Human Territoriality in P2P Accommodation: An Examination of Guest Experience

Abstract

Peer-to-peer (P2P) accommodation concerns economic transactions that involve people’s private territory. To provide a fresh perspective on P2P accommodation, this article emphasizes the territorial complexity in such accommodation and proposes to understand guest experience through the lens of human territoriality. Following an interpretative phenomenological approach, this article examined the lived experiences of Airbnb guests. Results suggest that P2P accommodation guests could possess two territorial senses simultaneously: a sense of being in their own territory and of being in others’ territory. Themes related to hosts’ territorial behaviors and guests’ reactions to host territoriality were also identified. Findings of this article highlight the relevance of human territoriality in P2P accommodation and provide novel insights for guest experience research.

Keywords

human territoriality territory Airbnb host–guest relationship sharing economy

“Make yourself at home” means: please feel at home, act as if you were at home, but, remember, that is not true, this is not your home but mine, and you are expected to respect my property.

—John Caputo, Deconstruction in a Nutshell

Introduction

The host–guest relationship is inherently territorial. One becomes a host only if she or he owns the place and hold on to her or his ownership (Caputo 1997). When a person invites others into their home, the host exercises sovereignty by choosing whom to invite and how long guests can stay (Kakoliris 2015). A good host will show hospitality to the guests by offering food, drinks, and even accommodations if necessary; in return, guests must respect hosts’ ownership and demonstrate proper etiquette. Such host–guest relationship used to encompass strange travelers in preindustrial societies (Lashley 2000). Ancient Greeks and Romans were said to provide food and shelter to unknown travelers (O’Gorman 2007); travelers entrusting themselves to the hosts had to abide by the hosts’ rules without objection and return hosts’ protection in the future if the hosts were to travel to their location (Aramberri 2001). With the large-scale development of tourism and hospitality commercial services, the exchange of money absolves guests of mutual obligation and offers guests a freedom of action that they would not dream of demanding in a domestic setting (Lashley 2000), leading to claims that the host–guest structure no longer helps to explain mass tourism phenomena in the contemporary world, where commercialization of tourism and hospitality becomes the norm (Aramberri 2001; Cheng and Zhang 2019). Interestingly, peer-to-peer (P2P) accommodation stands out as an opposition.

Technological advances have facilitated the emergence of P2P accommodation, enabling individual consumers to become hosts and rent out idle space in their homes. Airbnb, the most popular P2P accommodation platform, offers over 7 million listings worldwide and has attracted 500 million guests since its inception in 2008 (Airbnb 2020). The growth of P2P accommodation has drawn great attention among tourism and hospitality scholars in recent years, making P2P accommodation one of the most popular research areas pre-COVID-19. However, the vast majority of studies often view P2P accommodation as a new context, and focus on reinvestigating well-established theories without or with inclusion of additional constructs (Dolnicar 2019). For example, motivations and barriers of using P2P accommodation (Pappas 2017; So, Xie, and Wu 2019; Tussyadiah and Pesonen 2018), as well as factors of satisfaction and behavioral intention (Mao and Lyu 2017; Tussyadiah 2016), have been extensively studied in the literature; however, few have considered the nuances of P2P accommodation in detail.

Recently, an increasing number of studies have begun to examine social interaction in P2P accommodation (Lin et al. 2019; Moon et al. 2019) to paint a more vivid picture of the social aspects of guest experience. However, these studies have largely overlooked the integral role of perceived space ownership in host–guest interaction and guests’ experiences; the uniqueness of P2P accommodation is yet to be captured. Indeed, P2P accommodation concerns an economic exchange involving people’s private territory (i.e., hosts’ home): hosts and guests are not just providers and consumers of an access-based service; they are owners and legitimate users of private rental space. The existing literature has highlighted the commercial relationship between hosts and guests, but largely overlooked the associated territorial relationships and how the commercial and territorial relationships are intertwined to shape P2P accommodation experience.

Human territoriality offers a new perspective on P2P accommodation. Home is one’s primary territory (Altman 1975) and plays a key role in human life (Larsen 2008). While opening their door to unknown guests (McIntosh, Lynch, and Sweeney 2011), P2P accommodation hosts may still engage in territoriality to protect their space, which could influence guests’ experiences through direct or indirect host–guest interaction. Meanwhile, the economic transaction involved in P2P accommodation may provide guests some ground to claim their own space in hosts’ home (Griffiths and Gilly 2012) and perceive certain rental space as their own. That is, P2P accommodation guests are likely to possess a need to have some space of their own within others’ territory, which may influence the way they interact with hosts and further complicates guest experience. Staying in one’s own territory is completely different from being in one’s own space (Brown and Baer 2011; Edney 1975). This begs the question, how guests would feel during their P2P accommodation experience, given that they are staying in others’ territory and their own territory simultaneously. The concurrent economic and territorial relationships between hosts and guests could influence guests’ interpretations of and reactions to hosts’ behaviors. The foregoing discussion hence leads to two more research questions: How does host territoriality manifest in the eyes of P2P accommodation guests? How do guests feel and react after experiencing host territoriality?

Recognizing the interplay between economic and territorial relationships involved in P2P accommodation, this article aims to examine guest experience from the perspective of human territoriality. The article reports findings from an interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) of guests’ experiences in P2P accommodation, with a particular focus on guests’ feelings about staying in a shared rental and their perceptions of and reactions to host territoriality during their stay. As the first study of its kind, this article offers theoretical originality to the literature of P2P accommodation. Findings of the article attempt to uncover the black box of P2P accommodation experience and highlight new research directions.

Territory, Human Territoriality, and P2P Accommodation

Territory and Human Territoriality

Territoriality lies at the intersection of interests in many academic disciplines, including ethnology, social psychology, environmental psychology, and political geography. Relevant studies often involve one of two general approaches (Kärrholm 2005). The first approach, common in political geography, conceptualizes territoriality as strategies to control one’s space (Paasi 1998; Sack 1983). The second approach is frequently seen in social psychological and behavioral research (including in the present study) and focuses on the territoriality of individuals and groups (Altman and Haythorn 1967; Brown, Lawrence, and Robinson 2005), hence the label “human territoriality” (Kärrholm 2005).

Put simply, human territoriality is an inclination toward ownership (Bakker and Bakker-Rabdau 1973). The sense of ownership, rather than legal ownership, is the psychological cornerstone of human territoriality (Brown, Lawrence, and Robinson 2005). Humans have a tendency to construct, communicate, maintain, and restore their sense of ownership toward an object or space (Brown, Lawrence, and Robinson 2005); the target of such ownership is territory (Bakker and Bakker-Rabdau 1973). Territory can thus be defined as a tangible or intangible space that individuals perceive as their own. Intangible space can consist of an idea, object, or even responsibility. Humans have been found to behave around territories (Altman 1975; Edney 1974; Sack 1986). For example, visiting another’s home is experientially distinct from hosting others in one’s own space. Individuals have also developed numerous ways to protect their territory, ranging from verbal cues communicated in a deliberate yet subtle manner to pointing a gun at a hostile intruder.

Human territoriality, as a cognitive–affective construct (Avey et al. 2009), is difficult to observe directly. However, it is possible to make inferences about territoriality based on behavior (Bakker and Bakker-Rabdau 1973). Human territoriality has thus been characterized as “a set of behaviors that a person (or persons) displays in relation to a physical environment that he terms ‘his,’ and that he (or he with others) uses more or less exclusively over time” (Edney 1974, p. 959). Controlling the boundaries of, marking, and defending one’s territory are often considered manifestations of human territoriality (Lyman and Scott 1967; Sommer and Becker 1969; Brown, Lawrence, and Robinson 2005). Territorial behavior can be observed in various sectors of life. For example, students living in a shared room may claim certain items (e.g., a desk, dresser, or closet) as their own (Kastenbaum 1984; Kaya and Weber 2003). In the workplace, people may lock their door to avoid interruptions from coworkers (Brown 2009). Drivers may retaliate against other drivers by intentionally leaving their spot slowly in a parking lot (Ruback and Juieng 1997). In cafés or restaurants, consumers may refuse to share a dining table with other patrons (Griffiths and Gilly 2012; Wu, Mattila, and Han 2014).

However, human territoriality does not necessarily manifest as territorial behaviors; human territoriality concerns not only people’s behaviors related to their own territory but also their beliefs and feelings and how they feel and what they (should) do in others’ territory. People may think, feel, and behave quite differently when staying in their own versus others’ territory. Visiting another’s territory has been associated with a perceived reduction in control over the environment, fewer dominant behaviors, and compliance with territory occupants (Edney 1975; Harris and McAndrew 1986; Taylor and Lanni 1981). Conversely, being in one’s own territory provides occupants a sense of security, control, continuity, and identity (Edney 1973, 1974, 1976b; Stodolska et al. 2013) and affords them advantages over visitors in negotiation (Brown and Baer 2011).

