Carpooling and natural resource protection: shared transport users’ perspective

Krawiec, Wioletta

doi:10.29119/1641-3466.2024.192.39

Powiadomienia systemowe

Sesja wygasła!
Sesja wygasła!
Sesja wygasła!

Artykuł - szczegóły

Tytuł artykułu

Carpooling and natural resource protection: shared transport users’ perspective

Autorzy

Krawiec Wioletta

Treść / Zawartość

Pełne teksty:

Pobierz

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.29119/1641-3466.2024.192.39

Warianty tytułu

Języki publikacji

Abstrakty

Purpose: This article aims to explore users' willingness to share with others and relinquish ownership. It also investigates whether these attitudes notably impact the adoption of shared carpooling and the imperative to preserve natural resources in the environment. Design/methodology/approach: This research was conducted through a survey questionnaire among users of social networks that focus on shared travel, ecology, anthropological climate change and the environment. Findings: 'Residence' impacts the inclination to share and relinquish ownership for environmental conservation. Conversely, 'gender' and 'age' don't significantly affect consumer attitudes. Acceptance of carpooling hinges on 'ease', 'usefulness', and 'economic value'for those open to sharing. Additionally, 'perceived development' matters for those willing to forgo ownership. Conservation concerns arise among advocates of 'sustainable consumption', 'eco-friendly business practices', and 'alternative' options in carpooling. Giving up ownership ties to both 'sustainable consumption' and 'social-economic attitudes' aligned with resource conservation. Research limitations/implications: The research focused on two attitudes affecting consumer behavior in terms of acceptance of carpooling transportation and the need to protect environmental natural resources. Therefore, it is necessary to study further the reasons that confirm the validity of carpooling activities and the particular need to care for the environment. Practical and social implications: The findings underscore the importance of advocating for sharing and relinquishing ownership to safeguard natural resources. Heightened awareness and comprehension of the repercussions of personal choices in business and social spheres are crucial. This article significantly contributes to the movement toward conserving natural resources by advocating for thrifty and health-conscious lifestyles, along with conscientious and effective resource utilization. Originality/value: The article provides an understanding of the reasons for accepting carpooling transportation and the need to protect natural resources. It highlights the significance of collaborative efforts that yield benefits for both people and the environment.

Słowa kluczowe

carpooling protection of natural resources acceptance sharing ownership giving up ownership

wspólne podróżowanie ochrona zasobów naturalnych akceptacja dzielenie się własnością zrzeczenie się własności

Wydawca

Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej

Czasopismo

Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie / Politechnika Śląska

Rocznik

2024

Tom

z. 192

Strony

619--641

Opis fizyczny

Bibliogr. 87 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Krawiec Wioletta

