Comparing Airbnb hosts’ and guests’ attitudes toward smart technology to support authenticity experiences

The phenomenon of peer-to-peer (P2P) accommodation, exemplified by Airbnb, has rapidly evolved from a niche curiosity to a central theme in tourism and hospitality research (Dolnicar, 2019). A critical distinction setting Airbnb apart from traditional hotels is the dynamic interaction between hosts and guests (Jiang et al., 2019; Tussyadiah and Zach, 2017), which fundamentally shapes the guest’s perception of ambience and emotional engagement (Zhang, 2020). Aligning with this feature, the platform actively promotes the concept of “living like a local” (Mody et al., 2019). In this sense, Airbnb offers not only accommodation, but also a locally embedded and relational experience that is often interpreted through the language of authenticity (Garay-Tamajón and Morales-Pérez, 2023; Lalicic and Weismayer, 2017).

However, authenticity in P2P accommodation is multifaceted. Drawing on Wang (1999), we recognize that while object-based authenticity (e.g. in-room décor) serves as one important cue, the promise of “living like a local” is more strongly associated with existential authenticity. This shifts the focus from the authenticity of things to the authenticity of being, reflected in feeling at home, engaging with local culture and experiencing appropriately bounded host–guest connection in Airbnb stays (Lalicic and Weismayer, 2017; Paulauskaite et al., 2017; Rickly et al., 2025).

This distinction can also be interpreted through the lens of Service-Dominant (S-D) Logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). From this perspective, existential authenticity is not a static product but a result of value co-creation. Guests actively integrate host-provided and contextual resources to cocreate local experiences, which reflects the participatory ethos of the P2P sharing economy (Zhang et al., 2018). At the same time, this process may also involve value co-destruction when the same resources are experienced as intrusive, excessive or misaligned with guest expectations.

However, despite the industry’s emphasis on authenticity, the role of smart technology in shaping authenticity-related experiences in P2P accommodation remains theoretically under-specified. Less is known about how accommodation-level smart technologies can support localness, comfort and relational hospitality in ways that guests interpret as helpful rather than intrusive (Kim et al., 2026; Liu et al., 2024; Omar et al., 2025; Zhou et al., 2025). Guest preferences are also heterogeneous: while some seek meaningful social interactions, others value privacy and tranquility during their stay (Farmaki et al., 2025; Scerri and Presbury, 2020). Existing research remains dominated by quantitative approaches and offers limited insight into how hosts and guests qualitatively interpret smart hospitality interventions (Mody et al., 2021). This study, therefore, examines how smart technology shapes authenticity-related experiences in Airbnb stays and addresses two questions:

To address these questions, this study adopts a speculative design approach (Hornof et al., 2017). This approach enables a structured exploration of how hosts envision potential smart technology applications and how such envisioned interventions may later be interpreted by guest-side evaluators. The resulting concepts were then presented to design-literate participants with Airbnb experience for critical feedback from a guest-side perspective. This two-stage design examined both the intentions embedded in host-generated concepts and the interpretations articulated by guest-side evaluators. The study contributes theoretically by conceptualizing smart technology in P2P accommodation as a relational mediator and by showing that its value depends on the alignment between host intention and guest interpretation. It also offers practical guidance for integrating smart technology in ways that remain subtle, optional and respectful of privacy, autonomy and domestic comfort.

The rise of P2P accommodation blurs the private, social and commercial domains of hospitality, creating tensions that shape host–guest relations and the experience of staying in shared homes (Lashley, 2001). In the private domain, hosts must balance personal routines and privacy with the commercial act of welcoming guests into their homes (Wilkinson and Wilkinson, 2018). In the social domain, P2P accommodation involves ongoing negotiation between connection and distance, with miscommunication, misbehavior and cultural differences potentially weakening hospitality experiences (Cheng and Zhang, 2019; Farmaki et al., 2020; Hati et al., 2021; Sthapit and Björk, 2019). As Farmaki et al. (2020) point out, the overlapping boundaries of public and private space in P2P accommodation create a nuanced context in which hospitality is negotiated between host and guest. Finally, in the commercial domain, P2P accommodation also creates tensions between economic value, cultural expression and responsibilities to local communities (Farmaki et al., 2023; Guttentag, 2019; Light and Miskelly, 2019). Overall, these examples illustrate the multifaceted tensions inherent in the P2P model, which require careful investigation.