Territorial Complexity in P2P Accommodation

Existing studies on human territoriality has primarily focused on the relationship between individuals and their own territory (Altman 1975; Brown 2009; Brown, Lawrence, and Robinson 2005), in which territorial boundaries tend to be clear. However, different actors’ territories may well intermingle (Kärrholm 2007). For example, public places are accessible to different groups and persons for distinct uses (Kärrholm 2005). The term “territorial complexity” was first used to describe the publicity of a space (Kärrholm 2005) and later formally defined as the extent to which multiple territorial productions overlap and coexist in a certain space (Kärrholm 2017). Territorial complexity can be high in P2P accommodation, as hosts and guests are likely to construct and use rental spaces differently. Before delving into territorial complexity in P2P accommodation, it seems necessary to take a broader view of territory and, in essence, the idea of ownership.

The notion of ownership, in the simplest sense, involves a triad of the self, other, and object (Rudmin 1991); when people say “A owns B,” they actually mean that “A owns B against all other individuals.” Similarly, territory, a space over which individuals have a sense of ownership, concerns the belief that “the space is mine, not others.’” Thus, the concept of territory actually involves a triad, comprising the self, others, and space, in the simplest sense (see Figure 1a); within a P2P accommodation rental, the three nodes involved in the triad of territory are the host, guest, and rental (see Figure 1b).

Figure 1.

Two triads of territory.

The sharing of space between hosts and guests in P2P accommodation falls under the business sphere, which complicates relationships within the above-mentioned triad. Presumably, hosts and guests can each develop a sense of ownership toward the rental and simultaneously acknowledge that the other party has its own space in the rental as well; that is, hosts and guests may recognize the existence of both their own territory and others’ territory in a P2P accommodation rental, thereby playing dual roles in the territorial triad—the “self” in their own territory and “others” in the other party’s territory.

A P2P accommodation rental is undeniably the host’s place. Yet once hosts receive guests’ payment for staying in their home, hosts should acknowledge guests’ right to use part of the space. Sharing space with guests is defined by a transaction between both parties; satisfying guests’ need for space use is integral to hospitality in P2P accommodation. In addition, respecting guests’ social and physical boundaries can protect hosts from undue disruption (Wood 1994) and earn them positive reviews, both of which are in hosts’ best interests. Essentially, P2P accommodation hosts may need to acknowledge the legitimacy of guests’ use of space in their home.

However, a home is more than a house/apartment or physical structure; it provides a sense of security, stimulation, and identity to the highest degree (Porteous 1976). Studies on commercial homes have shed light on the ties between hosts and their homes (Di Domenico and Lynch 2007; Lynch, Di Domenico, and Sweeney 2007; Sweeney and Lynch 2007, 2009). Commercial home hosts have been found to emphasize the notion of “home” over hospitality (McIntosh, Lynch, and Sweeney 2011). For instance, hosts may be reluctant to change their homes to please guests (McIntosh, Lynch, and Sweeney 2011; Sweeney and Lynch 2007) and tend to decorate guest rooms with items reflecting their own interests (Di Domenico and Lynch 2007). Therefore, although transactions between hosts and guests can potentially alter the notion of “home” (Bardhi and Eckhardt 2017), hosts still hold a strong sense of ownership toward their rental space.

Not only hosts but also guests may simultaneously perceive a rental as consisting of their own territory and others’ territory. As noted, P2P accommodation guests, who have paid for their stay, have a right to use the space and may perceive some rental space as their own. Individuals generally like to extend their sense of self to tangible and intangible objects (Belk 2013). In the era of the sharing economy and collaborative consumption, scholars have hence suggested amending the notion of “you are what you own” to “you are what you can access” (Belk 2014), arguing that consumers can incorporate a product into their sense of self and develop a sense of ownership toward that product without actually owning it (Belk 2018). Outside the accommodations sector, evidence has shown that simply using an item bearing a café’s logo can justify consumers’ perceived territory in that café (Griffiths and Gilly 2012). While staying in a P2P accommodation rental, guests may form an ephemeral relationship with the rental (Bardhi and Eckhardt 2017), well develop a sense of ownership toward at least part of the rental space, and seek to claim their own territory in P2P accommodation rentals.

At the same time, however, guests may realize they are residing in others’ emotional and physical space. The temporality of P2P accommodation experience could cause guests to focus on the rental’s use value, thus inhibiting a strong sense of ownership (Bardhi and Eckhardt 2012, 2017). Some commercial home users have expressed concern about sharing views the host might deem unacceptable (Di Domenico and Lynch 2007). Therefore, despite having paid for a stay, P2P accommodation users may strive to be well-behaved guests by following proper etiquette and respecting the host’s property, just as they would in noncommercial settings (Aramberri 2001).

Territorial Conflicts in P2P Accommodation

The complexity of territorial relationships between P2P accommodation hosts and guests may lead to territorial conflict. First, territorial boundaries in P2P accommodation can be blurry, potentially resulting in territorial disputes. Hosts and guests may disagree about spatial boundaries demarcating their own territory: if the host considers a certain part of the space (e.g., the living room) solely theirs but guests also claim a right to that space, then competition for space (Lamberton and Rose 2012) may evoke territorial tension between both parties. Second, hosts’ and guests’ perceptions of territory can differ, resulting in disparate territory-related expectations. When a guest considers a room her or his own and expects others to ask permission before entering, the host may maintain a sense of ownership over the room and expect to be able to freely enter the space, eliciting territorial tension. Third, hosts and guests may experience conflict over the allocation of relationships, responsibilities, and resources related to territory (Brown, Lawrence, and Robinson 2005). Even when hosts and guests agree on boundaries delineating their own and others’ territory in a P2P accommodation rental, tension may still develop. Both parties may hold distinct expectations of space-related responsibilities. For instance, the host may be accustomed to cleaning up their hair after a bath, and conflict can arise if guests do not share the same habit.

P2P accommodation experience is heavily molded by territorial complexity as reflected in human territoriality. When staying in a home-sharing rental, guests are immersed in others’ environment (Pine and Gilmore 1998) and construct their experiences through encounters with the physical environment and other people (Walls et al. 2011). The dual roles of P2P accommodation hosts and guests, as well as resulting potential conflicts over the use of space, can influence guests’ thoughts, feelings, and behavior and thus color guests’ experiences. The territorial relationship between hosts and guests, interplaying with economic exchange, distinguishes P2P accommodation experiences from hotel experiences or visiting family and friends. Understanding how P2P accommodation guests feel, behave, and perceive interactions with hosts can provide novel insights into guests’ experiences in P2P accommodation.

Methodology

This study adopted IPA as the methodological approach to uncover P2P accommodation guests’ affective and embodied experiences. In IPA studies, participants are considered cognitive, linguistic, affective, and physical beings whose mental and emotional states are assumed to be connected with their speech (Smith and Osborn 2008). IPA studies aim to understand what participants think and feel based on participants’ speech (Smith and Osborn 2008) to explore the nuances of lived experiences without generalizing individuals’ thoughts and feelings (Sedgley et al. 2017).

IPA is underpinned by phenomenology, hermeneutics, and idiography (Malone, McCabe, and Smith 2014). This method is phenomenological in attempting to understand participants’ personal experiences rather than pursuing objectivity (Smith 1996). IPA also involves a double hermeneutic (Smith 2004), as it recognizes that participants make sense of their experiences while researchers seek to make sense of participants’ interpretive processes (Smith, Flowers, and Michael 2009). Moreover, IPA studies adopt an idiographic approach, focusing on a detailed analysis of each participant’s experience (Tuffour 2017). When implementing IPA, researchers are recommended to start with a close examination of one case to achieve some degree of gestalt before moving to subsequent cases or conducting cross-case analyses (Smith 2004). This study aimed to understand and analyze participants’ lived experiences from the theoretical perspective of human territoriality, making the study phenomenological and interpretative and hence appropriate to employ an IPA approach.

Purposive sampling was used to select information-rich cases that could fulfill the research objectives (Guest, Bunce, and Johnson 2006; Smith and Osborn 2008). An online survey was developed to recruit qualified participants. Three selection criteria were used: participants should (1) be at least 18 years of age; (2) have stayed in an Airbnb rental during the 12 months before the survey; and (3) have experienced host territoriality–related issues during their stay. In the survey, participants were asked to indicate the last time they had stayed at an Airbnb rental and whether they had experienced host territoriality–related issues during their stay (i.e., replying “yes” to the question “Did the host say or do anything that made you feel you were staying at his or her home rather than your own home?”). The survey link was included in an online ad posted on Craigslist for participant recruitment in March 2018. The researchers also requested referrals from colleagues and friends to identify qualified participants, and the online survey link was sent to those who were willing to take part in the study. Two participants who did not recall experiencing host territoriality were intentionally recruited as negative cases. Thirteen participants were interviewed in March and April 2018 (see Table 1). Nine were recruited via Craigslist, and four (including two negative cases) were recruited via the authors’ networks. The two negative cases did not reveal contradictory findings, which enhanced the trustworthiness of this study.

Table 1.

Participant Profile.

