Technology and digitalization deeply impact the way people interact with each other. In the sharing economy, technology has helped to create new business models, such as Uber, Blablacar, and Airbnb. Each of these models operates using technology and, as Barbu et al. (2018) affirmed, the digital sharing economy has become important to society because it offers opportunities to generate revenue and increase social interaction that cannot otherwise be achieved (Barbu et al., 2018).

In the digital sharing economy, the accommodation sector has not been left behind. One of its most notorious and successful business models is Airbnb, the for-profit accommodation platform created in 2008 with millions of users or, specifically, hosts who list their accommodations on the platform, and travelers who use the application during their trips (Airbnb.com, 2020). Airbnb, thus, has attracted most of the attention of academics, and value co-creation is one of the subjects that has been the focus of their research (Camilleri and Neuhofer, 2017; Johnson and Neuhofer, 2017). Many studies have concluded that distinct value co-creation outcomes underlie certain resources and social practices (Camilleri and Neuhofer, 2017; Johnson and Neuhofer, 2017). Buhalis et al. (2020) expanded on this, analyzing not only value co-creation but also co-destruction and how the use of these platforms can affect the wellbeing of individuals and the community.

Ryan and Deci (2001) described wellbeing as a construction that involves optimal experience and functioning. Wellbeing is then perceived as a subjective evaluation of life in terms of experiences, positive feelings, and satisfaction (Seligman, 2002) that is constructed or co-created in community. The use of this kind of digital sharing model might affect not only individuals but also community wellbeing (Buhalis et al., 2020). However, the study of Airbnb as a representative model of a sharing economy has also been criticized due to its capitalist practices and for-profit model. Some researchers have called Airbnb an “on-demand” economy model (Cockayne, 2016) rather than collaborative consumption or a collaborative economy. The sense of community as a sharing economy goal is difficult to evaluate in this platform, not only because the host is mostly absent during the guest experience but also because individuals are transformed into commercial partners rather than belonging to a social community.

Until now, value co-creation and the co-creation of wellbeing in the touristic sharing economy has been studied mostly on Airbnb (Breidbach and Brodie, 2017; Camilleri and Neuhofer, 2017) and not on non-profit platforms, even though these platforms may be more aligned with the concept of the sharing economy where users have different profiles and motivations (Medina-Hernandez et al., 2020). Thus, the value co-created between users and the possible wellbeing obtained in the value co-creation process on non-profit platforms may be different or even superior.

This study analyzes the value co-creation between guests and hosts under the consideration of the theoretical framework of service-dominant (SD) logic introduced by Vargo and Lusch (2004) and the theoretical framework of value co-creation in the Airbnb context exposed by Johnson and Neuhofer (2017). We adapted these frameworks to non-profit accommodation platforms and analyzed how this possible value might affect the wellbeing of their users. SD logic suggests that value is created not only by firms but also by customers who integrate operand and operant resources to extract value. Johnson and Neuhofer (2017) used SD logic in the context of Airbnb to analyze how guests co-create value through resources, practices, and outcomes. However, they merely considered guest perspectives in the value co-creation process, leaving out the possible contribution of the host when creating value during the accommodation experience. That might be because, in many cases, Airbnb hosts are absent during the guest accommodation experience (Martin, 2016; Murillo et al., 2017; Mahadevan, 2018). However, in some non-profit platforms, such as HomeExchange or Couchsurfing, the host plays a significant role during the stay and sometimes even before and/or after.

In this respect, some authors have argued that the value obtained from sharing platforms is not re-invested in the local community (Ozanne and Ozanne, 2016). Many believe that sharing platforms promote the opposite of wellbeing for their users by creating a new subclass of low-income earners with little security (Guerrini, 2015). However, this paradigm seems more suitable to a for-profit platform scenario. A limited amount of research has been conducted to investigate the impact of the sharing economy from the perspective of residents. For example, in their analysis of residents’ risk perception of P2P accommodation, Camprubí and Garau-Vadell (2021) identified that residents’ risk perception of P2P accommodation is not standardized and that there are levels of risk perception. By contrast, other researchers have stated that sharing-economy markets help their users feel that they are part of a community and, thereby, promote pro-social values (Ozanne and Ozanne, 2016). For instance, Batle et al. (2020) analyzed the motivations of locals for meeting tourists in the context of experience exchange in P2P accommodation. They found that a passion for the sharing accommodation activity and personal attributes, such as good communication and interpersonal skills, are major motivational factors for locals to get involved in the P2P accommodation experience.