Despite significant academic efforts, important gaps remain in understanding how these tensions are negotiated when new technologies enter P2P stays. Current research often identifies these tensions or proposes solutions from a single perspective, frequently emphasizing technological optimization, behavioral regulation or policy change. However, these approaches do not always account for the relational and multi-perspective nature of P2P accommodation, where hosts and guests may interpret the same intervention differently. Many studies rely on post hoc analysis or inductive reasoning based on existing data, limiting their ability to investigate the deeper causes of these tensions or provide proactive design recommendations. For example, despite the emphasis on personalized guest experiences, online checklists for host property setup tend to be similar (Guesty Marketing Team, 2025), suggesting that operational guidance may still encourage standardization rather than distinct guest experiences. Part of this limitation lies in the difficulty of capturing and mediating tensions such as freedom versus control, predictability versus creativity and compliance versus collaboration (Mennicken, 2016). Consequently, many proposed solutions remain descriptive or context-specific, offering limited guidance for future P2P design.

Since tourism experiences are co-created in interaction, codesign offers a useful way to examine tensions in P2P accommodation (Buhalis and Sinarta, 2019; Sanders and Stappers, 2008; Smit et al., 2024). In tourism research, codesign includes both projective and constructive approaches, but its applications often remain limited to short-term exercises that constrain deeper reflection (Liburd et al., 2022; Tussyadiah, 2014).

In shared home environments, codesign is better understood as an ongoing collaborative process that helps surface how hospitality experiences may be supported, challenged or reinterpreted (Liburd et al., 2017; Yao et al., 2023). Speculative design is useful here because it explores “what if” futures in which smart technologies are embedded in Airbnb settings (Dunne and Raby, 2013). It enables critical discussion of how convenience, authenticity and privacy may be negotiated in shared smart hospitality environments (Neuhofer et al., 2014). This forward-thinking approach reveals latent concerns and unarticulated needs regarding human–computer interaction (HCI) (Yu et al., 2020) and the desire for solitude amidst technological presence (Scerri and Presbury, 2020), enabling proactive design interventions rather than reactive problem-solving. Rather than predicting a single future, speculative design is used to surface how imagined smart hospitality scenarios may be welcomed, questioned or resisted by different stakeholders.

Driven by changing consumer expectations, hospitality has increasingly integrated smart technologies into service delivery and experience design (Dalgic and Birdir, 2020; Lee, 2020). In this study, smart technologies refer to accommodation-level systems characterized by interconnectivity, context-awareness and interactivity (Buhalis, 2020; Liu et al., 2024; Neuhofer et al., 2015). Smart tourism provides the broader backdrop, while the focus here is on how such technologies enact hospitality within P2P accommodation. Relevant HCI research shows that such systems are experienced through trust, transparency and perceived appropriateness, not just functionality (Lutz et al., 2018; Su and Stolterman, 2016).

While smart devices offer benefits, their use in multiuser settings reveals complexities beyond basic functionality, particularly the delicate balance of privacy and trust required in hospitality. Existing research on smart home devices focuses primarily on close, trusted circles, such as families (Brush et al., 2013). Access control is complex and influenced by trust and situational factors (Garg and Moreno, 2019; Yao et al., 2019). Critically, most smart devices are designed for individual use and lack granular shared access controls (Zhang et al., 2022), forcing users to improvise solutions in practice. This lack of control and transparency has the potential to undermine the P2P experiences of belonging, autonomy and feeling at home. In Airbnb and similar P2P settings, this problem becomes especially acute because technologies are introduced into a temporarily shared domestic space rather than a fully private or fully commercial one.

