IFHP Ones - The Airbnb Impact on Housing and Tourism

IFHP Ones

The Airbnb

Impact

on Housing and

Tourism

#1 Copenhagen Lab - Sep 2016

INDEX

The AirBnB impact on Housing and Tourism

November 2016

IFHP

Frederiksholms Kanal 30

1220 Copenhagen K

Denmark

www.ip.org

Editorial team

Andreia Fidalgo, IFHP Project Manager

IFHP Ones are longer than

articles, but shorter than books.

They can be read in one day

– this is why we call them Ones

0 
 
Index 
INTRODUCTION  1 
AIRBNB AND THE SHARING ECONOMY  1 
BACKGROUND  2 
THE AIRBNB PLATFORM  2 
AIRBNB AS A DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION  3 
LEGAL ISSUES  3 
AIRBNB IN COPENHAGEN  5 
WHAT DO WE KNOW ALREADY?  6 
WHAT DO WE NEED TO KNOW?  7 
THE COPENHAGEN LAB  8 
THE DISCUSSION  8 
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS  10 
CONTRIBUTIONS AND PARTICIPANTS  11 
SPEAKERS PROFILES  11 
PARTICIPANTS  13 
REFERENCES  14 
   

Introduction

For the past year, the City of Copenhagen has been faced with various questions about the negative

impacts of AirBnB on housing stock, housing price and business opportunities for hotels in the city.

Up until now the municipality has assumed that any potential problems, related to the exponential

growth of AirBnB listings in Copenhagen, are relatively small in volume – whereas the potential

positive impacts of a greater number of tourists experiencing the city in new ways is currently

assumed to outweigh the negative effects. However, as the municipality tries to navigate in the

sharing economy, the need to understand what is exactly the impact of the new platforms, such as

the Airbnb, rises.

The sharing economy has become a prominent, though not well understood economic phenomenon,

over the past several years (Lane & Woodworth, 2016). In this project, we focus on the impacts that

the sharing economy platform – Airbnb – can have on the housing and tourism markets in

Copenhagen, a provider of travel accommodation and a pioneer of the sharing economy (Lane &

Woodworth, 2016; Zervas, Proserpio, & Byers, 2016). With Airbnb having served over 60 million

guests worldwide since it was founded in 2008 (Airbnb, 2016a) we assume that Airbnb can have a

measurable and quantifiable impact on the housing and tourism markets in Copenhagen.

Airbnb and the Sharing Economy

The emergence of peer-to-peer platforms,

collectively known as the “sharing economy”, has

enabled individuals to collaboratively make use of

under-utilized inventory via fee-based sharing

(Zervas et al., 2016). Parties like Airbnb position

themselves as part of the sharing or collaborative

economy. Frenken, Meelen, Arets, & Glind (2015)

define the sharing economy as consumers granting

each other temporary access to underutilized

physical assets, possibly for money. By

deconstructing this definition into three elements,

Frenken et al. (2015) distinguish the sharing

economy from other economic forms:

1. Sharing is about consumer-to-consumer platforms and not about renting or leasing a good

from a company (business-to-consumer);

2. Sharing is about consumers providing each other temporary access to a good, and not

about the transfer of ownership of the good;

3. Sharing is about more efficient use of physical assets and not about private individuals

delivering each other a service.

However, the concept of “sharing economy” should be distinguished from what is traditionally called

sharing. The essence of sharing is that it does not involve the exchange of money. Sharing only

happens in the absence of market transactions. What companies as Airbnb, or e.g. Uber, have in

common is that they are platforms coordinating supply and demand of products and services that in

their present form were previously unavailable on the market (Oskam & Boswijk, 2016). While it

Figure 1 - The sharing economy and other related economic

forms. (Frenken et al., 2015)

might be convenient to make use of these services, they have absolutely nothing to do with sharing,

since they stand for a digitally enabled expansion of the market economy (ibid.).