The current study aims to investigate whether non-profit sharing accommodation platforms are helping to create a sense of community and pro-social values and contributing to the users’ individual wellbeing, given the host-guest interaction is habitual in this kind of platform. The analysis scope is Barcelona. It was considered due to its importance as a tourist destination and the impact and controversy sharing accommodation platforms have generated in the city in recent years (Huertas et al., 2021). In 2018, the city ranked 17th in the world on the list of most visited cities by international tourists and 8th among European urban destinations (Statista.com, 2021).

Drawing from the SD logic theory by Vargo and Lusch (2004) and applying the codification used by Johnson and Neuhofer (2017), Tables 1, 2 show the resources, practices, and outcomes involved in the value co-creation process in the non-profit sharing accommodation platforms Couchsurfing and HomeExchange.

The study of value co-creation on sharing accommodation platforms has received the attention of several scholars (Jiang et al., 2019; Johnson and Neuhofer, 2017; Thaichon et al., 2020). However, most of the research on this topic has focused on the for-profit accommodation platform, Airbnb, and used a guest-centric view. Using the SD logic theoretical framework, this study aimed to explore the resources, practices, and outcomes resulting from the value co-creation process in non-profit sharing-accommodation platforms and how this co-creation process might contribute to the wellbeing of its users.

Regarding the value co-creation resources for guests on non-profit accommodation platforms, operand and operant resources appear to be similar to the resources that co-create value for guests in Airbnb. The home and places in the destination as physical resources and the host as an intangible resource help to co-create value in the accommodation experience of guests. However, the elements that made those resources valuable seem to be different in non-profit platforms, especially in Couchsurfing. As Johnson and Neuhofer (2017) pointed out, for guests of Airbnb in Jamaica, value was co-created through resources resembling conventional hotel amenities, such as internet, hot water, and air conditioning. However, as the results demonstrated, guests on Couchsurfing are not highly concerned about the amenities they might find and do not expect to have the same amenities as in a hotel. It seems their expectations about physical resources are more basic, and they are highly motivated by the operant resources, such as the hosts and their characteristics. Guests on HomeExchange are more motivated by operand resources instead, confirming what Casado-Diaz et al. (2020) explained about HomeExchangers being attracted not only to the destination itself but also by the house amenities, especially in non-traditional destinations. As an extra operant resource, communication with the host played a determinant role for guests on this non-profit platform. This confirms the findings by Andriotis and Agiomirgianakis (2014), who argued that good communication in the decision process makes reciprocal exchanges, such as those in HomeExchange, seem less risky. However, the results of this study also showed that communication in this kind of platform went beyond the decision process of the accommodation, as it was important to co-create value during and after the accommodation experience.

Resources that co-created value for hosts are mostly operant or intangible resources. For both platforms, the guest was transcendental to co-create value in the host experience, but for the hosts on HomeExchange, an additional operant resource came up: How the guests leave the accommodation. It confirms what Andriotis and Agiomirgianakis (2014) pointed out: when hosts open up their homes, they have expectations about how their guests should behave. The way the guests treated their house and helped the hosts co-created value during their exchange experience.

When it comes to co-created practices, results showed that interactions between guests and hosts helped construct richer value co-creation outcomes on non-profit accommodation platforms. This idea is in line with the idea exposed by Tussyadiah and Pesonen (2016), who argued that users look for authenticity and social interaction when engaging in sharing-accommodation platforms. Our study confirms that motivations go beyond economic benefits for this kind of platform, which is more present for Airbnb (Tussyadiah and Zach, 2015). Hosts and guests doing activities together, learning about each other’s culture, discovering the destination together, and communicating and exchanging information were social practices that co-created value for guests and hosts in non-profit platforms. In the absence of the host, that value may be impossible to achieve. This finding supports previous studies such as Schuckert et al. (2018), who argued that Couchsurfing guests normally do not even have a structured plan for their trips, and that one of their motivations is embracing new countries and cultures. Our study shows that the presence of the host during the stay is relevant to achieve cultural learning, as not only do the guests embrace a new culture, but the hosts also learn about the culture and country of their guests.

