Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding Collaborative Consumption: An Extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior with Value-Based Personal Norms

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Collaborative consumption is proposed as a potential step beyond unsustainable linear consumption patterns toward more sustainable consumption practices. Despite mounting interest in the topic, little is known about the determinants of this consumer behavior. We use an extended theory of planned behavior to examine the relative influence of consumers’ personal norms and the theory’s basic sociopsychological variables attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control on collaborative consumption. Moreover, we use this framework to examine consumers’ underlying value and belief structure regarding collaborative consumption. We measure these aspects for 224 consumers in a survey and then assess their self-reported collaborative consumption behavior in a second survey. Our structural model fits the data well. Collaborative consumption is more strongly—through intentions—influenced by personal norms and attitudes than by subjective norms. Personal norms to consume collaboratively are determined by consumers’ altruistic, biospheric, and egoistic value orientations. Cost savings, efficient use of resources, and community with others are found to be consumers’ attitudinal beliefs underlying collaborative consumption. We conclude that collaborative consumption can be pin-pointed neither as a mere form of economic exchange nor as a primarily normative form of sharing resources. Instead, collaborative consumption is determined by economic/egoistic (e.g., cost savings) and normative (e.g., altruistic and biospheric value orientations) motives. Implications for collaborative consumption research, the theory of planned behavior, and practitioners are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. However, researchers have also called out rebound effects and overconsumption as potential risks that might dilute or reverse collaborative consumption’s economic, environmental, and social advantages (Thomas 2003, 2011; Robert et al. 2014). Thus, there is not yet a definitive answer to the question of the actual sustainability of collaborative consumption as this ultimately depends on consumers’ actual behavior.

  2. Recent estimates suggest, for example, that revenues generated from several key sectors of the sharing economy generated merely €3.6bn across Europe in 2015 (US$15 in 2014 worldwide), albeit with significant expected growth rates (PwC 2016; DHL 2017) or that in 2015 less than half of the US population had at least some familiarity with the sharing economy (PwC 2015).

  3. For example, there are several older types of companies and organizations that have long since facilitated collaborative consumption like libraries, cooperatives, flea markets and neighborhood clubs (Albinsson and Perera 2012; Ozanne and Ballentine 2010).

  4. Although the value-belief-norm theory suggests the effect of value orientations on personal norms to be mediated by beliefs (i.e., new ecological paradigm, awareness of consequence, ascription of responsibility), we will examine a direct effect on personal norms to maintain parsimony of our model.

  5. Including private car renting, private ride sharing, commercial bike renting, commercial product swapping/borrowing, private food donations, commercial renting of private living space (2x), and private job sharing.

References

  • Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (2006). In Bielefeld, U. (Ed.), Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Retrieved January 05, 2015, from http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/ikg/zick/ajzen%20construction%20a%20tpb%20questionnaire.pdf.

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173–221). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albinsson, P. A., & Perera, Y. (2012). Alternative marketplaces in the 21st century: Building community through sharing events. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 11, 303–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage, C., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P. (1981). Attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A test of some key hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(4), 607–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bamberg, S., Ajzen, I., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Choice of travel mode in the theory of planned behavior: The roles of past behavior, habit, and reasoned action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25(3), 175–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 881–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, S. J., & Mattsson, J. (2016). Understanding current and future issues in collaborative consumption: A four-stage Delphi study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104, 200–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. (2009). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 715–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. (2014a). Sharing versus pseudo-sharing in web 2.0. Anthropologist, 18(1), 7–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. (2014b). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1595–1600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., & Bonnet, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2011). What’s mine is yours: How collaborative consumption is changing the way we live. London: Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, K. A., & Cudeck, J. S. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing equation model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. (1989). A primer of LISREL: Basic application and programming for confirmatory factor analytic model. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. (2009). Possession and access: Consumer desires and value perceptions regarding contemporary art collection and exhibit visits. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 925–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, H.-C., & Abe, S. (2013). Is two-tailed testing for directional research hypotheses tests legitimate? Journal of Business Research, 66, 1261–1266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chow, G. (1960). The standard F test for the equality of two sets of coefficients in linear regression models. Econometrica, 28, 591–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemons, E. (2008). How information changes consumer behavior and how consumer behavior determines corporate strategy. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(2), 13–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), 1429–1464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quaterly, 13, 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DHL. (2017). Sharing economy logistics. DHL trend reseach, May 2017. http://www.dhl.com/content/dam/downloads/g0/about_us/logistics_insights/DHLTrend_Report_Sharing_Economy.pdf. Retrieved August 1, 2017.