wioletta.krawiec@uni.lodz.pl

Department of Marketing, Faculty of Management, University of Lodz

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5619-9467

Bibliografia

1. Adelé, S., Dionisio, C. (2020). Learning from the real practices of users of a smart carpooling app. European Transport Research Review, Vol. 12, pp. 1-14, doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-020-00429-3.
2. Aguiléra, A., Pigalle, E. (2021). The Future and Sustainability of Carpooling Practices. An Identification of Research Challenges. Sustainability, Vol. 13, Iss. 21, pp. 11824, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111824.
3. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, Iss. 2, pp. 179-211, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
4. Arbour-Nicitopoulos, K., Faulkner, G.E.J., Buliung, R.N., Lay, J., Stone, M. (2012). The school run: exploring carpooling as an intervention option in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA), Canada. Transport Policy, Vol. 21, pp. 134-140, doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.03.004.
5. Arteaga-Sánchez, R., Belda-Ruiz, M., Ros-Galvez, A., Rosa-Garcia, A. (2020). Why continue sharing: Determinants of behavior in ridesharing services. International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 62, pp. 725-742, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785318805300.
6. Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68, Iss. 8, pp. 1595-1600, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2013.10.001.
7. Belz, N.P., Lee, B.H. (2012). Composition of vehicle occupancy for journey-to-work trips: Evidence of ridesharing from 2009 National Household Travel Survey Vermont Add-On Sample. Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 2322, Iss.1, pp. 1-9, doi: https://doi.org/10.3141/2322-01.
8. Ben-Elia, E., Zhen, F. (2018). ICT, activity space-time and mobility: New insights, new models, new methodologies. Transportation, Vol. 45, pp. 267-272, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-018-9870-y.
9. Bieliński, T., Ważna, A. (2020). Electric Scooter Sharing and Bike Sharing User Behaviour and Characteristics. Sustainability, Vol. 12, Iss. 22, pp. 9640, doi: https://doi:10.3390/ su12229640.
10. Blabla.com, Downloaded from: https://support.blablacar.com/hc/pl/articles/4405390240785-Polityka-podr%C3%B3%C5%BCy-dla-dzieci, 8.11.2023.
11. Buliung, R.N., Soltys, K., Bui, R., Habel, C., Lanyon, R. (2010). Transportation, Vol. 37, pp. 849-873, doi: 10.1007/s11116-010-9266-0.
12. Canning, P.E., Hughes, S.J., Hellawell, E.E., Gatersleben, B.C.M., Fairhead, C.J. (2010). Reasons for participating in formal employer-led carpool schemes as perceived by their users. Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 33, Iss. 8, pp. 733-745, doi: 10.1080/03081060.2010.536627.
13. Chan, N.D., Shaheen, S.A. (2011). Ridesharing in North America: past, present, and future. Transport Reviews, Vol. 32(1), pp. 3-112, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2011.621557.
14. Cheng, X., Su, L., Yang, B. (2020). An investigation into sharing economy enabled ridesharing drivers’ trust: A qualitative study. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 40, p. 100956, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2020.100956.
15. Choi, S., Feinberg, R.A. (2021). The LOHAS (Lifestyle of Health and Sustainability) Scale Development and Validation. Sustainability, Vol. 13, pp.1598, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ su13041598.
16. Collura, J. (1994). Evaluating ride-sharing programs: Massachusetts’ experience. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 120, Iss. 1, pp. 28-47, doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(1994)120:1(28).
17. Concas, S., Winters, P.L. (2007). Impact of Carpooling on Trip-Chaining Behavior and Emission Reductions. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 2010, pp. 83-91, doi: https://doi.org/10.3141/2010-10.
18. Correia, G., Viegas, J.M. (2011). Carpooling and carpool clubs: clarifying concepts and assessing value enhancement possibilities through a Stated Preference web survey in Lisbon, Portugal. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 45, Iss. 2, pp. 81-90, doi:10.1016/j.tra.2010.11.001.
19. Cui, Y., Makhija, R.S.M.S., Chen, R.B., He, Q., Khani, A. (2021). Understanding and Modeling the Social Preferences for Riders in Rideshare Matching. Transportation, Vol. 48, pp. 1809-1835, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-020-10112-0.
20. Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 319-340, dpi: https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.
21. Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York, NY: Springer.
22. Delhomme, P., Gheorghiu, A. (2016). Comparing French carpoolers and non-carpoolers: Which factors contribute the most to carpooling? Transportation Research, Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 42, pp. 1-15, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.10.014.