Extending these findings to Airbnb’s non-trusted contexts further intensifies these challenges and may shape guests’ authenticity-related experiences. For example, some people avoid Airbnb rentals because they are concerned about hidden cameras (Yao et al., 2019), which goes directly against the “home away from home” ethos. In Airbnb, there is a clear power imbalance between hosts (primary users) and guests (secondary users), with no formal collaboration in device setup or use. This imbalance, combined with a guest’s limited control over smart technology, can make them feel like strangers or targets for surveillance rather than welcome guests, undermining authenticity-related experiences associated with trust, autonomy and feeling at home. Furthermore, user privacy concerns about Internet of Things (IoT) devices frequently focus on the intended use of data rather than its sensitivity (Zheng et al., 2018), with preferences highly context-dependent (Naeini et al., 2017) and widespread concerns about devices recording private in-home activities (Choe et al., 2011). Against this background, the present study examines how accommodation-level smart technologies are interpreted by hosts and guest-side evaluators in Airbnb contexts, focusing on when they are perceived as supportive, excessive or intrusive in relation to privacy, autonomy and the boundaries of hospitality.

Overall, smart technology in P2P accommodation should not be treated as neutral service tools or as inherently authenticity-enhancing devices. Its effects depend on how host intentions are translated through technology and interpreted by guests with different expectations regarding privacy, autonomy and feeling at home.

This study adopts a two-phase qualitative, design-led framework combining codesign and speculative design (Figure 1). It examines how hosts imagine smart technologies as part of hospitality in their homes and how those concepts are interpreted from a guest perspective. In Phase 1, we worked with seven Airbnb hosts to translate existing expressions of hospitality, localness and personal identity into smart technology concepts, resulting in 73 refined concepts across seven homes. In Phase 2, the 73 concepts were critically evaluated by Airbnb-experienced, design-literate participants to identify anticipated guest-side opportunities, tensions and boundary concerns. This two-phase structure allowed us to examine both the smart hospitality concepts hosts wished to create and the conditions under which they might be welcomed, resisted or reinterpreted by guests.

The Netherlands was selected because of its mature Airbnb market and suitability for in-depth qualitative fieldwork. Hosts were recruited through the Airbnb platform, online communities and personal networks. To ensure relevance to the study, three screening criteria were applied: the property had to be a vacant or temporarily unused standalone listing; hosts had to have achieved “Superhost” status, with a rating of 4.8 or higher and over 200 reviews, indicating a strong willingness to share their personality and local experiences and the accommodation had to be equipped with at least four types of smart devices, demonstrating the hosts’ familiarity with IoT concepts.

We contacted 12 eligible hosts via Airbnb booking messages and follow-up conversations. We further prioritized hosts who actively curated local guest experiences (e.g., through guidebooks, recommendations or welcome gestures) and who also used Airbnb themselves for leisure travel. These hosts’ motivations extended beyond financial gain to social, experiential and place-based concerns aligned with our research focus. Ultimately, seven hosts were selected (see Table 1): leisure hosts who temporarily rented out their own homes while travelling, and semiprofessional hosts who managed separate properties.

For Phase 2, we recruited seven designers from interaction, user experience, sound, animation, product and installation design as guest-side evaluators of the speculative concepts. The rationale for selecting participants with this dual identity was not to statistically represent all Airbnb guests, but to involve Airbnb-experienced, design-literate participants who could critically interpret future-oriented concepts from the perspective of guests. Selection was based on the following criteria (see Table 1):

• Extensive Airbnb experience: each participant had stayed in at least eight different Airbnbs for leisure travel within the past three years, ensuring relevant guest experience;

• Preference for authenticity: they primarily chose Airbnb to experience local character, home atmosphere and the hosts’ lifestyle;

• Balanced view on interaction: they valued both social connection and personal space, allowing them to reflect on varied guest expectations regarding privacy, autonomy, and connection;

• Professional expertise: they held a Master’s degree or above and had at least five years of practical experience in a design-related field.