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluation of structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gansky, L. (2010). The mesh: Why the future of business is sharing. New York: Portfolio Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2015). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(9), 2047–2059.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 163, 1243–1248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Head, K. J., & Noar, S. M. (2014). Facilitating progress in health behaviour theory development and modification: The reasoned action approach as a case study. Health Psychology Review, 8(1), 34–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinrichs, H. (2013). Sharing economy: A potential new pathway to sustainability. GAIA, 22(4), 228–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., & Baumgartner, H. (1995). Bewertung von Kausalmodelen. Marketing ZFP, 17(3), 162–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John, N. A. (2013). Sharing, collaborative consumption and Web 2.0. Media@LSE Electronic Working Papers (Vol. 26, pp. 1–19).

  • Kidwell, B., & Jewell, R. D. (2003). The moderated influence of internal control: An examination across health-related behaviors. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 377–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurland, N. B. (1995). Ethical intentions and the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 297–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamberton, C. P., & Rose, R. L. (2012). When is ours better than mine? A framework for understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 109–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leismann, K., Schmitt, M., Rohn, H., & Baedeker, C. (2013). Collaborative consumption: Towards a resource-saving consumption culture. Resources, 2, 184–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luchs, M., Naylor, R. W., Rose, R. L., Catlin, J. R., Gau, R., Kapitan, S., et al. (2011). Toward a sustainable marketplace: Expanding options and benefits for consumers. Journal of Research for Consumers, 19, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manstead, A. S. (2000). The role of moral norm in the attitude–behavior relationship. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership (pp. 11–30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Möhlmann, M. (2015). Collaborative consumption: Determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14, 193–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mont, O. (2004). Institutionalisation of sustainable consumption patterns based on shared use. Ecologial Economics, 50, 135–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mont, O., & Heiskanen, E. (2015). Breaking the stalemate of sustainable consumption with industrial ecology and a circular economy. In L. A. Reisch & J. Thøgersen (Eds.), Handbook of research on sustainable consumption (pp. 33–47). Northampton: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Notani, A. S. (1998). Moderators of perceived behavioral control’s predictiveness in the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(3), 247–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ölander, F., & Thogersen, J. (1995). Understanding of consumer behavior as a prerequesite for environmental protection. Journal of Consumer Policy, 18, 345–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owyang, J. (2013). The Collaborative Economy. New York: Altimeter Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozanne, L. K., & Ballentine, P. W. (2010). Sharing as a form of anti-consumption? An examination of toy library users. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(6), 485–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavlou, P. A., & Fygenson, M. (2006). Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 115–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piscicelli, L., Cooper, T., & Fisher, T. (2015). The role of values in collaborative consumption: Insights from a product-service system for lending and borrowing in the UK. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 21–29. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lee, J.-Y. (2003). Common method bias in behavioral research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, W. E., Luchs, M. G., Ozanne, L. K., et al. (2011). Sustainable consumption: Opportunities for consumer research and public policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(1), 31–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PwC. (2015). The sharing economy. Consumer intelligence series. https://www.pwc.com/us/en/technology/publications/assets/pwc-consumer-intelligence-series-the-sharing-economy.pdf. Retrieved August 1, 2017.

  • PwC. (2016). The sharing economy grows up. How the UK has embraced the sharing economy. http://www.pwc.co.uk/issues/megatrends/collisions/sharingeconomy/outlook-for-the-sharing-economy-in-the-uk-2016.html. Retrieved August 1, 2017.