In their value co-creation analysis of Airbnb in Jamaica, Johnson and Neuhofer (2017) argued that guests create a bond with the environment through local practices, but their results showed limited host involvement in those practices. This might be the main difference between the value co-creation practices in for-profit and non-profit platforms. Some authors have criticized the way guests and hosts interact on Airbnb. Since the users do not have an opportunity to meet each other in some cases (Cockayne, 2016), the host cannot become a resource to co-create value in the accommodation experience of the guests. Casado-Diaz et al. (2020) argued that when people become involved in home-sharing practices, they are looking for a sense of “sociality” and “domesticity,” which is not usual in traditional hospitality. In this respect, our study shows that the host plays a relevant role in non-profit platforms to co-create a sense of sociality and domesticity. This may differ not only from traditional hospitality but also from Airbnb, as this not only creates value for guests but for hosts themselves from their interaction with the guests.

Finally, the integration of the resources and social practices enabled the configuration of value co-creation outcomes in non-profit sharing accommodation platforms. For both platforms, Couchsurfing and HomeExchange, the outcomes are similar, labeled as the desire to repeat the experience, good recommendations, the construction of a long-term relationship, a friendship based on trust, and, finally, the experience itself on the platform. These results are in line with previous studies, such as Zgolli and Zaiem (2018), who emphasized that a trusting and intimate relationship between guests and hosts can emerge. As our results show, interactions between guests and hosts are vital to generate a relationship based on trust. On Airbnb, hosts and guests interact before the stay to make arrangements; however, the interaction usually stops once the guest arrives at the accommodation. On non-profit platforms, the interaction is constant, which helps to construct a relationship or even a friendship that continues over the years as the reviews demonstrated. As our results show, after the stay, hosts and guests stayed in touch and even repeated the experience over the years. This proves what Forno and Garibaldi (2015) said, that engaging in home-exchanging practices requires a certain level of trust for both the guests and the hosts, which is constructed through communication before, during, and, sometimes, after the exchange. Good recommendations are also a valuable co-created outcome. This is similar to Airbnb, where users recommend each other positively, thus motivating other users to participate in sharing accommodation practices. As Johnson and Neuhofer (2017) explained, value does not stop with the individual’s experience but rather extends to involve other participants.

Conversely to Airbnb, on non-profit platforms, users claimed the accommodation was an experience itself. In this regard, the resources and practices for guests and hosts helped to co-create a valuable experience influenced by the way each platform operates. On Couchsurfing, users indicated that they valued the true spirit of the platform, while users on HomeExchange indicated how home swapping was more of an experience than a simple exchange, confirming what Decrop et al. (2018) suggested. Users join Couchsurfing to look for an experience. When people join a sharing economy platform, beyond economic benefits, they are looking for a real sharing experience with a more altruistic perspective (Sevisari and Reichenberger, 2020). In addition, Casado-Diaz et al. (2020) stated that HomeExchange users’ behavior is motivated by the desire to have meaningful interactions with local communities and authentic local experiences.

Tussyadiah (2016) pointed out how literature in consumer behavior indicates that consumers purchase products or services to satisfy their needs. Although basic needs are equally valued in families, social groups, and cultures, conditions that facilitate or undermine wellbeing depend on specific social contexts (Ryan and Deci, 2001). The value co-creation process is different for a young person, someone traveling alone, a traveler with a specific need in his or her trip, or a person staying for one or two days at someone else’s home—generally the type of guest on Couchsurfing—than for couples or entire families traveling with children to spend a week or a month at someone else’s house—generally the type of guest on HomeExchange. The type of users and their accommodation goals are different. These goals influence their needs, which also means that the resources and practices to co-create value and generate wellbeing may also be different.

Users engage with non-profit accommodation platforms to share, but they also expect value in return, which is referred to as a sense of reciprocity (Tussyadiah, 2016). For guests in for-profit platforms, the value outcomes are more related to the destination, physical resources, and interaction with the local culture. However, hosts are limited in the value co-creation process because most play a passive role during their guests’ stay, and their communication and interaction are scarce, thus their contribution to the experience is merely monetary.