Name	Interview	Gender	Age	Race	Airbnb Rental Experience	Negative Case
Clara	Face-to-Face (F2F)	F	29	Asian	Entire & Private	No
Rory	Skype	M	33	White	Entire	No
Donna	Skype	F	39	White	Entire	No
Rose	F2F	F	24	Asian	Entire & Private	No
Yasmin	F2F	F	27	Asian	Entire & Private	Yes
Mickey	F2F	M	24	White	Entire	Yes
Martha	Skype	F	34	African American	Entire & Private	No
Nardole	Skype	M	31	White	Entire & Private	No
Ryan	Skype	M	41	African American	Entire & Private	No
Bill	Skype	F	57	White	Entire & Private	No
Amy	Skype	F	58	White	Private	No
Jack	F2F	M	39	White	Entire & Private	No
Graham	Skype	M	45	White	Entire & Private	No

The sample size for qualitative interviews depends on many factors, including the epistemological and methodological nature and purpose of the study, data quality, the amount of useful information from each participant, and various practical considerations (e.g., available time, institutional committee requirements, and common practices in the field, particularly among studies using the same research design) (Baker and Edwards 2012; Creswell 2015; Morse 2000). Given their emphasis on nuanced analyses, IPA studies are suggested to work well with small sample sizes (Smith and Osborn 2008). As this study sought to understand participants’ subjective experiences, the sample size (N = 13) was deemed sufficient.

Semistructured interviews were used for data collection (Smith and Osborn 2008). All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Each interview consisted of three parts. The first part concerned participants’ experiences with Airbnb, which helped the researcher verify participants’ eligibility and build rapport. The second part pertained to participants’ territorial feelings and beliefs. Participants were asked about their feelings when staying in an Airbnb rental; their thoughts on the ownership of rental spaces; and their perceptions of the similarities and differences between staying in an Airbnb rental, a hotel room, and their own home. The last part of the interview focused on host territoriality and guests’ reactions to it. Participants were specifically asked whether the host had done anything territorial or made them feel they were staying in others’ space rather than their own. All participants provided examples of such experiences, and follow-up questions prompted elaboration on what hosts did and how participants reacted.

Transcript analysis was performed between March and June 2018 using the qualitative data analysis software Dedoose. As recommended by Smith and Osborn (2008), each case was analyzed using the same coding procedures (see Figure 2): each transcript was reviewed multiple times for familiarity; next, a systematic search was conducted to identify themes; then, connections between themes were analyzed; and finally, themes were clustered into superordinate themes. After all transcripts were coded, cross-case patterns were examined to establish a final table of superordinate themes for the entire corpus of participants.

Figure 2.

Coding Process.

Findings and Discussion

Feelings of Staying in a Shared Rental

Territorial complexity exists in P2P accommodation rentals. Participants demonstrated both a sense of being in their own territory and that of being in others’ territory during their stay; these two senses each comprised part of the sense of being in shared territory. The sense of being in others’ territory was characterized by participants behaving respectfully and carefully during their stay and feeling constrained, curious, fearful of contamination, and uncertain about their behavior (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Themes Identified from Interviews.

Theme	Meaning
Sense of being in others’ territory	Participants’ feelings related to being in others’ space
Respectful/careful	Participants were respectful of hosts’ home and mindful of their behavior (e.g., behaving carefully and cautiously)
Constrained	Participants felt constrained and could not behave as freely as when at home
Uncertain	Participants were uncertain about what they could and could not do and had limited knowledge about where to find items they needed
Curious	Participants were curious and inquisitive about being in others’ space
Fearful of contamination	Participants were afraid that they might be contaminated by the space or their existence might contaminate the hosts’ space
Sense of being in one’s own territory	Participants’ feelings associated with being in their perceived own space
Free	Participants felt they were free and could do whatever they wanted
Relaxed	Participants felt relaxed, safe, and comfortable
Hosts’ territorial behaviors	Hosts’ actions and behaviors reported by guests as manifestations of territoriality
Rental personalization	Participants’ reported verbal and visual cues (e.g., décor and personal objects) as ways hosts demonstrated their identity as space owners
House rules	Host communicated rules regarding appropriate or expected guest behavior before or during guests’ stay
Accessibility	Hosts rejected or limited guests’ access to certain space or items in the rental
Intrusion	Hosts entered space that guests perceived as their own with or without permission to check up on guests
Hands-on hosting	Hosts infringed upon guests’ independence by not letting guests do their own thing
Service failure	Hosts did not clean the rental properly, provided inaccurate information about the rental, or failed to accommodate reasonable requests in a timely manner
Guests’ reactions toward host territoriality	Reactions reported by participants after they experienced hosts’ territorial behaviors
Adaptation	Acceptance of and accommodation to hosts’ territorial behaviors
Assertive defense	Defensive responses aimed directly toward hosts
Appeal	Reporting to Airbnb or writing reviews about poor experiences due to host territoriality
Avoidance	Avoiding using certain areas of a rental, a certain type of rental, or P2P accommodation entirely to circumvent host territoriality

Respectful/Careful

Participants reported behaving respectfully and carefully while staying in a P2P accommodation rental. By being mindful of their behavior, participants intended to show respect to the host because they were staying in the host’s home and believed the host would expect them to behave politely and take care of the space. Some participants considered being respectful of another’s home to be a social norm, as if no monetary transaction was involved. For instance, Yasmin said, “It’s just maybe common courtesy since you’re living in someone else’s home.” Situational norms (Aarts and Dijksterhuis 2003) about how to behave as a good guest in others’ home in the domain of private hospitality (Lynch et al. 2011) could also apply when using P2P accommodation. Yet Aramberri (2001) argued that the premodern covenant between hosts and guests, including guests needing to “respect the property of the host, be helpful, and endure without complaints whatever they were given or asked to do” (742), does not necessarily explain modern tourist behavior, which is driven by monetary transactions. However, as revealed by this study, the host–guest paradigm developed in the preindustrial world may remain relevant to P2P accommodation experience when guests consider respect of one’s host obligatory.

Some participants reported expressing respect toward hosts and their homes for utilitarian reasons, such as gaining good reviews or not losing their security deposit. Airbnb allows hosts to review guests and add a security deposit to rentals (Dolnicar 2017). Although it can inconvenience guests, this two-way review system and security deposit policy may mitigate undesirable guest behavior and help hosts retain control over their rentals.

Constrained

Participants reported feeling constrained while staying in Airbnb rentals, as they could not behave as freely as they did in their own home. Being constrained is different from being respectful or careful: the feeling of being constrained is characterized by a lack of freedom or even being forced to behave in a certain way, which requires effortful self-control and depletion of limited inner resources (Muraven and Baumeister 2000); however, P2P accommodation guests could be cautious without behaving against their will. Compared with staying in a hotel room, Martha felt compelled to constrain herself more while staying in an Airbnb room: “I have to lower my voice . . . but if I was at a hotel room, it would be better. I could be as loud and extraverted as I want because it’s a hotel room.” The presence of host in the rental also made participants feel constrained, particularly when staying in a private room. Rose mentioned that she could not feel completely free even in the guest room, which was supposed to be her space: “The host was in the other room, so [I was] not completely free.”

Uncertain

P2P accommodation guests also reported experiencing uncertainty. Participants had limited information about the rental before entering the space. During their stay, participants reported feeling unsure about what they could do and where to find items they needed. For instance, Clara said, “I don’t know where certain stuff [is] located at the house . . . when I am looking [for certain stuff], I’m not sure if this is allowed.” Familiarity and knowledge of a space can inspire psychological ownership (Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks 2003); in the present study, lack of knowledge about the space seemed to prevent participants from perceiving the space as their own and thus increased their sense of being in others’ space.

Participants mentioned that online descriptions of rentals and reviews from previous guests were helpful in decreasing uncertainty during decision making. House instructions and communication with the host were also helpful in minimizing uncertainty associated with guests’ on-site experiences. Guests’ sense of uncertainty around P2P accommodation could be diminished through proactive communication and self-disclosure between hosts and guests (Moon et al. 2019).

Curious

Staying in a foreign territory was associated with curiosity. Many participants reported feeling inquisitive when staying in Airbnb rentals. Ryan said, “When I’m at [an] Airbnb, I’m like the most curious person you’ll ever meet.” Rose, who had stayed in four different Airbnb rentals, said “I was more curious when I stayed in [an] Airbnb” compared to a hotel. Unlike hotels, which are highly standardized, participants noted that Airbnb rentals seemed akin to an adventure. While participants stated they were respectful and careful when staying in an Airbnb rental, their curiosity compelled them to explore or touch items in the rental. Exploration is an investigative step in the appropriation of tourist experiences (Frochot, Kreziak, and Elliot 2019). In particular, once participants had settled into their new environment, they began to discover unfamiliar aspects of the rental. When asked why she touched the evening dresses hanging in the wardrobe in the guest room, Rose replied, “I could not control my curiosity.”

Guests’ curiosity not only emerges from adopting a new accommodation style (Lyu, Li, and Law 2019; Sheth, Newman, and Gross 1991), but is created by the “otherness” of the rental environment (e.g., décor or hosts’ family photos). The commercial transaction involved in P2P accommodation affords guests opportunities to interact with hosts (So, Oh, and Min 2018), experience local life (Wang et al. 2019), enter other people’s primary territory to get a glimpse of others’ private lives, and even legitimately explore others’ territory, which was rare prior to the advent of Airbnb. Guests’ curiosity about others’ private space may represent an important but understudied driver behind choosing P2P accommodation.