Background

The AirBnB platform

The first steps towards a significant transformation within the tourism accommodation began in 2007,

when a major conference was held in San Francisco, and two university graduates used a simple

website to successfully advertise their apartment as an ‘AirBed & Breakfast’ (three airbeds on the

floor and a home cooked breakfast in a San Francisco apartment) for conference attendees looking

to avoid the city’s high hotel prices (Crook & Escher, 2015; Guttentag, 2015). Sensing they had a

good business idea, together with another friend they turned the website into a service for other

people to similarly advertise their spaces as shared accommodation for tourists, focusing initially on

major events, as the 2008 Democratic National Convention, and taking advantage of the hotel room

shortage in the city (Crook & Escher, 2015; Guttentag, 2015). The website was re-launched in 2009

as Airbnb.com, and expanded beyond shared accommodations to also include the rental of full

residences. Since then, Airbnb has grown extraordinarily fast and now books millions of room per

night for tourists worldwide (Guttentag, 2015).

Airbnb is essentially an online platform through which ordinary people rent out their spaces as

accommodation for tourists. The spaces offered vary widely, but typically involve a private room or

an entire apartment or house (Guttentag, 2015). The ‘host’ of a space may be living there at the time

of the rental, as with a typical bed and breakfast, or may be absent, or even operating the space as

a permanent rental. The majority of its spaces are in hosts’ primary residences that have never been

let out before (Guttentag, 2015; The Economist, 2012). Traditional B&Bs are permitted to list

themselves on Airbnb, but blocks of identical rooms are prohibited (The Economist, 2012). The

Airbnb website (www.airbnb.com) is straightforward and resembles traditional accommodation

booking websites. To book or rent out a space, one must have an Airbnb profile. When interested in

a space, the tourist will send the host a reservation request and/or message in order to express

interest and ask questions. The host then may respond and ask any questions of the tourist and

accept the reservation. Payments are made through the website and Airbnb earns its revenue by

charging guests a 6–12% fee and hosts a 3% fee (Airbnb, 2016b, 2016c).

Airbnb’s business model currently operates with minimal regulatory controls in most locations, and

as a result, hosts and guests both have incentives to use signaling mechanisms to build trust and

maximize the likelihood of a successful booking. In addition to Airbnb’s review system, trust is also

fostered through the direct messaging communication between hosts and guests, and through users’

profiles, which can display a photograph and descriptive personal information. Guests use star

ratings to rate features of their stay, e.g., cleanliness, location, and communication, while both guests

and hosts are encouraged to post public reviews of each stay on the platform (Guttentag, 2015;

Zervas et al., 2016).

Airbnb as a disruptive innovation

Airbnb can best be thought of as a ‘disruptive innovation’, due to the company’s innovative internet-

based business model and its unique appeal to tourists. Given its disruptive potential, Airbnb’s rise

is of great significance for the traditional tourism accommodation sector (Guttentag, 2015). Airbnb’s

rise also is of great consequence for destinations, because many Airbnb rentals are technically

illegal, so destinations must decide how they should respond to an increasingly popular illegal activity

that exhibits both benefits and costs (Guttentag, 2015).

Disruptive innovation theory outlines a process through which a disruptive product transforms a

market, sometimes to the point of upending previously dominant companies (Guttentag, 2015). A

disruptive product will generally underperform with regards to the prevailing products’ key

performance attribute(s), but will offer a distinct set of benefits, typically focused around being

cheaper, more convenient, or simpler. Consequently, the disruptive product appeals to the low-end

of the market or creates a completely new market (ibid.). Over time the disruptive product improves,

thereby making it appealing to greater numbers of customers and attracting increasing segments of

the mainstream market. This shift may eventually attract attention from the leading companies, but

by then the disruptive product may be so entrenched that the previously leading companies struggle

to compete. This process of disruptive innovation can occur in any economic sector, and tourism is

no exception (Guttentag, 2015; Oskam & Boswijk, 2016). A recent example of this process within

tourism can be found in the rise of online travel agencies (OTAs), like Expedia. These websites

cannot match the personalized service of a traditional travel agency, but in exchange they can offer

potential convenience and cost-saving measures. Over time OTAs have captured an increasing

share of the mainstream market, contributing to a significant decline in the number of traditional

travel agencies, which also have been forced to focus more specifically on complex and higher-end

purchases (Guttentag, 2015).