  • Rifkin, J. (2014). The zero marginal cost society: The internet of things, the collaborative commons, and the eclipse of capitalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Trade.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivis, A., Sheeran, P., & Armitage, C. (2009). Expanding the affective and normative components of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis of anticipated affect and moral norms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(12), 2985–3019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robert, I., Binninger, A.-S., Ourahmoune, N. (2014). La consommation collaborative, le versant encore équivoque de l’économie de la fonctionnalité. Développement durable et territoires, 5(1). https://developpementdurable.revues.org/pdf/10222. Retrieved August 13, 2017.

  • Scaraboto, D. (2015). Selling, sharing, and everything in between: The hybrid economies of collaborative networks. Journal of Consumer Research, 42, 152–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221–279). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. R., Terry, D. J., Manstead, A. S., Louis, W. R., Kotterman, D., & Wolfs, J. (2008). The attitude-behavior relationship in consumer conduct: The role of norms, past behavior, and self-identity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148(3), 311–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of enviornmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Research in Human Ecology, 6(2), 81–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swaim, J. A., Maloni, M. J., Napshin, S. A., & Henley, A. B. (2014). Influences on student intention and behavior toward environmental sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 124, 465–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Understanding household garbage reduction behavior: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 14(2), 192–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thøgersen, J. (2006). Understanding repetitive travel mode choices in a stable context: A panel study approach. Transportation Research Part A, 40(8), 621–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, V. (2003). Demand and dematerilization impacts pf second-hand markets. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 7(2), 65–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, V. (2011). The environmental potential of reuse: An application to used books. Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science, 6, 109–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Economic Forum Young Globald Leaders. (2013). Sharing economy working group: Position paper. The Forum of Young Global Leaders.

  • Xiao, J. J., Tang, C., Serido, J., & Shim, S. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of risky credit behavior among college students. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(2), 239–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, J., Qian, L., & Singhapakdi, A. (2016). Sharing sustainability: How values and ethics matter in consumers’ adoption of public bicycle-sharing scheme. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/210551-016-3043-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Hohenheim (570G), 70593, Stuttgart, Germany

    Daniel Roos & Rüdiger Hahn

Authors
  1. Daniel Roos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rüdiger Hahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rüdiger Hahn.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Both authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Vignette (Part of Survey I)

Nowadays, many people use products and services in collaboration with others or in communities. Often, these communities and the shared use of products and services are enabled by modern technologies, such as mobile Internet, social networks, and GPS

Examples of collaborative consumption include the shared use of cars and bikes, swapping clothes, and renting living or working space

Collaborative consumption in this survey is defined as:

To acquire a resource (e.g., a car, a bike, clothes, living or working space, a skill, or anything you want) from someone by …

… renting it or

… borrowing it or

… swapping it or

… accepting it as a gift or donation or

… buying it used

This is in contrast to exclusively buying a new resource for private use

Appendix 2: Survey I

Variable

Itema

Intention

I intend to consume collaboratively within the next month (Extremely unlikely/likely; INT1)

 

I plan to consume collaboratively within the next month (Strongly disagree/agree; INT2)

 

I will try to consume collaboratively within the next month (Definitely false/true; INT3)

Attitude

For me consuming collaboratively within the next month would be …

 

… (Harmful/beneficial; ATT1)

 

… (Bad/good; ATT2)

 

… (Worthless/valuable; ATT3)

 

… (Unpleasant/pleasant; ATT4)

 

… (Dull/exciting; ATT5)

 

… (Unenjoyable/enjoyable; ATT6)

Subjective norm

Most people who are important to me think that I … (Should not/should consume collaboratively within the next month; SN1)

 

The people in my life whose opinion I value would … (Disapprove/approve of consuming collaboratively within the next month; SN2)

 

Most people who are important to me consume collaboratively (Completely false/true; SN3)

 

Many people like me consume collaboratively (Strongly disagree/agree; SN4)

PBC

If I wanted to, I could consume collaboratively within the next month (Definitely false/true; PBC1)

 

For me consuming collaboratively within the next month would be … (Impossible/possible; PBC2)

 

How much control do you have over consuming collaboratively within the next month (No control/full control; PBC3)