Fearful of contamination

Fear of contamination is another theme related to the sense of being in others’ territory. Lyman and Scott (1967) named contamination as a type of territorial encroachment. On one hand, participants were concerned about contaminating others’ territory, indicating that participants were aware of staying in others’ space and might consider their stay an encroachment upon hosts’ territory. Yasmin described feeling differently about being in an Airbnb rental versus a hotel room: “I’m definitely messier when I’m in a hotel. . . . [When] I’m staying in a private room or have the whole house, I always feel like I need to make sure my section is clean, [or] my clothes are not everywhere before I leave the house just in case the host accidentally comes in and [wonders] like ‘What’s going on?’” Fear of contaminating the host’s territory appeared common; some participants reported cleaning the rental after their stay despite being charged a cleaning fee. Ryan explained, “[Cleaning] just makes me feel good.” More generally, people have been shown to engage in re-sacralization before returning a borrowed object to its owner by cleaning, mending, and erasing traces of use (Jenkins, Molesworth, and Scullion 2014). Cleaning the rental before leaving suggests that participants may have wished to remove traces of their activities in others’ home and return others’ home as if their temporary appropriation had not occurred.

On the other hand, some participants were concerned about being contaminated by hosts’ items or the rental. Fear of being contaminated manifested as some participants avoiding touching hosts’ personal items, not out of respect but because of negative feelings induced by using or touching these items. Clara mentioned that she hated bedding with floral patterns because “even [if] it’s messy, you cannot see the stains on it.” Fear of being contaminated echoes previous research findings about material products, namely, that hygiene concerns inhibit secondhand consumption and access-based consumption (Gullstrand Edbring, Lehner, and Mont 2016). The fear of being contaminated reflected participants’ intentions to protect their body territory, “the space encompassed by the human body and the anatomical space of the body” (Lyman and Scott 1967, p. 241). When in others’ territory, one’s body territory, which has clear boundaries, might be the last line of defense. In some cases, participants reported cleaning the rental before use to avoid contamination, which assured them of the rental’s cleanliness. When asked why he tried to clean the bathroom in Airbnb rentals, Ryan commented, “I think it’s a comfort level with me . . . you know that the bath, the toilet . . . I’m sit[ting] on this . . . I’m reassuring myself.” Cleaning before use is consistent with the nesting step of appropriation in a new environment (Frochot, Kreziak, and Elliot 2019). By removing others’ traces in a rental, participants could create a comfortable environment for themselves.

In addition to a sense of being in others’ territory, participants developed a sense of being in their own territory during their stay. The transaction between P2P accommodation guests and hosts provided guests a right to claim their own space. When staying in an entire house/apartment, participants believed they had legitimate access to the whole rental and reported a strong sense of being in their own territory. Participants who used a private-room rental considered the room their own space, despite being in the host’s physical and emotional environment. Some participants even expected hosts to knock or notify them before entering the room. Participants expressed freedom and relaxation when staying in their own space, two feelings associated with a sense of being in one’s own territory.

Free

Participants mentioned they felt free and that they could do whatever they pleased in the space they perceived as their own, be it a whole rental or a private room. With an entire rental, participants enjoyed a sense of autonomy, being able to follow their own wishes and behave independently from others (Lammers et al. 2016). Participants staying in a private room reported a sense of freedom in their room compared to other parts of the rental. Jack explained, “The private room is my own. . . . I can spread my things there. I don’t have to worry about taking up too much space, because the entire room is my space—my own room. I’ll clean it up when I leave. But I’m more likely to just spread all of my stuff out everywhere, but I’m not going to do that in someone’s living room or someone’s kitchen.”

Relaxed

Staying in one’s own territory was associated with relaxation and comfort. Participants staying in a private room mentioned feeling most relaxed, safest, and most comfortable when in their room and reported spending most of their time there. Rose said, “I was most relaxed when I was in my room”; Amy mentioned, “In the bedroom, I’ve always felt comfortable.” Many participants, particularly women, stated they felt safe and secure when in their own room. For instance, Clara said, “I only stayed in my room, because I felt most safe there.” Relaxation in the context of P2P accommodation was associated with more than simply relaxing in a scenic location (Johnson and Neuhofer 2017) or in an inviting home atmosphere (Tussyadiah and Zach 2017); relaxation also accompanied an escape from the host’s environment and lessened anxiety around staying in others’ space.

Hosts’ Territorial Behaviors

Guests’ experiences in P2P accommodation occurred in hosts’ space and involved direct and indirect host interaction. Regarding the host’s importance, Amy said, “[The host] can either make or break your experience.” Participants encountered hosts’ territorial behaviors through direct (e.g., face-to-face) and indirect (e.g., rental ambiance) interactions with hosts. Six themes about host territoriality emerged from interviews: rental personalization, house rules, accessibility, intrusion, hands-on hosting, and service failure (see Table 2).

Rental personalization

Personalization of a place or object is a common territorial behavior (Altman 1975); for example, car owners’ personalization of their vehicle (Szlemko et al. 2008) and employees’ personalization of their office (Brown 2009) communicate a sense of ownership to themselves and others (Brown, Lawrence, and Robinson 2005). In P2P accommodation, participants reported that some hosts would use verbal cues to communicate ownership to guests. For example, hosts directly told participants to take care of their property before leaving guests alone. More often, participants recognized hosts’ identity as the rental owner via personal items and décor in a rental, all indicating hosts’ ownership. Some participants reported noticing the host or their family’s pictures in the guest room. Mickey mentioned, “[The host] had a picture of their family. . . I had a picture of me, so I put it in front of it. It sounds kind of bad, but I didn’t wanna look at them.” Personalization of the rental coincided with findings in commercial home settings where hosts decorated guest rooms with items reflecting their own interests to defend their home (McIntosh, Lynch, and Sweeney 2011). These items served as visual cues that reminded guests they were in the host’s territory and conveyed the “otherness” of the rental environment (Wang 2007). Hosts’ personalization of their rentals seemed to elicit guests’ sense of being in others’ territory, which could induce either an unpleasant (e.g., constrained) or relatively more pleasant (e.g., curious) feeling. Specifically, Décor and personal objects could contribute to the creation of an unfamiliar home, which some guests prefer in P2P accommodation (Wang 2007), and enhance the perceived genuineness of rentals (Ye, Xiao, and Zhou 2018), piquing guests’ curiosity. Personalization of the rental also signaled hosts’ identity as the owner of the space (McIntosh, Lynch, and Sweeney 2011), leading guests to behave more carefully and self-constrained. Future studies could investigate conditions in which rental personalization leads to pleasant or unpleasant guest experiences.

House rules

House rules are common in P2P accommodation. By setting rules, hosts define appropriate guest behavior and communicate their expectations; that is, hosts use house rules to establish control over their rentals and guests’ behaviors. Participants considered house rules indicative of host territoriality. Most often, house rules were communicated before participants made a reservation (i.e., participants were expected to read the house rules on the Airbnb website prior to making a reservation or upon arriving at the rental). In some cases, hosts introduced participants to house rules and communicated their expectations when showing participants around the rental; if participants did not meet hosts in person, house rules were communicated virtually (e.g., via email or text message) or via printed instructions in the rental.

Participants considered house rules part of the host–guest contract; guests agreed to follow house rules described online when booking a rental and followed the rules during their stay. Yasmine commented, “It’s like if you want to stay in my place, it’s almost like when you inquire about it, you’re agreeing . . . it’s like a contract.” The economic transaction between hosts and guests enables hosts to include house rules in online rental descriptions. However, the “contract” between hosts and guests can also include social norms around etiquette in another’s home, as Rose described: “There are underlying rules that just everyone knows . . . no pets, no damage, no loud noises, etc.” Participants were understanding of hosts instituting house rules in P2P accommodation rentals, and believed these rules could help hosts prevent accidents and protect their property.

Although house rules limited participants’ behavior in a rental, guests found them helpful. Participants reported that house rules reduced uncertainty about the scope of offerings and helped guide their behavior. Jack reported, “I want to know before I go into someone’s space, especially if I’m paying money for it, what is okay for me to do and what it is okay for them to expect.” On one hand, house rules provided order and structure for participants when staying in others’ territory (Edney 1976a); on the other hand, house rules helped participants understand what they might receive from the transaction between themselves and the host. At the same time, excessive house rules could convey limited offering, as well as a high degree of host territoriality. Some participants mentioned they would not book a P2P accommodation rental with oppressive rules “because it would just be really awkward” (Yasmin) or imply that “something else is going on and maybe something’s wrong” (Graham).

Accessibility

Human territoriality can be demonstrated by affecting the accessibility of one’s territory (Sack 1983). In P2P accommodation, hosts can reject a reservation request if they do not want a guest to stay in their rental or may otherwise limit guests’ access to certain parts of the rental. Participants reported that these boundary restrictions were communicated orally or through signs and rules, indicating exclusive use of some areas or objects. For instance, locked closets, cabinets, bathrooms, and bedrooms, as well as signs reading “Please do not enter,” were frequently mentioned. Hosts also used notes and labels to mark certain items, forbidding participants from touching or using those items.

Participants were understanding of limited access while staying in a rental. However, limited access enhanced participants’ feelings of being in others’ territory. Donna reported her feelings about ownership signs: “It’s like you’re invading their space, really. It makes me feel more stiff.” Similarly, Clara stayed in a private-room rental where access to a certain bathroom was not allowed, which caused inconvenience during the morning. She admitted, “I felt like I was invited to another person’s house, but paying money for that [invitation]. . . . I don’t think it was that pleasant compared to [my] other Airbnb experiences.” Participants appeared more accepting of implicit boundaries and spatial restrictions: “If it’s a locked door, that’s what it is. But if you’re like, ‘Here, I’m leaving this out in the open. Don’t touch it.’ [Laughs] That’s a little—that makes me uncomfortable” (Donna).

Intrusion

Host territoriality can be manifested by hosts entering or intervening a space uninvited that guests perceived as their own, an intrusion of guests’ territory. Some P2P accommodation hosts may not fully understand that guests also possess their own territory in the rental and tend to intervene in guests’ existence and freedom in the rental. Some participants reported that hosts violated their space, such as by entering their room without permission or dropping by the rental during their stay. Occasionally, hosts intruded upon guests’ territory with excuses such as offering breakfast, vacuuming, or checking on guests to see if everything was fine. These behaviors made some participants feel uncomfortable even if the instances did not greatly influence their stay. Rory, who used an entire rental, described one encounter with the host: “The host did come over to mow the lawn in the middle of the day. . . . I didn’t expect it. And we were home, and I was actually trying to get work done. It was just a little loud. So I didn’t get a heads up on that. So, that made me feel a little uneasy. [But] it wasn’t a big deal.”

In some cases, hosts might intrude on guests’ freedom and privacy more severely. Some participants mentioned that their host paid close attention to their behavior, which made them uncomfortable. Jack stayed with a host who looked over his shoulder while he and his wife were cooking in the kitchen and gave instructions on how to use and clean kitchen tools. Jack remarked, “It felt like we were being a burden on the people that we were staying with but we were paying for it. . . . If you’re paying for something, you expect a certain level of—it’s a mixture of privacy and being allowed to do the things that you think you’re gonna be able to do. And it didn’t feel like we could make breakfast, which was a bit of a disappointment.” Intrusion could even threaten guests’ security during their stay. Martha described an experience in which the host suddenly appeared at midnight and made her nervous about staying in the rental (see Supplemental Material for details).

Hands-on hosting

Infringing upon P2P accommodation guests’ independence can manifest from a hands-on hosting style; some hosts may strive to take care of guests and serve them beyond expectations, only because they want to maintain control over the rental. For example, Amy stayed in a private room and reported that the host looked after her as if the host were her parent or sister. The host even did laundry and helped her fold her clothing, underwear included. The participant was so embarrassed about the experience that she covered her face with her hands when describing it. Ryan also reported an experience with a controlling host, who cooked breakfast for guests instead of letting them make it themselves. The host made Ryan feel as though he had little freedom while staying in the rental: “She was like our [resident assistant] . . . making sure you control yourself properly. . . . I felt, very like, I was in high school or college all over again.”

Service failure

Many participants mentioned instances when hosts did not clean the rental properly, provided inaccurate rental information, or failed to accommodate reasonable requests in a timely manner. For instance, Jack stayed in a rental that was advertised as having a bath but only had a shower. Bill stayed in a rental described as having two separate beds, one of which was actually an air mattress. Participants stated they felt surprised upon discovering that hosts had not depicted rentals accurately: “It wasn’t in her description. [Chuckles] . . . I was a little surprised but that was okay. It worked out” (Bill).

Participants also expected their hosts to be available if they needed assistance and were disappointed when hosts were unable to accommodate their requests. Mickey was once locked out of a rental but could not get in touch with the host until the next day; thus, he had to stay in a hotel for the night without his belongings. Clara stayed in a rental where there was unexpectedly no hot water; she was disappointed that she had to wait eight hours before the host addressed the problem. If similar issues (e.g., untidy rooms, inaccurate service information, and unresponsive service providers) occurred in a hotel, they might be classified as service failures. However, in P2P accommodation settings, guests might attribute these incidents to host territoriality.

Guests’ Reactions Toward Host Territoriality

Adaptation

Participants frequently reported adjusting to hosts’ territorial behaviors. Adaptive responses refer to guests’ acceptance of and accommodation to host territoriality. For instance, participants staying in an entire rental chose to accommodate hosts’ drop-ins even though they would rather not. If hosts initiated an activity or conversation, guests often found it difficult to reject their host or tried to do so politely, explaining “It wasn’t a big deal” (Rory) and “I could have done without it, but it didn’t matter” (Mickey), despite being slightly uneasy. Many participants considered host territoriality was what they had to bear while staying in the host’s property; as Yasmin said, “It’s his house.” P2P accommodation guests’ adaptation to hosts’ territoriality corroborated prior studies in which individuals tended to comply with territorial occupants (Harris and McAndrew 1986) and café customers accommodated other patrons’ requests to share a table (Griffiths and Gilly 2012). When facing subtle host territoriality, participants often felt they did not have firm ground to defend themselves and thus chose to accommodate hosts instead. In addition, certain types of hosts’ territorial behaviors (e.g., house rules, limited rental access, and hosts’ personal items) appeared common in P2P accommodation, such that guests became accustomed to these territorial signals and chose to accept them as part of the experience. Research on liquid consumption has similarly suggested that consumers in access-based consumption generally focus on use value and are more open to change (Bardhi and Eckhardt 2017). Hosts’ territorial behaviors may have also impeded guests’ attachment to and personalization of the rental space, making guests less inclined to defend themselves.

Assertive defense

Assertive defense refers to guests’ defensive responses aimed directly toward hosts. When guests perceived their territory as threatened or intruded upon by the host, they tended to engage in defensive responses. This assertive defense is similar to café customers protecting their table from other guests (Griffiths and Gilly 2012). P2P accommodation guests frequently practiced assertive defense when encountering service problems (e.g., no hot water or being locked out). Donna faced a parking problem: the host said the parking spot was of normal size, so “we rented a super compact car. . . the spot was no bigger than my car. It’s so tiny, which was fine. I emailed her and suggested her to add a note [about the size of the parking spot].” As suggested by Bakker and Bakker-Rabdau (1973), assertiveness is purportedly based on a feeling of adequacy and strength such that individuals have no doubt about the legitimacy of their claim to territory. The business scope of P2P accommodation experiences is likely clearer than the territorial boundaries between guests and hosts; thus, guests may feel more assured defending themselves in the event of service failure.

Appeal

As the agent between hosts and guests, P2P accommodation platforms provide guests a means of addressing host territoriality. Participants often appealed to Airbnb when service problems substantially affected their experiences, particularly if hosts failed to rectify guests’ issues. For example, Clara informed Airbnb about being unable to shower for an extended period and the host not being helpful in the situation: “I got a refund for [my stay in] that place.” Writing reviews about poor experiences due to host territoriality constituted another form of appeal, namely, for support from potential users. For instance, Yasmin wrote an online review about the cleanliness of an Airbnb rental to inform other guests. Yet participants were unlikely to appeal to P2P accommodation platforms with respect to hosts’ territorial behaviors (apart from service failure) unless participants experienced severe host territoriality or felt their security was threatened during their stay. For example, after Martha experienced an invasion of privacy and felt insecure staying at the rental (see Supplementary Material), she contacted Airbnb to report the incident.

Avoidance

Guests may engage in intentional avoidance to circumvent host territoriality, such as by avoiding interacting with a territorial host, not using certain items or space in the rental, or withdrawing from the experience to avoid a host completely. In subtler displays of avoidance, Clara reported staying in her own area so as not to converse with the host; Mickey avoided looking at hosts’ family photos in the guest room; and Jack avoided using the kitchen to prevent the host from looking over his shoulder. In more obvious displays, some participants changed their schedule and withdraw from the experience to escape from a territorial host: “We [planned to stay] the whole week, but we stayed 3 days because, like we said, the lady made us feel very uncomfortable” (Ryan). Avoidance of hosts’ territorial behaviors echoed consumers’ (temporary) abandonment of territory in retail environments (Ashley and Nobel 2014); for example, café consumers facing a territorial intrusion may relinquish their domain or spend less time in the environment, at least temporarily.

Participants often reported to avoid using a certain type of P2P accommodation rentals following displays of host territoriality. For example, after having experienced a random drop-by from his host, Rory reported that he began to check with hosts before making a reservation to see if he should expect any visits. Jack mentioned that he preferred to use entire rentals after staying with the host who watched him cooking. Rose noted she liked to stay in rentals that seemed to be the host’s secondary home because she felt uncomfortable when surrounded by hosts’ personal items. However, participants seemed to consider poor experiences with host territoriality rare, stating they would like to move on quickly and continue using P2P accommodation; even Martha, who experienced an intrusion of her privacy, did not cancel her subsequent Airbnb reservation in Chicago. These patterns are consistent with the argument that consumers tend to develop low-level attachment to access-based products or services but can have higher attachment to products or services providing access (Bardhi and Eckhardt 2017).

Conclusions

This article illuminated the uniqueness of P2P accommodation—an economic exchange involving people’s private territory—and conceptualized guests’ experiences in P2P accommodation as the product of territorial complexity in shared space, where hosts’ and guests’ territories intermingle. Adopting an IPA approach, this study identified two categories of feelings that participants simultaneously experienced during their stay: the sense of being in others’ territory (i.e., respectful/careful, constrained, uncertain, curious, and fearful of contamination) and the sense of being in one’s own territory, characterized by freedom and relaxation. While the magnitude and salience of each territorial sense varied with guests’ experiences, participants’ sense of being in others’ territory was pervasive.

P2P accommodation guests recognized hosts’ territorial behaviors during their stay, which influenced guests’ territorial senses and evoked various reactions. Rental personalization, accessibility, house rules, intrusion, hands-on hosting, and service failure emerged in interviews as manifestations of host territoriality. Host territoriality could enhance guests’ sense of being in others’ territory and reduce the sense of being in their own territory. Four main guest reactions were identified: adaptation, assertive defense, appeal, and avoidance. Because of the sense of being in others’ territory, P2P accommodation guests often expressed an understanding of hosts’ territorial behaviors and tended to avoid situations involving host territoriality. Assertive guest defense or appeals after experiencing host territoriality often followed service failure or severe territorial intrusion. Host territoriality did not only affect guests’ feelings and behaviors during their stay but also guests’ subsequent decisions (e.g., information searches, rental preferences, and intentions to continue using P2P accommodation). Figure 3 summarizes the linkages between guests’ territorial senses, hosts’ territorial behaviors, and guests’ reactions.

Figure 3.

Territorial sense, host territorial behavior, and guest reaction.

Theoretical Implications

This article contributes to the literature of P2P accommodation by presenting human territoriality as a novel theoretical lens through which to explore P2P accommodation experiences. Most studies have considered P2P accommodation as a new context and reconsidered research questions studied in other tourism and hospitality settings (Dolnicar 2019); trust (Yang et al. 2019; Ye et al. 2019) and perceived risk (Mittendorf 2017) have garnered particular attention. These constructs are useful in investigating P2P accommodation guests’ decision making but do not necessarily contextualize on-site experiences. Once guests are in a rental and surrounded by hosts’ living environment, human territoriality often surfaces as a major aspect of the guest experience. Therefore, understanding P2P accommodation with respect to human territoriality may have the potential to generate new theories for related research.

This article also extends the literature by offering alternative explanations for empirical findings related to P2P accommodation. Pera et al. (2019) suggested that low social distance in P2P accommodation can foster empathy, making guests reluctant to leave negative reviews of their experiences. The current findings shed light on the prevalence of positive reviews in P2P accommodation: guests were hesitant to leave negative reviews (i.e., appeal) because of their sense of being in others’ territory. Participants in this study demonstrated a tendency to accept what happened during their stay in others’ space and were unlikely to speak up despite being uncomfortable with the host’s behaviors. This study also elucidated empirical findings that were not thoroughly explained elsewhere. Lutz and Newlands (2018) found that guests’ level of comfort with others’ personal objects was not significantly associated with guests’ willingness to use home-sharing rentals; however, no underlying mechanism was identified. Findings of the present article indicate that contamination concerns and constraints related to hosts’ personal items may have been offset by strong curiosity during guests’ experiences, leading to no relationships between guests’ perceived comfort with hosts’ personal items and their intentions to use home-sharing rentals.

Findings of the present study also revealed important concepts requiring attention in P2P accommodation settings. For example, when staying in a P2P accommodation rental, participants reported feeling uncertainty about what they could and could not do. Such uncertainty often had little to do with whether one could predict the outcomes of different choices, as shown in decision-making research (Lipshitz and Strauss 1997); rather, uncertainty arose from not realizing one’s options in the first place. Future studies should examine different types of uncertainty in P2P accommodation experiences as well as guests’ strategies for coping with uncertainty. Fear of contamination also deserves consideration. In this study, P2P accommodation guests were afraid of contaminating hosts’ home and of encountering contamination during their stay. This fear is not solely tied to rental cleanliness and hygiene (Wiles and Crawford 2017) but also to the subjective uneasiness that comes with being in others’ territory. Scholars may thus wish to examine the associations between accommodation cleanliness and guests’ fear of contamination. Curiosity warrants further exploration as well; in retail contexts, curiosity induced by product appeals and promotions has been found to drive consumers’ purchase behavior (Hill, Fombelle, and Sirianni 2016). In terms of P2P accommodation, the present study revealed that participants were highly curious and felt compelled to explore the rental during their stay although such investigation may not be welcomed by hosts. In the future, researchers should study the effects of curiosity on guest behavior and how P2P accommodation hosts feel about guests’ exploration of their rental.

The host–guest relationship is multidimensional and dynamic (Cheng and Zhang 2019). This study expands the host–guest paradigm by adding a human territoriality dimension and articulating the interplay between commercial and territorial relationships among hosts and guests in commercial tourism and hospitality settings. The host–guest paradigm, as a crucial theoretical foundation in tourism and hospitality, has been questioned for its relevance in modern tourism (Aramberri 2001). Findings of this study show that monetary exchange does not necessarily free P2P accommodation guests from obligations to behave properly in hosts’ space (i.e., display respect, be careful, and comply with hosts’ rules). Indeed, economic exchange complicates the territorial relationship between hosts and guests, which accounts for the territorial complexity in P2P accommodation and can inform guests’ experiences. Researchers should therefore consider the interaction between commercial and territorial relationships when examining the host–guest relationship in mass tourism and hospitality. As an example, subsequent studies can adopt the triad of territory proposed in this study to investigate territorial conflicts between residents and tourists: locals possess a sense of ownership toward their place of residence, while expenditure-empowered tourists may believe they are free to explore the destination, thus igniting resident–visitor conflict.

Practical Implications

This study draws a realistic picture of P2P accommodation experiences and offers important practical implications for P2P accommodation hosts, online platforms, and the hotel industry. P2P accommodation hosts should be conscious of their territoriality and pay close attention to territory management, as some hosts’ territorial behaviors can detract from guests’ experiences. For instance, the present findings show that hosts should avoid placing personal photos in guest rooms, frequently checking in on guests, randomly stopping by, entering guests’ space without permission, and demonstrating a hands-on hosting style. These behaviors could be perceived as territorial, amplifying guests’ sense of being in others’ territory and making guests feel inhibited. To better signify their territoriality, P2P accommodation hosts should also communicate their expectations to guests in detail before accepting a reservation and implement house rules to protect their territory.

By connecting millions of hosts and guests, online platforms have facilitated the P2P accommodation sector’s explosive growth—but this power also endows platforms with a greater responsibility to attend to potential territoriality issues among hosts and guests. P2P accommodation platforms should offer guidance and develop training programs on territoriality management for hosts and guests. For instance, platforms should encourage hosts to design house rules rather than relying on intrusive behavior to protect their territory. In addition, P2P accommodation platforms should develop online tutorials or webinars on drafting listing descriptions, as inconsistencies between online descriptions and what guests receive could be interpreted as hosts being territorial or intentionally hiding information, which would eventually affect the trustworthiness of a given platform. Besides, P2P accommodation platforms should consider establishing a code of conduct to educate guests about mindful stays in others’ homes. For example, Airbnb could provide two categories of house rules: one related to standardized behavioral codes and another dedicated to hosts’ personal rules. This organization could clarify norms around using P2P accommodation and highlight the unique mandates of a particular rental.

Findings of this study offer practical implications for hotel managers seeking opportunities to reposition hotel experiences. A sense of being in others’ territory is salient in P2P accommodation, where guests may not feel as free as when in a hotel. Hotel managers should therefore redesign their marketing ads and emphasize the freedom associated with staying in a hotel. For example, hotel guests are granted their own space and can be left undisturbed. In addition, results of this study indicate that the focal P2P accommodation guests were frequently concerned about contamination and occasionally dissatisfied with hosts’ lack of responsiveness to service failure. Hotel marketing communications should thus showcase their firm’s high standards of cleanliness along with their staff’s availability and responsiveness as competitive advantages over P2P accommodation.

Limitations and Future Research

This study demonstrates the relevance of human territoriality in P2P accommodation studies; however, as a preliminary analysis of its kind, this study has several limitations. First, the study focused primarily on guests’ lived experiences and did not uncover how hosts actually felt or behaved during guests’ stay; that is, host territoriality was considered from guests’ perspectives, which could differ from hosts’ perceptions. In future studies, it would be interesting to explore human territoriality through hosts’ experiences. Guests tend to perceive host–guest interaction more positively than hosts (Moon et al. 2019). Comparing hosts’ and guests’ experiences could reveal a more holistic picture of human territoriality in P2P accommodation.

Second, this study identified distinct categories of hosts’ territorial behaviors and guests’ reactions, yet associations between the two were not examined. Subsequent work can investigate the relationships between types of host territoriality and guests’ corresponding reactions. Research methods such as narrative elicitation and think-aloud can help reveal these relationships, and quantitative approaches would be useful in assessing and modeling them. Third, because of the nature of IPA, subjectivity is inevitable when participants share interpretations of their experiences and when researchers process interview commentary. Although negative cases and rich descriptions were provided, researcher subjectivity could not be eliminated from this analysis. For example, guests’ experiences were studied through the lens of human territoriality, which may be interpreted differently by researchers with disparate perspectives.

Lastly, data for this study were gathered prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, which may affect the findings’ current relevance. For instance, fear of contamination may be more salient during the outbreak and discourage consumers from using P2P accommodation. Similarly, certain territorial behaviors (e.g., host intrusion and a hands-on hosting style) may no longer apply when social distancing is required. Guests who experience service failure in P2P accommodation may now attribute such failure to the pandemic rather than to host territoriality. Although P2P accommodation experiences may change during COVID-19, the authors believe the pandemic underscores the need to further study territoriality in tourism and hospitality.

Supplemental Material

JTR-19-09-33_online_supp-20200915 – Supplemental material for Human Territoriality in P2P Accommodation: An Examination of Guest Experience

Supplemental material, JTR-19-09-33_online_supp-20200915 for Human Territoriality in P2P Accommodation: An Examination of Guest Experience by Yuan Wang and Xiang (Robert) Li in Journal of Travel Research

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author received financial support from China’s Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No: 41300-20104-222214) and the 16th Young Scholars Interdisciplinary Forum, a seed funding program run by Fox School of Business, Temple University.

ORCID iD

Yuan Wang

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Yuan Wang, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Tourism, East China Normal University. Yuan’s research interests include peer-to-peer accommodation, destination marketing, and application of social network analysis in tourism.

Xiang (Robert) Li, PhD, is a Professor and the Chairperson of the Department of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Temple University. He is also the Director of Temple’s U.S.-Asia Tourism & Hospitality Research Center. Robert’s research mainly focuses on destination marketing and tourist behavior.

References

Aarts

Dijksterhuis

2003. “The Silence of the Library: Environment, Situational Norm, and Social Behavior.” Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 84 (1): 18–28.

Airbnb. 2020. “Airbnb Citizen Advancing Home Sharing as aSolution.” https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/?utm_source=airbnb&utm_medium=footer&utm_campaign=product (accessed June 25, 2020).

Altman

1975. The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, and Crowding. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Altman

Haythorn

W. W.

1967. “The Effects of Social Isolation and Group Composition on Performance.” Human Relations 20 (4): 313–40.

Aramberri

2001. “The Host Should Get Lost: Paradigms in the Tourism Theory.” Annals of Tourism Research 28 (3): 738–61.

Ashley

Noble

S. M.

2014. “It’s Closing Time: Territorial Behaviors from Customers in Response to Front line Employees.” Journal of Retailing 90 (1): 74–92.

Avey

J. B.

Avolio

B. J.

Crossley

C. D.

Luthans

2009. “Psychological Ownership: Theoretical Extensions, Measurement and Relation to Work Outcomes.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 30 (2): 173–91.

Baker

S. E.

Edwards

2012. “How Many Qualitative Interviews Is Enough? Expert Voices and Early Career Reflections on Sampling and Cases in Qualitative Research.” https://cris.brighton.ac.uk/ws/files/301922/how_many_interviews.pdf (accessed December 20, 2017).

Bakker

C. B.

Bakker-Rabdau

M. K.

1973. No Trespassing! Explorations in Human Territoriality. San Francisco, CA: Chandler & Sharp.

10.

Bardhi

Eckhardt

G. M.

2012. “Access-Based Consumption: The Case of Car Sharing.” Journal of Consumer Research 39 (4): 881–98.

11.

Bardhi

Eckhardt

G. M.

2017. “Liquid Consumption.” Journal of Consumer Research 44 (3): 582–97.

12.

Belk

2014. “You Are What You Can Access: Sharing and Collaborative Consumption Online.” Journal of Business Research 67 (8): 1595–600.

13.

Belk

2018. “Ownership: The Extended Self and the Extended Object.” In Psychological Ownership and Consumer Behavior, edited by J.

Peck

Shu

S. B.

, 53–67. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

14.

Belk

R. W.

2013. “Extended Self in a Digital World.” Journal of Consumer Research 40 (3): 477–500.

15.

Brown

2009. “Claiming a Corner at Work: Measuring Employee Territoriality in Their Workspaces.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (1): 44–52.

16.

Brown

Baer

2011. “Location in Negotiation: Is There a Home Field Advantage?" Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 114 (2): 190–200.

17.

Brown

Lawrence

T. B.

Robinson

S. L.

2005. “Territoriality in Organizations.” Academy of Management Review 30 (3): 577–94.

18.

Caputo

J. D.

1997. Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida. New York: Fordham University Press.

19.

Cheng

Zhang

2019. “When Western Hosts Meet Eastern Guests: Airbnb Hosts’ Experience with Chinese Outbound Tourists.” Annals of Tourism Research 75:288–303.

20.

Creswell

J. W.

2015. A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

21.

Di Domenico

Lynch

2007. “Host/Guest Encounters in the Commercial Home.” Leisure Studies 26 (3): 321–38.

22.

Dolnicar

2017. Peer to Peer Accommodation Networks: An Examination. Oxford: Goodfellow.

23.

Dolnicar

2019. “A Review of Research into Paid Online Peer-to-Peer Accommodation: Launching the Annals of Tourism Research Curated Collection on Peer-to-Peer Accommodation.” Annals of Tourism Research 75:248–64.

24.

Edney

J. J.

1973. “Territoriality and Control.” PhD diss., Yale University, New Haven, CT.

25.

Edney

J. J.

1974. “Human Territoriality.” Psychological Bulletin 81 (12): 959–75.

26.

Edney

J. J.

1975. “Territoriality and Control: A Field Experiment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31 (6): 1108–15.

27.

Edney

J. J.

1976a. “Human Territories: Comment on Functional Properties.” Environment and Behavior 8 (1): 31–47.

28.

Edney

J. J.

1976b. “The Psychological Role of Property Rights in Human Behavior.” Environment and Planning A 8 (7): 811–22.

29.

Frochot

Kreziak

Elliot

2019. “Home Away from Home: A Longitudinal Study of the Holiday Appropriation Process.” Tourism Management 71:327–36.

30.

Griffiths

M. A.

Gilly

M. C.

2012. “Dibs! Customer Territorial Behaviors.” Journal of Service Research 15 (2): 131–49.

31.

Guest

Bunce

Johnson

2006. “How Many Interviews Are Enough? An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability.” Field Methods 18 (1): 59–82.

32.

Gullstrand Edbring

Lehner

Mont

2016. “Exploring Consumer Attitudes to Alternative Models of Consumption: Motivations and Barriers.” Journal of Cleaner Production 123 (June): 5–15.

33.

Harris

P. B.

McAndrew

F. T.

1986. “Territoriality and Compliance: The Influence of Gender and Location on Willingness to Sign Petitions.” Journal of Social Psychology 126 (5): 657–62.

34.

Hill

K. M.

Fombelle

P. W.

Sirianni

N. J.

2016. “Shopping under the Influence of Curiosity: How Retailers Use Mystery to Drive Purchase Motivation.” Journal of Business Research 69 (3): 1028–34.

35.

Jenkins

Molesworth

Scullion

2014. “The Messy Social Lives of Objects: Inter-Personal Borrowing and the Ambiguity of Possession and Ownership.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour 13 (2): 131–39.

36.

Johnson

A.-G.

Neuhofer

2017. “Airbnb—an Exploration of Value Co-Creation Experiences in Jamaica.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 29 (9): 2361–76.

37.

Kakoliris

2015. “Jacques Derrida on the Ethics of Hospitality.” In The Ethics of Subjectivity: Perspectives since the Dawn of Modernity, edited by E.

Imafidon

, 144–56. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

38.

Kärrholm

2005. “Territorial Complexity, a Study of Territoriality, Materiality and Use at Three Squares in Lund.” Nordic Journal of Architectural Research 18 (1): 99–114.

39.

Kärrholm

2007. “The Materiality of Territorial Production a Conceptual Discussion of Territoriality, Materiality, and the Everyday Life of Public Space.” Space and Culture 10 (4): 437–453.

40.

Kärrholm

2017. “The Temporality of Territorial Production—The Case of Stortorget, Malmö.” Social & Cultural Geography 18 (5): 683–705.

41.

Kastenbaum

D. R.

1984. “Territorial Behavior and Interpersonal Relations in a University Residential Environment.” PhD diss., State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.

42.

Kaya

Weber

M. J.

2003. “Territorial Behavior in Residence Halls: A Cross-Cultural Study.” Environment and Behavior 35 (3): 400–414.

43.

Lamberton

C. P.

Rose

R. L.

2012. “When Is Ours Better Than Mine? A Framework for Understanding and Altering Participation in Commercial Sharing Systems.” Journal of Marketing 76 (4): 109–25.

44.

Lammers

Stoker

J. I.

Rink

Galinsky

A. D.

2016. “To Have Control over or to Be Free from Others? The Desire for Power Reflects a Need for Autonomy.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 42 (4): 498–512.