Legal issues

Disruptive business models based on new technology often outpace their relevant legislation and

consequently encounter issues associated with general legality (Guttentag, 2015). Because Airbnb

rentals are often illegal, the company has helped to foster a rapid expansion of the informal tourism

accommodation sector. The ‘informal sector’ is defined in various ways, but essentially refers to the

production of goods and services that are concealed from or unregulated by public authorities, and

it often exhibits characteristics such as low entry requirements and small-scale operations (ibid.).

The widespread illegality of Airbnb results from zoning codes and other ordinances many cities have

that prohibit short-term renting without special permits. For example, San Francisco prohibits

unlicensed rentals of fewer than 30 days; New York City recently enacted a basically identical law,

with the provision that such rentals are permitted if the host remains present; Paris prohibits rentals

of less than a full year (Guttentag, 2015); Copenhagen has set a limit rental period of 6 to 8

weeks/year, Amsterdam has set a limit period of 60 days; and Berlin began restricting private

property rentals through Airbnb and similar online platforms altogether (The Guardian, 2016). Other

restrictions may include limiting short-term rentals to certain geographic areas, limiting the proximity

of short-term rentals to one another, or limiting the number of times per year a residence can be

rented out (Guttentag, 2015). Also, due to the fact that Airbnb renting currently occurs largely in the

informal sector, guests can generally avoid paying the taxes that are typically charged in the

traditional accommodation sector. When staying in traditional accommodation, guests often pay

special accommodation taxes, which may be earmarked for certain tourism-related uses and may

be complemented by traditional sales taxes (Guttentag, 2015).

Cities have many legitimate reasons for maintaining such laws. For example, cities may want tourist

accommodations to satisfy health and safety standards, and submit to applicable inspections.

Furthermore, a transient stream of tourists in a residential building or neighborhood can be

unpleasant for other tenants or neighbors, and can generally detract from the community fabric.

Additionally, in large cities with limited housing supplies, an abundance of short-term rentals may

even negatively impact local housing markets. Also, housing costs may increase if rental hosts raise

their housing budgets with the plan of earning short-term rental income (Guttentag, 2015; Zaitchik,

2016), which may lead to the displacement of residents and an increase in rental costs (Oskam &

Boswijk, 2016). A recent study in Berlin has shown that these effects in non-centric neighborhoods

are limited, especially for retail (Oskam & Boswijk, 2016). If the impact is reduced to the indirect

effect of residents spending their additional income, the conclusion must therefore be that the main

financial beneficiaries are the Airbnb hosts themselves. This means that commercial hosting and

gentrification reduce the equal access of hosts to this market and eventually may sharpen socio-

economic differences in and between urban neighborhoods (ibid.).

Nonetheless, some jurisdictions are more permissive than others with short-term rentals, as such

rentals have pros as well as cons. One key potential benefit is that short-term rentals may help foster

tourism. Secondly, short-term renting provides a way for hosts to leverage their residences and earn

additional income, which may be directed towards major expenses like mortgages and help to

prevent foreclosures. Finally, when short-term rentals are legalized, they can be taxed and thereby

provide revenue to local governments (Guttentag, 2015).

Airbnb in Copenhagen

Figure 2 – Listings in Copenhagen, 2016. (Inside Airbnb, 2016).

