Regulating Airbnb: how cities deal with perceived negative externalities of short-term rentals

Abstract

In recent years, home-sharing platform Airbnb has developed into a major player in the tourism sector. It allows tourists to have authentic, off-thebeaten-track experiences in neighbourhoods previously unvisited. Although neighbourhoods can profit from increased attention and income, Airbnb and other short-term rentals (STRs) can also be disruptive to the traditional lodging industry and trigger gentrification processes; housing affordability and availability are jeopardized when housing units are turned into vacation rentals. Local governments worldwide are struggling to regulate STRs and their negative externalities. This paper focuses on key challenges cities face when dealing with STR platforms and the rationale behind different regulatory approaches. It first compares policies of 11 European and American cities and then zooms in on Denver to see how it regulates the impact of Airbnb. Most cities are relatively lenient towards STRs, with little to no (complete) prohibition. Instead, they limit the number of guests, nights and times a property can be rented, demand certain safety precautions and information provision, or require primary residency. Regulations are mostly directed to mitigate neighbourhood impacts, rather than creating a level playing field for the traditional lodging industry. Enforcement remains difficult due to the STR market's dynamic nature and online practice. ARTICLE HISTORY

Explaining the diversity of policy responses to platform-mediated short-term rentals in European cities: A comparison of Barcelona, Paris and Milan

“…Building on this growing body of scholarship, we argue that the socio-political struggles, forms of collective action, agenda-setting and policy framing processes around the regulation of PM-STR have been relatively overlooked. Moreover, existing studies tend to focus on one city (exceptions being Dredge et al, 2016;Smorto, 2016;Wegmann and Jiao, 2017;Crommelin et al, 2018;Nieuwland and van Melik, 2018). Fine-grained comparative approaches are needed to develop explanations about the differences in local political responses to transnational 'shared shocks' like the advent of Uber or Airbnb, which are often 'refracted into divergent struggles over particular national practices' (Locke and Thelen, 1995: 338).…”

The role of Airbnb creating a “new”-old city centre: facts, problems and controversies in Porto

“…After realising the scale and the sheer impact of platforms like Airbnb in cities, short term rentals became a hot political issue in urban governance spheres (sometimes as the result of local resident protest). It is now possible to distinguish between three main options towards the phenomena: i) a full prohibition; ii) the laissez-faire approach; and iii) the limitation of it, with different degrees of restriction (Guttentag, 2015;Jefferson-Jones,2014;Nieuwland & van Melik, 2018).…”

“…Finally, the limitation of Airbnb activity implies different types of restrictions to the short-term rental market. Nieuwland and van Melik (2018) identify four types of restrictions, namely i) quantitative, which include limiting the amount of accommodations (city or owner), allowed visitors and/or days rented or available for renting; ii) locational, confining short term rental to specific locations; iii) density restrictions, limiting the number of short term rental in certain neighbourhoods; and iv) qualitative, defining for example the type of accommodation, the relation with streets and inhabitants or some specific safety requirements. Yet, it is likely that the appropriateness of each type of regulatory option will vary widely according to each city, namely considering its political standing but also the ways through which short-term rental manifests itself and puts pressure in the urban fabric and city life.…”

“No estamos tan mal como Barcelona”: análisis de la proliferación y regulación de las viviendas de uso turístico en Madrid y Barcelona

“…Aunque Nieuwland & van Melik (2018) constatan mayores restricciones para los alquileres turísticos en Norteamérica frente a Europa, la Comisión Europea (2017) ha asumido la necesidad de regulación (a pesar de usar el mantra "colaborativo"), sobre la base de 3 criterios: la frecuencia de los servicios, el fin lucrativo y el volumen de negocio. ha distinguido 4 categorías de anfitrión (Ocasional, Constante, Profesional e Inversor), de las cuales se agrupan las dos primeras dentro de la esfera de la economía colaborativa, y las dos segundas dentro del capitalismo de plataformas.…”

“…Se configuran así tres variables como claves para determinar qué se puede entender como economía colaborativa dentro de la actividad de AirBnB: la tipología del alojamiento (habitación compartida, habitación exclusiva, o piso completo), la cantidad de unidades controladas por un mismo propietario o gestor, y la frecuencia del arrendamiento. Las dos primeras variables son fácilmente analizables mediante los datos públicamente accesibles de la plataforma, mientras que la tercera se ha convertido en uno de los criterios de restricción de la actividad en las normativas recientes de numerosas ciudades (Nieuwland & van Melik, 2018;Wegmann & Jiao, 2018…”