All participants received a full overview of the study and signed informed consent forms. The research was approved by the university’s ethical review board (ERB2021ID83). Each participant received a €30 gift card.

We conducted on-site visits to each host’s property. The interviews covered:

• strategies used by hosts to enhance local experiences;

• the property’s history, the host’s routines and the neighborhood’s unique features; and

• host reflections on guest anecdotes and prior experiences.

These visits were documented through photography and audio recording. The materials provided the basis for understanding how hospitality, localness and personal identity were expressed in each home.

A fixed design team of two MA students and two PhD researchers conducted workshops to brainstorm and sketch smart interaction concepts inspired by each home. Continuous online communication with hosts was used to ensure that the concepts remained aligned with each host’s intentions and home context. For each home, the design team generated an initial pool of concepts and selected 9–12 preliminary concepts for inclusion in a digital booklet. Each host then selected 5–7 concepts for further reflection. Concepts were retained when they presented a concrete interaction scenario and were judged by hosts as contextually plausible and experientially meaningful within their homes.

Hosts kept the booklet for 1–4 weeks and were invited to annotate, reinterpret, reject or extend the proposed concepts. They were also encouraged to sketch their own ideas in the same format as the booklet concepts (see Figure 2). This step allowed the study to move beyond immediate workshop reactions and capture more considered reflections on which smart technology interventions hosts regarded as appropriate, meaningful or undesirable in their own homes.

After the reflection period, we met each host for a 40–60 minute codesign session and exit interview. Selected concepts and host-added sketches were jointly reviewed and refined to document hosts’ preferences, concerns and interpretations of how smart technologies might support or interfere with the intended guest experience. Across the seven homes, this iterative process resulted in a final pool of 73 refined concepts, including both researcher-generated and host-added concepts. Not all preliminary concepts were retained; concepts were excluded when hosts regarded them as implausible, insufficiently meaningful or misaligned with the intended hospitality experience of the home.

Phase 2 examined how host-intended smart hospitality concepts might be interpreted from a guest perspective.

The 73 refined concepts were compiled and assigned unique codes (e.g. “P2-3”). To support consistent reflection, we introduced Benford et al.'s (2009) sensitizing framework of space, time, role and interface. Each evaluator received an evaluation sheet and attended a workshop introducing the task and criteria.

Over the following week, participants independently evaluated all concepts from a guest-side perspective, identifying perceived strengths, possible drawbacks and likely forms of reception. A subsequent workshop was then used to consolidate similar viewpoints and discuss differences in interpretation. This phase did not aim to validate implemented solutions or infer actual guest behavior, but to identify anticipated opportunities, tensions and concerns regarding privacy, autonomy, emotional tone, intrusiveness and the boundaries of hospitality (see Figure 3).

All interview transcripts, workshop notes, booklet annotations, host-generated sketches and evaluator comments were analyzed using thematic analysis (Braun et al., 2019). The analysis identified recurring patterns in host intentions, guest-side interpretations and the alignments or mismatches between them regarding smart technology in P2P accommodation.

We developed an initial codebook from Phase 1 materials and iteratively refined it across both phases so that host materials and guest-side responses could be compared within a common analytic structure. Coding was primarily inductive, while authenticity-related experiences, privacy, autonomy and hospitality guided theme interpretation; Benford et al.'s (2009) framework served only as a sensitizing structure for Phase 2 reflection.

Two members of the research team coded the materials independently and compared coding decisions, resolving disagreements through discussion until they reached a shared interpretation. Annotations were first organized into sub-themes, and low-frequency sub-themes were not removed automatically. The team made decisions about merging such sub-themes through discussion rather than frequency thresholds alone. Sub-themes were merged only when they substantially overlapped conceptually with a more prominent theme and did not provide a sufficiently distinct analytical contribution. This procedure helped maintain both analytic clarity and fidelity to the data.

