061 *** (0.000) | 0.035 ** (0.000) | 0.014 (0.321) | ||
super_host | 0.216 *** (0.000) | 0.232 * (0.065) | 0.130 *** (0.000) | ||
review_score | 0.101 ** (0.021) | 0.123 * (0.073) | 0.105 *** (0.003) | ||
Control variables | |||||
distance | −0.005 *** (0.000) | −0.002 ** (0.030) | −0.006 ** (0.032) | −0.005 *** (0.000) | −0.004 *** (0.000) |
number_of_guests | −0.072 *** (0.000) | −0.051 ** (0.045) | −0.061 * (0.069) | 0.072 *** (0.000) | −0.050 ** (0.015) |
number_of_rooms | −0.053 *** (0.005) | −0.110 *** (0.000) | −0.063 *** (0.005) | −0.053 *** (0.005) | 0.067 *** (0.006) |
checked_as_described | 0.140 *** (0.000) | 0.028 (0.420) | 0.156 * (0.067) | 0.140 *** (0.000) | 0.053 * (0.061) |
price | −0.324 ** (0.032) | −0.107 *** (0.000) | −0.268 *** (0.003) | −0.241 * (0.054) | −0.044 ** (0.010) |
Interactive effect | |||||
Super_host *sustainable services | 0.034 ** (0.031) | ||||
Super_host *review score | −0.296 * (0.079) | ||||
sustainable services *review score | 0.034 * (0.054) | ||||
Super_host *sustainable service *review score | 0.345 ** (0.043) | ||||
Constant | 0.264 *** (0.000) | 0.112 * (0.054) | 0.215 * (0.061) | 0.263 *** (0.000) | 0.219 *** (0.000) |
Variables | Consistency | Coverage |
---|---|---|
sustainable_services | 0.289 | 0.504 |
~sustainable_services | 0.711 | 0.458 |
super_host | 0.320 | 0.679 |
~super_host | 0.680 | 0.411 |
review_score | 0.591 | 0.584 |
~review_score | 0.545 | 0.489 |
distance | 0.518 | 0.509 |
~distance | 0.598 | 0.539 |
number_of_guests | 0.739 | 0.602 |
~number_of_guests | 0.548 | 0.610 |
number_of_rooms | 0.785 | 0.536 |
~number_of_rooms | 0.429 | 0.647 |
price | 0.607 | 0.509 |
~price | 0.510 | 0.545 |
Configurations | W (Whole House) | P (Private House) | S (Shared House) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
W1:Economy-Driven | W2:Full-Process-Driven | P1:Reputation-Driven | P2:Quality-Driven | S1:Low-Price-Driven | |||
sustainable_services | 🞄 | ● | 🞄 | 🞄 | 🞄 | ||
super_host | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | 🞄 | |
price | ⊕ | ⊕ | ○ | ● | ⊕ | ||
review_score | 🞄 | ● | ● | ● | 🞄 | ||
distance | ○ | ● | 🞄 | 🞄 | ⊕ | ||
number_of_guests | 🞄 | 🞄 | |||||
number_of_rooms | 🞄 | 🞄 | 🞄 | 🞄 | ○ | ||
CS | 0.907 | 0.854 | 0.988 | 0.841 | 0.853 | 0.809 | 0.814 |
CV | 0.410 | 0.251 | 0.058 | 0.190 | 0.361 | 0.308 | 0.342 |
NCV | 0.041 | 0.0218 | 0.026 | 0.141 | 0.127 | 0.242 | 0.245 |
OCS | 0.889 | 0.832 | 0.654 | ||||
OCV | 0.835 | 0.518 | 0.786 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, J.; Yu, X. The Driving Path of Customer Sustainable Consumption Behaviors in the Context of the Sharing Economy—Based on the Interaction Effect of Customer Signal, Service Provider Signal, and Platform Signal. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3826. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073826
Wang J, Yu X. The Driving Path of Customer Sustainable Consumption Behaviors in the Context of the Sharing Economy—Based on the Interaction Effect of Customer Signal, Service Provider Signal, and Platform Signal. Sustainability. 2021; 13(7):3826. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073826
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Juying, and Xiaoqing Yu. 2021. "The Driving Path of Customer Sustainable Consumption Behaviors in the Context of the Sharing Economy—Based on the Interaction Effect of Customer Signal, Service Provider Signal, and Platform Signal" Sustainability 13, no. 7: 3826. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073826
APA StyleWang, J., & Yu, X. (2021). The Driving Path of Customer Sustainable Consumption Behaviors in the Context of the Sharing Economy—Based on the Interaction Effect of Customer Signal, Service Provider Signal, and Platform Signal. Sustainability, 13(7), 3826. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073826