Airbnb and similar sharing platforms have a huge impact on the way we live, travel and perceive our

homes. As the popularity of home sharing platforms grows, their effects move well beyond the

individual household, challenging city authorities, traditional housing policies, tourism boards, rental

markets and wider housing perspectives. The first Copenhagen Lab: The Airbnb impact on housing

and tourism, promoted in partnership between the IFHP, Copenhagen Municipality, and The Institute

for Urban Economic Research, was the first step, in a series of Labs that aim to explore and analyze

the relationship between the Airbnb platform and Copenhagen's housing market and tourism.

The creation of this partnership resulted from the need to answer two questions: What do we know

already? And what do we need to know? in order to promote targeted regulation (if needed) and/or

policy mechanisms, that can address the ‘real impacts’ of Airbnb in Copenhagen, and also to unfold

and understand the spatial patterns and phenomenon’s deriving from it.

The aim of the first Copenhagen Lab was to start the discussion through a wide range of perspectives

from experts dealing with the effects of the sharing economy platforms, and especially with Airbnb.

What do we know already?

Copenhagen is amongst the top cities in the world affected by Airbnb, both in total number of listings

and listings per inhabitant.

As of October 2016, Airbnb has 20,193 active listings in Copenhagen, close to 82% of the listings

rent an entire apartment/house, and from 2011 Airbnb has experienced an exponential growth in

Copenhagen especially in the last year (Airdna, 2016).

Figure 3 - Top ten Airbnb cities by number of listings and by number of listings per 1000 inhabitants. (Get Paid For Your Pad, 2016)

Figure 4. - Airbnb data, Copenhagen October 2016. (Airdna, 2016)

In Copenhagen, short-term rentals can have a duration of between 6 and 8 weeks per year

(maximum 2 months). However, according to the available data, close to 13% of all listings are rented

for more than 3 months (Airdna, 2016).

Figure 5 – Percentage of listings available and rented in 2016 per period of time. (Airdna, 2016)

What do we need to know?

Despite the available data, and the numerous sources of websites and platforms providing data on

Airbnb by developing software that scrape Airbnb’s website every day (TechCrunch, 2015), there is

still data that it is not disclosed by Airbnb, e.g. who is renting and to whom; address; etc.. With this

information made available it would be possible to answer questions such as: How does Airbnb affect

the supply of beds in Denmark?; Who is renting out in Denmark?; Which effects does Airbnb have

on the number of visitors?; What effects does Airbnb have on the individuals’ residential location

choices on the longer run? (Geerdsen, 2016). Being able to answer this questions would facilitate

our understanding of the real impact of Airbnb in Copenhagen - and therefore promote targeted

regulation and/or policy mechanisms - and the spatial patterns and phenomena deriving from it.

The Copenhagen Lab

The Copenhagen Lab: The Airbnb impact on housing and tourism, was a 3h intensive program that

brought together a wide range of perspectives (urban planners, housing experts, public authorities,

tourism representatives and ‘sharing economy’ researchers) and two international case studies from

Berlin and Amsterdam. The afternoon kicked-off with a presentation from Emmy Perez Fjalland, PhD

at Danish Architecture Centre and Roskilde University, who exposed her research on the ‘Sharing

Cities Project’ and set out the scene for the discussion on what the Sharing Economy is and how it

is perceived. She was followed by Ida Bigum, a Senior Advisor form Copenhagen Municipality, who

reflected on the meaning of the sharing economy and the main challenges and opportunities it offers

from a municipal perspective, also touching upon the need to have a holistic understanding of the

effects of Airbnb on the city in order for the municipality to learn how to navigate and regulate the

new reality Airbnb brings. The third speaker, Lars Pico Geerdsen, Director of The Institute for Urban

Economic Research, presented the current situation of Airbnb in Copenhagen, according to the

available data, and reflected on the need for more specific data on their operations to understand

the true impact on housing, tourism and other social patterns. Kirsten Munch Andersen, Director of

Politics at HORESTA, the association for hotels, restaurant and tourism industry in Denmark,

presented the views of the tourism and hotel sectors regarding Airbnb. To finalize, two presentations

from Albert Eefting, Senior Policy Advisor on Housing Affairs (City of Amsterdam), and Alsino

Skowronnek, Founder at Karat Studio (Berlin), presented the current situation of Airbnb in the

different cities, reflecting on the challenges and the general discourse around it. The Lab culminated

in a fruitful debate where it was possible to start the discussion and frame questions for further

exploration in relation to how Copenhagen's housing and tourism situation can progress in unity with

sharing economy platforms.

The discussion

For the past year, the City of Copenhagen has been faced with various questions about the negative

impacts of AirBnB on housing stock, housing price and business opportunities for hotels in the city.

Up until now the municipality has assumed that any potential problems, related to the exponential

growth of AirBnB listings in Copenhagen, are relatively small in volume – whereas the potential

positive impacts of greater number of tourists experiencing the city in new ways is currently assumed

to outweigh the negative effects. However, as the municipality tries to navigate into the sharing

economy, the need to understand what is exactly the impact of the new platforms, such as the Airbnb,

raises. Not only in terms of the growth and innovation potential but also to guarantee that it develops

in a fair way (for businesses and workers), as pointed out by Ida Bigum. In order to do so, specific

data on Airbnb operations in Copenhagen, have been requested to Airbnb. As pointed out by Lars

Pico Geerdsen, this data will allow to answer several questions, such as: How is Airbnb affecting the

supply of beds?; What effect does it have on the number of visitors in the city?; What is the value of

a home?; Is it affecting the individuals’ residential location choices on the long run? Therefore,

helping the municipality and the tourism sector to have a real picture of the issue and regulating

accordingly, but also to help the research community to evaluate the numbers and patterns deriving

from it.

From the cities’ perspective, the main issues with the sharing economy, specifically when addressing

Airbnb, are in taxes, safety, liability, trust, and competitive equity. The speakers from Copenhagen,

Amsterdam and Berlin, all pointed to Airbnb’s failure to collaborate with local governments and

research bodies, and the fact that this failure in collaboration may in the end threaten the longevity

of the Airbnb business model, since the local governments see themselves obligated to regulate

without having a full picture of the numbers behind it. As an example of this, in Amsterdam the

maximum short-term rental period was set to 60 days/year, in Copenhagen between 6 to 8

weeks/year, and in Berlin, renting through Airbnb, has been forbidden. However, without

collaboration from Airbnb it is very difficult to assess who is complying with the law and who is not,

who is renting and for how-long, who is just renting sporadically and who is transforming it into a

business. Another important challenge for the cities, as pointed by Albert Eefting from Amsterdam

City, is the onset of a new line of businesses feeding on Airbnb’s operations, that can potentially

incur and be complicit in illegal situations.

Another topic of discussion during the Lab was that, technology-facilitated sharing between strangers

has been leading to an emotional discourse on the media and uncertainty amongst people and

administrations on how to deal with it. Further, there is not a fixed understanding and a strict definition

of what the sharing economy is and what the best way to navigate in it is. Initially greeted with much

enthusiasm, the sharing economy has been more recently found to be a ‘disruptive wave to the

conventional economy. However, as pointed, the sharing economy came to stay and it should be

seen as a potential for innovation and growth, that will probably be unfolded into more mainstream

and professionalized sharing platforms in the future.

Airbnb also presents a challenge to the traditional tourism market, as Airbnb has shaken up this

model by providing an online marketplace that permits the large-scale rental of spaces from one

ordinary person to another (‘peer-to-peer accommodation’), raising some questions regarding when

a private rental becomes a private business, and if so, what the standards and regulations are that

should be applied? Should they be the same as for the hotel industry? As pointed out by HORESTA,

Airbnb operations have been growing at a very fast pace over the past two years, and Copenhagen

is in fact amongst the top cities in the world being impacted by Airbnb with 1 listing per 33,27

inhabitants.

However, its impacts still remain to be unfolded into true facts, beyond the existing (often emotional)

discourse surrounding it, in order to have a holistic understanding of the real effects in the housing

and tourism markets in Copenhagen. In order to promote targeted regulation, that can address the

‘real issues’, the data from Airbnb need to be available and analyzed to provide the evidence to

understand how and what needs to be regulated.

Conclusion and next steps

Although primarily driven by economic benefits, new sharing economy platforms, as Airbnb, have

brought disruptive innovations to the offer of traditional tourist accommodation and to how

tourists/visitors experience their stay in different destinations. These innovations became possible

thanks to the creation of online platforms, which enabled the sharing of goods that were not

previously available or were underutilized.

Airbnb competes with traditional forms of tourism, but it also has an experimental value, since it

encouraged many tourists to experience travelling in different ways, through the diversification of

offers, the contact with locals, making them feel part of a community and experience traditionally

residential neighborhoods. And despite the fact that the digitalization of the tourism marketplace

allowed for an exponential (and on-going) growth, this growth is now threatening the market of

traditional accommodations, and pressuring the housing markets.

Airbnb has grown within a regulation void, leading to different issues that Copenhagen and other

local governments are now seeking to address. As pointed by Oskam & Boswijk (2016, p. 35), these

issues relate mainly to:

1. Taxation: can unregistered Airbnb visitors be taxed just as registered hotel guests? Can

Airbnb income be established and taxed?

2. Visitor streams: How can cities measure the amount of visitors in order to manage tourist

streams?

3. Information ownership: the fact that Airbnb does not disclose visitor and host information,

gives the company leverage in negotiating regulation issues with cities.

4. Safety: traditional hospitality companies are subject to regulations to ensure the safety of

guests, employees and residents. How can these be enforced for Airbnb properties?

5. Consumer protection: besides safety concerns, are consumers entitled to the same kind of

protection in transactions with private hosts as with commercial organizations?

6. Fair competition: the traditional hospitality industry calls for a level playing field by enforcing

the same type of regulation to Airbnb hosts and hotels.

7. Housing market: Airbnb gives residential properties a partial or full commercial use. What

will be the effects on housing availability and pricing?

As a result of the exponential growth and the legal void, some cities have adopted policies for a

controlled expansion of short-term rentals, while others have sought to restrict the phenomenon. The

adopted policies towards Airbnb and short-term rental in general, will determine its future evolution.

However, in order to promote targeted regulations transparency about operated properties and

visitors is essential. Besides taxation and safety issues, regulations and other policy measures

should be designed to counter the repurposing of residential housing as tourist accommodation.

Contributions and participants

Speakers profiles

Albert Eefting

, Senior Policy Advisor, Housing Affairs, City of Amsterdam, NL

Albert Eefting

a senior policy advisor on housing affairs. Former: Head of the team of law

enforcement within the department of Housing in Amsterdam. The subjects he advises on

have mainly to do with rules and regulations regarding housing. He advises the Alderman

and the City Board. For the last two years, he has been working on holiday rental, Airbnb

and all the fuzz around it.

Alsino Skowronnek

, Founder, Studio Karat, Berlin, GE

Alsino Skowronnek is a Berlin-based interface and information designer and maker of visual

things. A geographer by training. Alsino has worked for the OECD in Paris, as well as for

Statista in Hamburg and a few other companies and public bodies in Berlin and is affiliated

with the Design Research Lab at the University of the Arts Berlin as well as with the Urban

Complexity Lab at the FH Potsdam. His work on Airbnb vs. Berlin has been nominated for

several awards, amongst others the Designpreis Brandenburg, the Information is Beautiful

Award and the Grimme Online Award.

Anette Galskjøt

, Chief Executive Officer, IFHP, moderator

Anette joined the IFHP in January 2015 and was appointed CEO at the end of June 2015.

She has a Danish law degree and an LLM from Kings College London and has a long career

within investment banking, IT as well as the public sector working with project management

and leadership. Parallel to this Anette has worked as non-executive director in a number of

limited companies and currently serves on the board of Skovsnogen Foundation and the

strategic advisory board of the scientific innovation incubator OvaCure.

Emmy Perez Fjalland

, PhD at Danish Architecture Centre

Emmy Laura Perez Fjalland holds a degree in urban planning studies and is now a PhD

Fellow at Roskilde University (Institute for Humans and Technology), and the Danish

Architecture Centre. Emmy examines how sharing and collaborate economic co-operations

and communities could benefit Danish urban governance and urban planning strategies.

Emmy is specifically interested in how different collaborate economic co-operations and

initiatives could help perform, develop, and run municipal key activities within environment.

Ida Bigum, Senior Advisor

, City of Copenhagen

Ida is a skilled innovation program manager working primarily with social innovation, service

design and emerging business models. Former: Consultant at the Danish Research,

Education and Innovation Think Tank, DEA. Co-Author of “Your Business in the WE

Economy – Navigating the waters of the new collaborative economy”. Other areas of

responsibility: The future development of the sharing economy in Copenhagen, strategy

manager of city policy on local food systems and socio-economic business development.

Lars Pico Geerdsen

, Director of The Institute for Urban Economic Research

Lars has been the Director of Kraks Institute for Urban Economic Research since 2011. He

also serves as a part time Teaching Fellow at The Institute of Sociology, University of

Copenhagen. He was previously the Head of Department of the Danish National Centre

for Social Research. Lars holds a PhD degree in Economics, and a master in Political

Science.

Kirsten Munch Andersen

, Director of Politics, HORESTA

Kirsten holds an MSc in Business Administration and Commercial Law. Currently Kirsten

works as Director of Politics at HORESTA, where she is responsible for the political and

developmental activities such as ‘Chef of the Year’ and ‘NICE’, the environmental and eco

label ‘Green Key’ and ‘Local Cooking’. On a daily basis, Kirsten handles public affairs on a

national, regional and municipal level.

Participants

Name

Position

Company

Aideen O' Donovan

Architect

Albert Eefting

Senior Policy Advisor

City of Amsterdam

Alexandra Totoianu

Programme

Copenhagen Architecture Festival

Alsino Skonnowek

Berlin

Researcher

Anders Danielsen

Fuldmægtig

Erhvervs - og Vækstministeriet

Andreia Fidalgo

Project Manager

International Federation for Housing and Planning

Anette Galskjøt

CEO

International Federation for Housing and Planning

Anne Grave

Senior Project Manager

Danish Architecture Centre

Aske Aske Egsgaard

Assistant researcher

Kraks Institute for Urban Economic Research

Bence Boje-Kovacs

Researcher

Kraks Institute for Urban Economic Research

Christian Hoffmann

Student

CBS

Christian Ingemann

Partner

Solobeta, Denmark

Christian Vitting Gregersen

Political Consultant

HORESTA

Christina Krog

Senior Project Manager

International Federation for Housing and Planning

Ditte Håkonsson

Researcher

Kraks Institute for Urban Economic Research

Dorte Bøgelund Petersen

Project Manager

International Federation for Housing and Planning

Emmy Perez Fjalland

Researcher

Deleby: DAC

Eva Jensen

Architect

Ida Bigum Nielsen

Advisor

Copenhagen Municipality

Ismir Mulalic

Senior Researcher

Kraks Institute for Urban Economic Research/DTU

Judith Neijzen

Communications Assistant

International Federation for Housing and Planning

Kirsten Munch Andersen

Policy Director

HORESTA

Lara Hale

Reseracher

CBS

Lars Pico Geerdsen

Director

Kraks Institute for Urban Economic Research

Laura Gobbi

Architect

Line Gerstrand

Chief consultant

Smart Århus

Maja Popovic Vracar

Programme curator

Copenhagen Architecture Festival

Mikkel Malthe Munkøe

Chefkonsulent

Danske Erhverv

Morten Østergaard

Senior Consultant

WoCo

Regitze Hess

Special Advisor

International Federation for Housing and Planning

Rocío Rodríguez-Villanueva

Communications Assistant

International Federation for Housing and Planning

Shirley Bröcker

Project Manager

International Federation for Housing and Planning

Signe Jungersted

Chief Advisor

WoCo

Signe Sophie Bøggild

Programme

Copenhagen Architecture Festival

Stig Jørgensen

Owner

Andelshotellet

Sunny Mosangzi Xu

Research Analyst

Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies

Tatiana Epimakhova

MS in Architecture + Health

Clemson University

Torben Klitgaard

Director

BloxHub

Ulrik Skaarup Larsen

Policy Advisor

City of Copenhagen

Yuri Yudelevich

Journalist

Copenhagen Post

References

Airbnb. (2016a). About Us - Airbnb. Retrieved October 25, 2016, from

https://www.airbnb.com/about/about-us

Airbnb. (2016b). What are guest service fees? Retrieved October 25, 2016, from

https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/104/what-are-guest-service-fees

Airbnb. (2016c). What are Airbnb host service fees? Retrieved October 25, 2016, from

https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/63/what-are-host-service-fees

Airdna. (2016). Copenhagen, Denmark. Airbnb Data and Analytics. Retrieved from

https://www.airdna.co/city/dk/copenhagen

Crook, J., & Escher, A. (2015). A Brief History Of Airbnb. Retrieved October 25, 2016, from

https://techcrunch.com/gallery/a-brief-history-of-airbnb/slide/3/

Frenken, K., Meelen, T., Arets, M., & Glind, P. van de. (2015). Smarter regulation for the sharing

economy. Retrieved October 19, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-

science/2015/may/20/smarter-regulation-for-the-sharing-economy

Geerdsen, L. P. (2016). Airbnb - What do we know already? And what do we need to know?

Copenhagen.

Get Paid For Your Pad. (2016). Top Ten Airbnb Cities: Only Two in the US. Retrieved from

http://getpaidforyourpad.com/blog/top-ten-airbnb-cities/

Guttentag, D. (2015). Airbnb: disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism

accommodation sector. Current Issues in Tourism, 18(12), 1192–1217.

http://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.827159

Inside Airbnb. (2016). Inside Airbnb: Copenhagen. Retrieved October 26, 2016, from

http://insideairbnb.com/copenhagen/

Lane, J., & Woodworth, R. M. (2016). The Sharing Economy Checks In: An Analysis of Airbnb in the

United States Implications on Traditional Hotel Development and Market Performance Going

Forward. CBRE Hotels’ Americas Research, (January), 1–15.

Oskam, J., & Boswijk, A. (2016). Airbnb: the future of networked hospitality businesses. Journal of

Tourism Futures, 2(1), 22–42. http://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-11-2015-0048

TechCrunch. (2015). Airbnb, Proposition F And The Shared Hypocrisy Of Bay Area Housing.

Retrieved October 26, 2016, from https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/03/prop-f/

The Economist. (2012). Online house-sharing: Mi casa, su cash. Retrieved October 25, 2016, from

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/07/online-house-sharing

The Guardian. (2016). Berlin’s government legislates against Airbnb. Retrieved September 20, 2016,

from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/01/berlin-authorities-taking-stand-

against-airbnb-rental-boom

Zaitchik, A. (2016). Airbnb is driving up the rent in your urban neighborhood. Retrieved October 17,

2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/17/airbnb-rent-unaffordable-

elizabeth-warren-neighborhoods

Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., & Byers, J. W. (2016). The Rise of the Sharing Economy: Estimating the

Impact of Airbnb on the Hotel Industry. Boston U. School of Management Research Paper No.

2013-16., 637–637. http://doi.org/10.1145/2764468.2764524