Trustworthiness was strengthened through several strategies: prolonged engagement with hosts across multiple stages of the study; the use of multiple material types, including interviews, workshop notes, annotations and sketches; cross-phase comparison between host intentions and guest-side interpretations; and iterative team discussion during coding and theme refinement. All photographs, sketches and contextual materials were stored under anonymized host codes on the university’s secure server and used only for research analysis and concept development.

This section analyzes the opportunities and challenges associated with smart technology in P2P accommodation. Its effects depend on whether host-intended hospitality is interpreted as supportive, excessive or intrusive.

Smart technology may support authenticity-related experiences when it serves as a subtle, nonintrusive medium for conveying welcome and hospitality, especially when direct interaction is limited. Host A3 noted that smart technology can be an alternative for hosts who cannot greet guests in person, allowing them to express goodwill from the outset: “Sometimes I can’t be there to welcome guests, so this (P3-3, the robot vacuum welcomes guests) really helps make them feel welcome… It’s interesting to use ordinary household items in a way that welcomes guests.” A1 also saw value in smart technologies that support nonverbal exchange around shared tastes and guest feedback. From the guest side, subtle cues were valued when they clarified what the host had prepared without requiring direct explanation. Guest G3 pointed out: “This technology can provide small hints, letting me know what items the host has prepared for me.” G5 also suggested that such systems can make the house feel quietly present and expressive. These examples suggest that smart technology supports hospitality when it acts as a light-touch mediator of host presence rather than replacing interpersonal warmth.

Smart technology can support personalized and immersive experiences when it is optional rather than compulsory and communicates host personality, supports exploration or enriches atmosphere. Host A7 discussed how smart technology can bring household items to life through smart lighting or screens, making otherwise “boring” items more engaging. A2 similarly described lighting and music concepts as “icing on the cake” rather than a core requirement of the stay.

Guests expressed a desire for “more customizability for those with specific preferences” (G4, P7-4), including gesture-controlled interfaces such as “turn body left to change color/brightness.” Beyond personal preferences, these smart technologies can enhance the overall ambience (G3), making the space more engaging and interactive. They provide a “Handy way to get accustomed to local area” (G1, P6-14), transforming everyday elements into interactive touchpoints. Personalization was most positively received when it reinforced agency, atmosphere or local exploration without becoming a required mode of participation.

Smart technology may support hospitality when they recede into the background while still enriching atmosphere and experiential tone. Host A7 focused on the elegance and subtlety of technological aesthetics: “Through AR glasses, technology recedes into the background, deepening the accommodation experience without disrupting its aesthetic.”

Similarly, guest G4 praised “elegantly hidden and automated” technological designs, and G3 described the idea of projecting a starry sky of the host’s hobbies onto the ceiling as “beautiful, natural, adds an element of fun” (G3, P7-5). This integration avoids the obtrusiveness while elevating the environment’s ambience. Furthermore, smart functions can bring delight, such as an interactive music sofa that sparks joy for children (G2, P5-3), and provide content relevant to guest needs, such as guided kitchen screens for making local food: “These recipes are exactly what guests need” (G5, P7-8). This indicates that the value of smart technology may lie less in conspicuous functionality than in its ability to remain aesthetically and experientially legible without dominating the environment.

A key advantage of smart technology lies in encouraging exploration without undermining guest autonomy or creating a sense of intrusion. As host A1 emphasized, “Interested guests can use it if they like, while others can just leave it out, which is nice.” This nonintrusiveness makes the smart technology “not intrusive to guests but easy to perceive,” ensuring guests have the freedom to “choose to use it or not.”

This design philosophy fosters a “Fun way to interact” creating an “inviting atmosphere” that encourages guests to discover easily overlooked details. By generating surprise and mystery (G3 and G4, P5-10), smart technology can make initial exploration feel anticipatory (G1, P5-1) and offer a novel way to learn about “local history and events” (G1, P6-3). Host A1 also pointed out that such smart technology should not be a mandatory information dump but rather a “guide” that stimulates guest curiosity. Simple interactions that require “not much action needed on the guest’s part, and are new every day, can be fun” (G1, P7-6) may enhance guest engagement by turning passive information reception into active discovery. Smart hospitality was most positively received when it supported exploration through invitation rather than obligation.