On the other hand, value co-creation outcomes in non-profit platforms are more related to social practices and the interaction between guests and hosts. Results have shown the construction of meaningful relationships between both users, which help value to emerge from their accommodation experience and to contribute to their wellbeing. As Ryan and Deci (2001) argued, when people feel understood, engaged in meaningful dialog, or had fun with others, they are able to experience wellbeing. Therefore, the social dimension of wellbeing is achieved through social practices and interaction between the hosts and guests.

Results also show that not only do the social practices contribute to the wellbeing of users but also the resources. When HomeExchange users, for example, exchange their home, they are also opening up the opportunity for themselves to stay at another home around the world to have a vacation and time to relax as a family (Mccrea et al., 2016), which might increase their wellbeing.

Regarding theoretic contributions, this paper aims to fill the literature gap regarding the value co-creation process in non-profit sharing-accommodation platforms. Scarce literature refer to the dynamics that might be happening within non-profit accommodation platforms (Medina-Hernandez et al., 2020). By means of the SD logic approach, this study analyzes value co-creation resources, practices, and outcomes in different models of non-profit accommodation platforms and links them with their potential contribution to the wellbeing of their users. This study also highlights the potential role of both users, guests, and hosts in the value co-creation process and underlies how capitalist practices in for-profit platforms may undermine the value that social and sharing practices can contribute to the wellbeing of individuals.

As far as practical implications are concerned, this study provides practical implications for sharing accommodation platform owners and practitioners. Findings show the importance of interactions between guests and hosts as a value co-creation practice for the accommodation experience of users and their necessity of involvement in authentic experiences. In this regard, destination marketing organizations (DMOs) could incentivize local businesses to collaborate with sharing accommodation platforms, offering discounts or special prices for hosts and guests to attend events or visit places together. This may boost their sharing experience, contribute to local and small business revenues, and add new resources and practices to the guest–host value co-creation process. Non-profit accommodation platform owners could also provide information on the platform about local plans and events at the destination and offer extra points for users who attend these together. In addition, practitioners could design and implement short tours for Couchsurfing guests and hosts, given the nature of their brief stays and the importance of resources as “places” and practices such as “touring and discovering the destination together” for users in that platform. This could not only help co-create more valuable experiences but also improve the tourist destination image. Resources and practices allow users to extract value in-context and in-use (Vargo and Lusch, 2004; Johnson and Neuhofer, 2017). Thus, practitioners and policymakers can design strategies using resources and practices from which guests and hosts could extract value and contribute to the wellbeing of both as well as the community’s wellbeing. An example is discounts for children’s activities, as results show that most HomeExchange users travel with their families, or city tours adapted to less frequently visited neighborhoods and more congested areas, given the importance HomeExchange users place on having local experiences. Airbnb reviews from Barcelona were also analyzed for this study but not included in the results section because the findings were similar to previous studies, and our focus was on analyzing value co-creation in non-profit accommodation platforms. Thus, comparisons between for-profit and non-profit platforms can still be carried out, and the main difference between both models concerns the absence of the host.

As far as limitations and further research, since this study is geographically limited to the city of Barcelona, the resources and practices are related to that destination. Future research of value co-creation in non-profit platforms could analyze whether users extract similar value from different or equal practices and resources in other destinations. For this study, only reviews in the English language were considered. Further research should consider expanding the language spectrum. Also, data were extracted in a pre-COVID-19 scenario, which could lead to different results at the time this study was published in 2021. The coding structure adopted in the qualitative analysis may involve a certain degree of subjectivity. Future lines of investigation could go further than the codification raised in this study, which was based on Johnson and Neuhofer (2017), to see whether additional elements influence the value co-creation extraction.

The data analyzed in this study is subject to the following licenses/restrictions: Data analyzed can be seen just if a personal account in each platform is created. Requests to access these datasets should be directed to www.couchsurfing.com/es/ and www.homeexchange.com/es.

VM-H, BF-R, and EM-R contributed to the conception and design of the study. VM-H organized the data collection, performed the qualitative analysis, wrote the first draft of the manuscript, discussed, and interpreted the results. BF-R and EM-R contributed to manuscript revision and read and approved the submitted version. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.