23. Dinesh, S., Rejikumar, G., Sisodia, G.S. (2021). An empirical investigation into carpooling behaviour for sustainability. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 77, pp. 181-196, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2021.01.005.
24. Dueker, K.J., Levin, I.P., Bair, B.O. (1977). Ride sharing: psychological factors. Transportation Engineering Journal of ASCE, Vol. 103, Iss. 6, pp. 685-692, doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/TPEJAN.000066.
25. Eccarius, T., Lu, C.-C. (2020). Adoption intentions for micro-mobility — Insights from electric scooter sharing in Taiwan. Transportation Research, Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 84, pp. 10232, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102327.
26. Falcone, P.M, Imbert, E. (2017). Bringing a Sharing Economy Approachinto the Food Sector: The Potentialof Food Sharing for Reducing Food Waste. In: P. Morone, F. Papendiek, V.E. Tartiu (eds.), Food Waste Reduction and Valorisation. Sustainability Asses.
27. Forsal.pl. (2021.11.25). Globalny transport jest trudny do dekarbonizacji. Emisje CO2 jeszcze wzrosną. Available at: https://forsal.pl/transport/aktualnosci/artykuly/8299651, globalny-transport-trudny-do-dekarbonizacji.html#:~:text=Pomimo%20obecnej%20 polityki%20maj%C4%85cej%20na%20celu%20ich%20ograniczenie%2C,o%2020%20pr oc.%20Co%20stoi%20na%20przeszkodzie%20dekarbonizacj, 25.11.2021.
28. French, S., Rogers, G. (2010). Understanding the LOHAS consumer: the rise of ethical consumerism. Available at: http://www.lohas.com/Lohas-Consumer.
29. Furuhata, M., Dessouky, M., Ordónez, F., Brunet, M.-E., Wang, X., Koenig, S. (2013). Ridesharing: The state-of-the-art and future directions. Transportation Research, Part B: Methodologica, Vol. 57, pp. 28-46, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.trb.2013.08.012.
30. Ganapati, S., Reddick, C.G. (2018). Prospects and challenges of sharing economy for the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 35, Iss. 1, pp. 77-87, doi: https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.giq.2018.01.001.
31. Gardner, B., Abraham, C. (2007). What drives car use? A grounded theory analysis of commuters’ reasons for driving. Transportation Research, Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 187-200, doi:10.1016/j.trf.2006.09.004.
32. Gärling, T., Steg, L. (2007). Threats from Car Traffic to the Quality of Urban Life: Problems, Causes, and Solutions. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
33. Garrison, W. (2007). Increasing the Flexibility of Legacy Systems. In: Anderson Distinguished Lecture in Applied Geography.
34. Garrison, W.L., Wellar, B., MacKinnon, R., Black, W.R., Getis, A. (2011). Research Commentary: Increasing the Flexibility of Legacy Systems. International Journal of Applied Geospatial Research, IGI Global, Vol. 2(2), pp. 39-55.
35. Gheorghiu, A., Delhomme, P. (2018). For which types of trips do French drivers carpool? Motivations underlying car-pooling for different types of trips. Transportation Research, Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 113, pp. 460-475, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.tra.2018.05.002.
36. Globalwebindex (2017). Goldman Sachs: globalna produkcja samochodów w 2022 r. wzrośnie o 12,1 proc. rdr. Available at: https://www.bankier.pl/moto/goldman-sachs-globalna-produkcja-samochodow-w-2022-r-wzrosnie-o-121-proc-rdr-10872/, 10.01.2022.
37. Goldstein, N.J., Cialdini, R.B., Griskevicius, V. (2008). A Room with a Viewpoint: Using Social Norms to Motivate Environmental Conservation in Hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 35, Iss. 3, pp. 472-482, doi:10.1086/586910.
38. Greene, D.L., Wegener, M. (1997). Sustainable transport. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 5, Iss. 3, pp. 177-190. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6923(97)00013-6.
39. Grzeszkiewicz-Radulska, K., Wiktorowicz, J., Grzelak, M. (2020). Analiza statystyczna z IBM SPSS Statistics. Uniwersytet Łódzki.
40. Guo, Y., Zhang, Y. (2021). Understanding factors influencing shared e-scooter usage and its impact on auto mode substitution. Transport and Environment, Vol. 99, p. 102991, doi:10.1016/j.trd.2021.102991.
41. Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., Ukkonen, A. (2016). The sharing economy: Why people par ticipate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 67, Iss. 9, pp. 2047-2059, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23552.
42. Hofmann, S., S$b0, 0., Braccin, A.M., Za, S. (2019). The public sector’s roles in the sharing economy and the implications for public values. Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 36, Iss. 4, pp. 101399, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101399.
43. Javid, M.A., Al-Khayyat, M.A. (2021). Factors affecting the student’s intentions to choose carpooling: A case study in Oman. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, Vol. 44, Iss. 4, pp. 332-341, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02533839.2021.1897685.
44. Jayaratne, M., Mort, G.S., D'Souza, C. (2017). Chickens, ants, grasshoppers and pigs: Proposed segmentation approach in the field of sustainability living. Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 25, Iss. 2, pp. 106-114, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj. 2017.04.004.