Smart technology can foster social connection and memory creation, but only when connection is experienced as optional, indirect or asynchronous rather than socially demanding. Hosts suggested that guests may seek connection not only with the host, but also with the property, local community and previous visitors. A1, for example, valued concepts that let guests leave something behind for future hosts or guests.

Smart technology may support this “higher-level connection.” For example, “Cartoon characters enhance friendliness; physical forms make people feel familiar” (G5, P1-8) creating a more welcoming environment. Smart technology can serve as “a great interactive way, can reference others’ opinions” (G5, P4-8), thereby establishing a sense of community. More importantly, it can connect guests with the house and its furnishings, fostering a “sense of belonging,” as if “the room comes to life” (G5, P3-1). They also appreciated concepts that supported the creation and sharing of memories across time. These examples suggest that smart technology can support interpersonal authenticity-related experience when they enable connection without imposing immediacy, obligation or social pressure.

For both guests and hosts, these challenges mark the point at which smart interventions cease to feel supportive and begin to violate domestic, emotional or relational boundaries.

The most prominent challenge concerns privacy, security and the risk that smart devices may be interpreted as surveillance rather than hospitality. Participants repeatedly expressed discomfort with this possibility. Guest G5 noted on concept P1-7: “Guests may feel uncomfortable, thinking the host is monitoring them.” This extends to a lack of trust in recommendations (G2, P2-6): “Why should I trust its recommendation?” The privacy of the wider community is a concern. The idea of live-streaming surrounding views via cameras to the Airbnb interior was deemed “a bit invasive to display live feeds of public areas in the surroundings, there may be people outside who do not want to be filmed” (G1, P4-5), and cameras were seen by guest G6 as “a little intrusive,” potentially filming individuals who do not wish to be on camera.

Hosts also shared these concerns. Host A1 noted that smart devices, such as an alarm clock (P1-2), could interfere with a guest’s routines: “I had to call in the morning and call at night, telling them to be careful with the alarm clock, you should Google how to turn it off.” He worried that his settings might cause trouble for guests and thus favored smart technology that gives them a choice. Host A3 similarly noted that while smart technology can bring convenience, if used improperly, it might make guests feel monitored, undermining the core Airbnb experience – the feeling of “home.” He specifically noted that smart devices like smart locks, while convenient, require clear communication about their purpose and privacy protections to build trust. Once smart technology is associated with monitoring rather than welcome, it begins to undermine trust and domestic ease.

Smart technology may reduce guests’ sense of autonomy when it shifts from offering support to directing attention, information flow or behavior. For example, concept P1-4, which automatically played local life tips on the TV based on time and season, was seen by guest G2 as “a bit passive. People cannot choose what they do and don’t want to know,” leading to a feeling of being overwhelmed or losing control over information flow. Guest G2 pointed out that constantly receiving new information might work for some people, but “others might prefer not constantly getting new information everywhere,” indicating limited control over the information stream. Host A2 echoed this sentiment, arguing that smart technology should not deprive guests of their autonomy but should instead provide more choices. She gave the example of offering a smart remote control in the room, allowing guests to adjust lights and music more freely than a preset automated system. The perceived value of smart technology therefore depends on whether guests retain meaningful control over how and when they engage with it.

When technological interaction becomes overly persistent, expressive or attentive, it may produce alienation rather than hospitality. Participants noted that a sculpture greeting them at the door serves as a constant reminder that “you are a guest” (G2, P1-8) or makes them feel like “I personally would feel like I’m a stranger intruding in another person’s house” (G4, P1-7). Systems that are too talkative may, “after a while, become annoying” or “feel like the home is a shop” (G5, P1-3), preventing the home from feeling like a personal sanctuary. Such systems “might be information overwhelming” (G3, P6-12), which can undermine the desired relaxing atmosphere. Host A5 believes that technological interaction should be like an “elegant butler,” appearing when needed and remaining silent otherwise, rather than a “chattering salesperson.” Smart hospitality may therefore fail through excessive social or symbolic presence, even without technical malfunction.

