4.5 Article

A nexus between airbnb and inequalities in water use and access

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT
卷 47, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.envdev.2023.100879

关键词

Sharing economy; Airbnb; Water access; Water consumption; ought; Cape town

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The emergence of digital tourism platforms through the sharing economy has raised concerns about the potential opportunities it could bring and the inequalities it could exacerbate. This study examines the impact of Airbnb in Cape Town during a severe drought, using a mixed methods approach. The findings highlight spatial inequalities and historical considerations of water use.
The emergence of digital tourism platforms through the sharing economy has brought into focus the potential opportunities it could promote and the inequalities it could exacerbate. Sharing economy platforms such as Airbnb are increasingly being utilised as alternative tourism accommodations. Though the sharing economy is promoted as economically beneficial and environmentally sustainable, its realised impacts are questioned. These realised impacts are of particular concern in water-scarce contexts such as Cape Town, South Africa as while water use may be virtually forgotten, its actual consumption remains predominately placed-based. This study explores these issues of inequality through the lens of the impact of Airbnb in Cape Town during one of the most severe droughts in over a century. Using a triangulation of mixed methods including web-based listing profile analysis, questionnaires, interviews and media analysis, Airbnb hosts were found to undertake the role of water ambassadors as concerned citizens and responsible tourism accommodation providers. However, spatial inequalities around outsourcing rental linen to marginalised areas of Cape Town and the power-laden training of domestic staff originating from outlying low-income areas, highlight the perpetuation of historically based understandings and considerations of water use.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据