45. Jeon, M.M., Lee, S., Jeong, M. (2020). Perceived corprate social responsibility and customers’ behaviors in the ridesharing service industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 84, pp. 102341, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102341.
46. Kelley, K.L. (2007). Casual Carpooling—Enhanced. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 4, pp. 119-130, doi:https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.10.4.6.
47. Kettemann, B., Marko, G. (2012). The Language of Alternative Lifestyles: A Critical Analysis of the Discourses of Emos and LOHAS. AAA. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik, Vol. 37, pp. 69-94.
48. Kilbourne, W.E., Beckmann, S.C., Thelen, E. (2002). The role of the dominant social paradigm in environmental attitudes a multinational examination. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55, Iss. 3, pp. 193-204, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00141-7.
49. Kim, B. (2012). The diffusion of mobile data services and applications: Exploring the role of habit and its antecedents. Telecomm. Policy, Vol. 36, Iss. 1, pp. 69-81, dpi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2011.11.011.
50. Kim, B. (2019). Understanding key antecedents of consumer loyalty toward sharingeconomy platforms: The case of Airbnb. Sustainability, Vol. 11, Iss. 19, p. 5195, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195195.
51. Kim, B., Kim, D. (2020). Exploring the Key Antecedents Influencing Consumer’s Continuance Intention toward Bike-Sharing Services: Focus on China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 17, Iss. 12, p. 4556, doi: 10.3390/ijerph17124556.
52. Kim, B., Choi, M., Han, I. (2009). User behaviors toward mobile data services: The role of perceived fee and prior experience. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36, Iss. 4, pp. 8528-8536, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.eswa.2008.10.063.
53. Kim, B., Han, I. (2009). What drives the adoption of mobile data services? An approach from a value perspective. Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 24, Iss. 1, pp. 35-45, doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2008.2.
54. Lagadic, M., Verloes, A., Louvet, N. (2019). Can carsharing services be profitable? A critical review of established and developing business models. Transport Policy, Vol. 77, pp. 68-78, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.02.006.
55. Le Vine, S., Adamou, O. (2014). Predicting new forms of activity/mobility patterns enabled by shared-mobility services through a needs-based stated-response method: Case study of grocery shopping. Transport Policy, Vol. 32, pp. 60-68, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.12.008.
56. Leib, K.J., Leib, R.C. (2010). Environmental sustainability in the third-party logistics (3PL) industry. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 40, Iss. 7, pp. 524-533, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/09600031011071984.
57. Lubowiecki-Vikuk, A., Dąbrowska, A., Machnik, A. (2020). Responsible consumer and lifestyle: Sustainability insights. Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 25, pp. 91101, doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2020.08.007.
58. Ma, L., Zhang, Z., Ding, X., Wang, G.B. (2018). Bike sharing and users’ subjective wellbeing: An empirical study in China. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 118, pp. 14-24, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.08.040.
59. Moisander, J. (2007). Motivational complexity of green consumerism. International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 31, Iss. 4, pp. 404-409, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00586.x.
60. Morency, C. (2007). The ambivalence of ridesharing. Transportation, Vol. 34, pp. 239-253, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-006-9101-9.
61. Neoh, J.G., Chipulu, M., Marshall, A. (2017). What encourages people to carpool? An evaluation of factors with me-ta-analysis. Transportation, Vol. 44, pp. 423-447, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-015-9661-7.
62. Olsson, L.E., Maier, R., Friman, M. (2019). Why Do They Ride with Others? Meta-Analysis of Factors Influencing Travelers to Carpool. Sustainability, Vol. 11(8), p. 2414, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082414.
63. OSZ (2023). Komisja Ochrony Środowiska, Zasobów Naturalnych i Leśnictwa (OSZ) -Sejm Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej.
64. Ottman, J. (1993). Green Marketing. Lincolnwood: NTC Business Books.
65. Park, A., Clery, E., Curtice, J., Phillips, M., Utting, D. (2012). British Social Attitudes: the 29th Report. London: NatCen Social Research.
66. Pícha, K., Navrátil, J. (2019). The factors of Lifestyle of Health and Sustainability influencing pro-environmental buying behaviour. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 234, pp. 233-241, doi: https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.072.
67. Ramirez, E., Gonzalez, R.J., Moreira, G.J. (2014). Barriers and bridges to the adoption of environmentally-sustainable offerings. Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 43, Iss. 1, pp. 16-24, doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.07.012.
68. Rayle, L., Shaheen, S., Chan, N., Dai, D., Cervero, R. (2014). App-based, on-demand ride services: Comparing taxi and ridesourcing trips and user characteristics in San Francisco University of California Transportation Center (UCTC). Project Report, Uni.
69. Rong, K., Li, B., Peng, W., Zhou, D., Shi, X. (2021). Sharing economy platforms: creating shared value at a business ecosystem level. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 169, p. 120804, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120804.
70. Shaheen, S., Cohen, A. (2019). Shared ride services in North America: Definitions, impacts, and the future of pooling. Transport Reviews, Vol. 39, Iss. 4, pp. 427-442, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2018.1497728.
71. Shaheen, S., Stocker, A., Mundler, M. (2017). Online and App-Based Carpooling in France: Analyzing Users and Practices—A Study of BlaBlaCar. In Lecture Notes in Mobility. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
72. Shaheen, S.A., Chan, N.D., Gaynor, T. (2016). Casual carpooling in the San Francisco Bay Area: Understanding user characteristics, behaviors, and motivations. Transport Policy, Vol. 51, pp. 165-173, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.01.003.
73. Shaheen, S.P., Cohen, A. (2019). Shared Micromoblity Policy Toolkit: Docked and Dockless Bike and Scooter Sharing. UC Berkeley Transportation Sustainability Research Center, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/00k897b5, doi: 10.7922/G2TH8JW7.
74. Sharpley, R. (2001). The consumer behaviour context of ecolabelling. W X. B. Font, Tourism Ecolabelling: Certification and Promotion of Sustainable Management. Oxon: CAB International.
75. Standing, C., Standing, S., Biermann, S. (2018). The implications of the sharing economy for transport. Transport Reviews, Vol. 39, Iss. 2, pp. 1-17, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2018.1450307.
76. Suchanek, M., Szmelter-Jarosz, A. (2019). Environmental Aspects of Generation Y’s Sustainable Mobility. Sustainability, Vol. 11, Iss. 11, p. 3204, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113204.
77. Sweeney, J.C., Sou, G.N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77, Iss. 2, pp. 203-220, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00041-0.
78. Thpanorama (7.11.2023). 10 organizacji, które chronią środowisko na Ziemi. Retrieved from: https://pl.thpanorama.com/articles/medio-ambiente/10-organizaciones-que-protegen-el-medio-ambiente-en-la-tierra.html#:~:text=Lista%2010%20organizacji%20ochrony%20%C5%9Brodowiska%201%20Greenpeace%202,Mi%C4%99 dzyrz%C4%85dowy%20panel%20ekspert%C3%B3w%20ds.%2
79. Tirachini, A.R. (2020). Ride-hailing, travel behaviour and sustainable mobility: An international review. Transportation, Vol. 47, pp. 2011-2047, doi: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11116-019-10070-2.
80. Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 695-704, doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/25148660.
81. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L., Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 157-178. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2002388.
82. Vitell, S.J. (2015). A case for consumer social responsibility (CnSR): Including a selected review of consumer ethics/social responsibility research. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 130, No. 4., pp. 767-774, doi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24703456.
83. Washbrook, K., Haider, W., Jaccard, M. (2006). Estimating commuter mode choice: A discrete choice analysis of the impact of road pricing and parking charges. Transportation, Vol. 33, pp. 621-639, doi:10.1007/ s11116-005-5711-x.
84. Wicki, M.L., Fesenfeld, L.P., Bernauer, T. (2019). In search of politically feasible policypackages for sustainable passenger transport: Insights from choice experiments in China, Germany, and the USA. Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 14, Iss. 8, p. 84048, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab30a2.
85. Wu, X., Kim, B.J. (2019). A study on the service factors and consumer factors influencing sharing economy performance—Focused on sharing bicycle market in China. Journal of the Aviation Management Society of Korea, Vol. 17, pp. 107-123.
86. Yeh, N.C. Chen, Y.J. (2011). On the everyday life information behavior of LOHAS consumers: A perspective of lifestyle. Journal of Educational Media and Library Science, Vol. 48, Iss. 4, pp. 489-510.
87. Zębek, E. (2017). Bezpieczeństwo ekologiczne jako podstawowa potrzeba społeczeństwa wobec współczesnych zagrożeń środowiska. In: W B. S. E. Ura, Potrzeby jako współczesny determinant treści praw człowieka (pp. 241-262, 329). Józefów: Wyższa Szkoła Gospodarki Euroregionalnej im. Alcide De Gasperi.

Typ dokumentu

Bibliografia

Identyfikator YADDA

bwmeta1.element.baztech-29b764fb-1835-4931-811f-cbc2d3c7c46e