Personal norm

How strongly do you feel a personal obligation to consume collaboratively within the next month (Strongly not obliged/strongly obliged; PN1)

 

I expect from myself to consume collaboratively within the next month (Absolutely false/true; PN2)

 

Personally, I have a moral obligation to consume collaboratively within the next month (Strongly disagree/agree; PN3)

Altruistic value orientation

How important or unimportant is equality (equal opportunity for all) as a guiding principle in your life (opposed to my values/of supreme importance)

 

… helpful (working for the welfare of others)

 

… social justice (correcting injustice, care for the weak)

 

… a world at peace (free of war and conflict)

Biospheric value orientation

… unity with nature (fitting into nature)

 

… protecting the environment (preserving nature)

 

… respecting earth (harmony with other species)

Egoistic value orientation

… successful (achieving goals)

 

… wealth (material possessions, money)

 

… authority (the right to lead or command)

Variable

Itema

 

Consuming collaboratively within the next month …

Cost savings

… would lead to cost savings (Extremely unlikely/likely)

 

Cost savings for me are … (Bad/good)

Environmental protection

… would lead to environmental protection (Extremely unlikely/likely)

 

Environmental protection for me is … (Bad/good)

Dependency on others’ behavior

… would lead to dependency on others’ behavior (Extremely unlikely/likely)

 

Dependency on others’ behavior for me is … (Bad/good)

Efficient use of resources

… would lead to efficient use of resources (Extremely unlikely/likely)

 

Efficient use of resources for me is … (Bad/good)

Community with others

… would lead to community with others (Extremely unlikely/likely)

 

Community with others for me is … (Bad/good)

 

In the coming month, I expect …

Ease of use

… to experience ease of use of collaborative c. (Extremely unlikely/likely)

 

Ease of use would make it … (Much more difficult/much more easy)

Availability of products and services

… to have availability of products and services (Extremely unlikely/likely)

 

Availability of products and services would make it … (Much more difficult/much more easy)

Internet access

… to have Internet access (Extremely unlikely/likely)

 

Internet access would make it … (Much more difficult/much more easy)

High geographic density

… to experience high geographic density of collaborative consumption options (Extremely unlikely/likely)

 

High geographic density of collaborative consumption options would make it … (Much more difficult/much more easy)

Transparent information about collaborative offerings

… to have transparent information about collaborative offerings (Extremely unlikely/likely)

 

Transparent information about collaborative offerings would make it … (Much more difficult/much more easy)

Age

Please state the year of your birth

Gender

Please state your gender (Female/male)

Income

Please state your monthly net income (<500/500–999/1000–1999/2000–2999/3000–3999/4000–4999/≥ 5000/n/a)

Size of hometown

Where are you living (metropolis, >1 mil./large town, >100,000/medium town, 20,000–100,000/small town, 5000–20,000/rural, <5000 inhabitants)

  1. aAll items were measured on Likert-type 7-point response scales, except items on altruistic, biospheric, and egoistic value orientation that were measured on Likert-type 9-point response scales, and control items

Appendix 3: Survey II

Variable

Itema

Collaborative consumption

Please estimate how many times in the last 4 weeks you generally acquired something through collaborative consumption (Never/daily)

Collaborative consumption (provision)

Please estimate how many times in the last 4 weeks you generally provided something through collaborative consumption (Never/daily)

 

How many times have you particularly consumed something collaboratively in the last 4 weeks by …

Renting

… renting something (Never/daily)

Borrowing

… borrowing something (Never/daily)

Swapping

… swapping something (Never/daily)

Accepting gift or donation

… accepting a gift or donation (Never/daily)

Buying used

… buying something used (Never/daily)

Resources

If you have consumed something collaboratively in the last 4 weeks by (prototypical behavior), what was it primarily (Car, bicycle, living space, office space, clothing/accessory, food, skill, book, DVD, tool, toy, sport equipment, camera, other)

  1. aAll items were measured on Likert-type 7-point response scales, except the item on resources

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roos, D., Hahn, R. Understanding Collaborative Consumption: An Extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior with Value-Based Personal Norms. J Bus Ethics 158, 679–697 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3675-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3675-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation