Do Airbnb Homes Really Feel Like Home?
In a recently published paper (open access), I explored how the concept of ‘home’ and the feeling of home are understood from the perspective of Airbnb renters. The paper draws on interviews with people who use Airbnb for various purposes, including work-related commutes, holidays, and business travel. In particular, I focused on experiences where guests either shared homes with hosts or rented homes typically occupied by a host but temporarily vacated.
Airbnb is used by people beyond traditional tourism, and research shows the importance of home-like features in attracting renters. I wanted to explore how individual guests perceive and experience the everyday aspects of Airbnb rentals, as well as what they value in a home environment. Through this, I sought to conceptualise how ‘home’ is perceived and practiced in the context of temporary rental arrangements, which is also characterised by the type of hospitality that follows a particular ‘script’ (such as instructions, expected behaviours, and house rules).
Ultimately, I argue that Airbnb guests are not looking for places that resemble their own homes; rather, they seek places stylised as homely, but do not necessarily reveal the everyday aspects of hosts’ lives. The engagement with this kind of commodified homeliness results in what I refer to as ‘ambivalent homemaking’, meaning that guests experience both a sense of familiarity and distance.
In my initial analysis, I focused on the material aspects of homes and explored the perceptions of objects commonly used in Airbnb décor. These items were recognised as stylish but also as signifying an ‘unhomely’ side of home. For example, souvenirs, small decorative items, and common IKEA furniture were often perceived as impersonal, i.e. unhomely. I then looked at the aspects of materiality that could be perceived as directly hostile or unwelcoming such as direct instructions and signs, drawing on Freud’s concept of the uncanny. In the same way as the uncanny signifies ‘the strange within the familiar’, such objects emphasised the transient and at times ‘unsettling’ aspects of the rental experience.
My further analysis revealed an interesting contradiction. While guests were drawn to commodified homeliness, they also wanted to keep their distance. Here, I found Scott and Stephens’ descriptions of acts of commission and acts of omission particularly useful. As Scott and Stephens show, acts of commission are conscious decisions not to act, which can produce meaningful identities and experiences. Similarly, in my study, participants mentioned that they avoided activities associated with everyday homemaking as a way of maintaining emotional distance. Some explicitly stated they did not want to feel ‘at home’ in their Airbnb stay, and that keeping distance was part of being a ‘good guest’.
The conceptualisation of Airbnb homemaking as ambivalent proved effective for my analysis as it enabled me to consider homes not as purely positive or purely hostile, but as spaces combining different, interconnected characteristics and practices. As I aimed to show, in some situations, making a home may mean deliberately keeping a distance from it or avoiding close attachments. This idea could also be applied to other forms of temporary and transient living, such as home-sharing and co-living arrangements.
More detailed descriptions and examples can be found in the full paper. I'm happy to hear any thoughts or questions about the research or project.
background image by Ken Kajoranta