45.

Larsen

2008. “De-Exoticizing Tourist Travel: Everyday Life and Sociality on the Move.” Leisure Studies 27 (1): 21–34.

46.

Lashley

2000. “Towards Theoretical Understanding of Hospitality.” In In Search of Hospitality: Theoretical Perspectives and Debates, edited by C.

Lashley

Morrison

A. J.

, 1–16. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

47.

Lin

P. M.

Fan

D. X.

Zhang

H. Q.

Lau

2019. “Spend Less and Experience More: Understanding Tourists’ Social Contact in the Airbnb Context.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 83:65–73.

48.

Lipshitz

Strauss

1997. “Coping with Uncertainty: A Naturalistic Decision-Making Analysis.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 69 (2): 149–63.

49.

Lutz

Newlands

2018. “Consumer Segmentation within the Sharing Economy: The Case of Airbnb.” Journal of Business Research 88:187–96.

50.

Lyman

S. M.

Scott

M. B.

1967. “Territoriality: A Neglected Sociological Dimension.” Social Problems 15 (2): 236–49.

51.

Lynch

Di Domenico

M. L.

Sweeney

2007. “Resident Hosts and Mobile Strangers: Temporary Exchanges within the Topography of the Commercial Home.” In Mobilizing Hospitality: The Ethics of Social Relations in a Mobile World, edited by J. G.

Molz

Gibson

, 121–43. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

52.

Lynch

Molz

J. G.

McIntosh

Lugosi

Lashley

2011. “Theorizing Hospitality.” Hospitality & Society 1 (1): 3–24.

53.

Lyu

Law

2019. “Experiencing P2P Accommodations: Anecdotes from Chinese Customers.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 77:323–32.

54.

Malone

McCabe

Smith

A. P.

2014. “The Role of Hedonism in Ethical Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 44:241–54.

55.

Mao

Lyu

2017. “Why Travelers Use Airbnb Again?" International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 29 (9): 2464–82.

56.

McIntosh

Lynch

Sweeney

2011. “‘My Home Is My Castle’: Defiance of the Commercial Homestay Host in Tourism.” Journal of Travel Research 50 (5): 509–19.

57.

Mittendorf

2017. “Create an Uber Account? An Investigation of Trust and Perceived Risk in the Sharing Economy.” Journal of Customer Behaviour 16 (3): 281–307.

58.

Moon

Miao

Hanks

Line

N. D.

2019. “Peer-to-Peer Interactions: Perspectives of Airbnb Guests and Hosts.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 77 (1): 405–14.

59.

Morse

J. M.

2000. “Determining Sample Size.” Qualitative Health Research 10 (1): 3–5.

60.

Muraven

Baumeister

R. F.

2000. “Self-Regulation and Depletion of Limited Resources: Does Self-Control Resemble a Muscle?" Psychological Bulletin 126 (2): 247.

61.

O’Gorman

K. D.

2007. “Dimensions of Hospitality: Exploring Ancient and Classical Origins.” In Hospitality: A Social Lens, edited by C.

Lashley

Lynch

Morrison

, 31–46. Oxford: Routledge.

62.

Paasi

1998. “Boundaries as Social Processes: Territoriality in the World of Flows.” Geopolitics 3 (1): 69–88.

63.

Pappas

2017. “The Complexity of Purchasing Intentions in Peer-to-Peer Accommodation.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 29 (9): 2302–21.

64.

Pera

Viglia

Grazzini

Dalli

2019. “When Empathy Prevents Negative Reviewing Behavior.” Annals of Tourism Research 75:265–78.

65.

Pierce

J. L.

Kostova

Dirks

K. T.

2003. “The State of Psychological Ownership: Integrating and Extending a Century of Research.” Review of General Psychology 7 (1): 84–107.

66.

Pine

B. J. Gilmore

J. H.

1998. “Welcome to the Experience Economy.” Harvard Business Review 76 (4): 97–105.

67.

Porteous

J. D.

1976. “Home: The Territorial Core.” Geographical Review 66 (4): 383–90.

68.

Ruback

R. B.

Juieng

1997. “Territorial Defense in Parking Lots: Retaliation against Waiting Drivers.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 27 (9): 821–34.

69.

Rudmin

F. W.

1991. “‘To Own Is to Be Perceived to Own’: A Social Cognitive Look at the Ownership of Property.” Journal of Social Behavior & Personality 6 (6): 85–104.

70.

Sack

R. D.

1983. “Human Territoriality: A Theory.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 73 (1): 55–74.

71.

Sack

R. D.

1986. Human Territoriality: Its Theory and History. New York: Cambridge University Press.

72.

Sedgley

Pritchard

Morgan

Hanna

2017. “Tourism and Autism: Journeys of Mixed Emotions.” Annals of Tourism Research 66:14–25.

73.

Sheth

J. N.

Newman

B. I.

Gross

B. L.

1991. “Why We Buy What We Buy: A Theory of Consumption Values.” Journal of Business Research 22 (2): 159–70.

74.

Smith

Flowers

Michael

2009. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

75.

Smith

J. A.

1996. “Beyond the Divide between Cognition and Discourse: Using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis in Health Psychology.” Psychology & Health 11 (2): 261–71.

76.

Smith

J. A.

2004. “Reflecting on the Development of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis and Its Contribution to Qualitative Research in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 1 (1): 39–54.

77.

Smith

J. A.

Osborn

2008. “Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.” In Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods, edited by J. A.

Smith

, 51–80. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

78.

K. K. F.

Min

2018. “Motivations and Constraints of Airbnb Consumers: Findings from a Mixed-Methods Approach.” Tourism Management 67:224–36.

79.

K. K. F.

Xie

K. L.

2019. “Peer-to-Peer Accommodation Services in the Sharing Economy: Effects of Psychological Distances on Guest Loyalty.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 31 (8): 3212–30.

80.

Sommer

Becker

F. D.

1969. “Territorial Defense and the Good Neighbor.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 11 (2): 85–92.

81.

Stodolska

Shinew

K. J.

Acevedo

J. C.

Roman

C. G.

2013. “‘I Was Born in the Hood’: Fear of Crime, Outdoor Recreation and Physical Activity among Mexican-American Urban Adolescents.” Leisure Sciences 35 (1): 1–15.

82.

Sweeney

Lynch

2007. “Explorations of the Host’s Relationship with the Commercial Home.” Tourism and Hospitality Research 7 (2): 100–8.

83.

Sweeney

Lynch

2009. “Classifying Commercial Home Hosts Based on Their Relationships to the Home.” Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development 6 (2): 159–70.

84.

Szlemko

W. J.

Benfield

J. A.

Bell

P. A.

Deffenbacher

J. L.

Troup

2008. “Territorial Markings as a Predictor of Driver Aggression and Road Rage.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 38 (6): 1664–88.

85.

Taylor

R. B.

Lanni

J. C.

1981. “Territorial Dominance: The Influence of the Resident Advantage in Triadic Decision Making.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41 (5): 909–15.

86.

Tuffour

2017. “A Critical Overview of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: A Contemporary Qualitative Research Approach.” Journal of Healthcare Communications 2 (4): 52.

87.

Tussyadiah

I. P.

2016. “Factors of Satisfaction and Intention to Use Peer-to-Peer Accommodation.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 55:70–80.

88.

Tussyadiah

I. P.

Pesonen

2018. “Drivers and Barriers of Peer-to-Peer Accommodation Stay—An Exploratory Study with American and Finnish Travellers.” Current Issues in Tourism 21 (6): 703–20.

89.

Tussyadiah

I. P.

Zach

2017. “Identifying Salient Attributes of Peer-to-Peer Accommodation Experience.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 34 (5): 636–52.

90.

Walls

A. R.

Okumus

Wang

Y. R.

Kwun

D. J.-W.

2011. “An Epistemological View of Consumer Experiences.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (1): 10–21.

91.

Wang

2007. “Customized Authenticity Begins at Home.” Annals of Tourism Research 34 (3): 789–804.

92.

Wang

Xie

2019. “Staying with the Ingroup or Outgroup? A Cross-Country Examination of International Travelers’ Home-Sharing Preferences.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 77:425–37.

93.

Wiles

Crawford

2017. “Network Hospitality in the Share Economy.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 29 (9): 2444–63.

94.

Wood

R. C.

1994. “Hotel Culture and Social Control.” Annals of Tourism Research 21 (1): 65–80.

95.

L. L.

Mattila

A. S.

Han

J. R.

2014. “Territoriality Revisited: Other Customer’s Perspective.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 38:48–56.

96.

Yang

S.-B.

Lee

Koo

2019. “In Airbnb We Trust: Understanding Consumers’ Trust-Attachment Building Mechanisms in the Sharing Economy.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 83:198–209.

97.

Xiao

Zhou

2018. “Commodification and Perceived Authenticity in Commercial Homes.” Annals of Tourism Research 71:39–53.

98.

Ying

Zhou

Wang

2019. “Enhancing Customer Trust in Peer-to-Peer Accommodation: A ‘Soft’ Strategy via Social Presence.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 79:1–10.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.10 MB