Smart technology must also be designed with sensitivity to guests’ emotional thresholds, since unexpected or overly animated functions may provoke discomfort or unease. Such functions “could be frightening for the guests” (G4, P5-10) or even “Guests may be startled” (G5, P6-5). For example, in design concept P1-7 that shows a host’s daily photos in a frame at different times, guest G3 commented: “It’s ok to leave some traces like shadow or hints of how the host lived the life here in this small space on the wall, without being too creepy or scaring.” This indicates a delicate balance between technological disclosure and a guest’s threshold for acceptance, highlighting the importance of subtle integration. Host A7 also mentioned that some seemingly interesting smart devices, such as an automated rising plate (P7-2), if poorly designed, might confuse or even startle guests, adding to their cognitive burden and disrupting the accommodation experience. Even well-intended features may weaken authenticity-related experiences if they are perceived as uncanny, startling or cognitively burdensome.

Smart technology may also conflict with guests’ activities, routines and preferences, revealing the limits of one-size-fits-all automation. For example, a smart speaker automatically playing music when a guest opens the coffee machine in the morning could clash with music they are already playing (G2, P2-1): “What if there’s already music playing? Or they are listening to something on headphones?” Furthermore, the lack of intuitive controls for device continuity, such as “how to close them after looking or getting some snacks?” (G3, P6-5), can create friction. Host A6 underscored this point, stating, “We don’t want light to interfere with our sleep,” but an automatically activated lighting system could disrupt that tranquility. Moreover, balancing diverse guest preferences (G5, P6-10) and ensuring personalized recommendations “is hard to fit people’s taste/guarantee freshness” (G4, P7-2) remains a significant challenge due to the wide variation in tastes. These examples show that interventions that appear helpful in principle may become disruptive when they clash with guests’ tastes, routines or desired level of engagement.

This study identifies the opportunities and challenges of smart technology in P2P accommodation by bringing together host intentions and guest-side interpretations. Overall, smart technology is best understood as a relational mediator whose effects depend on how hosts’ intentions are translated through technology and interpreted by guests. The findings therefore shift attention from the mere adoption of smart technology to the relational conditions where such technology is perceived as helpful, hospitable and nonintrusive.

This study contributes to smart hospitality research by advancing a host–guest alignment perspective on smart technology in P2P accommodation. First, it contributes to emerging discussions in smart tourism and smart hospitality research (Buhalis, 2020) by examining the dual role of smart technology in P2P contexts. Inspired by S-D logic, this study identifies opportunities for value co-creation and challenges of value co-destruction (Camilleri and Neuhofer, 2017). More specifically, our findings suggest that smart technology is most positively received when it functions as a subtle hospitality resource, for example by allowing absent hosts to convey warmth through ambient cues or thoughtful interactions without demanding excessive guest attention. By contrast, value co-destruction becomes more likely when devices are interpreted less as hospitality resources than as surveillance tools, intrusive interruptions or expressions of host control. In such cases, the domestic atmosphere may be compromised and trust between host and guest weakened (Park and Tussyadiah, 2020). In this sense, the study extends co-creation/co-destruction theory by showing that, in P2P accommodation, the key boundary is not smart technology use alone, but whether guests interpret technological mediation as supportive rather than intrusive.

Second, this study further clarifies authenticity-related experiences in smart P2P accommodation by foregrounding existential authenticity rather than object-based authenticity (Mody and Hanks, 2020; Wang, 1999). This refers to the guest’s ability to feel autonomous and truly “at home.” From an S-D Logic perspective, smart technology acts as an important resource for value co-creation, but its contribution depends on how it is integrated into the stay experience. Smart technology should provide seamless access and local support without being intrusive (Buhalis, 2020). This suggests that P2P accommodation design should not prioritize visible technological features alone, but also preserve the experiential conditions associated with feeling at home, local embeddedness and ease. When smart technology integrates smoothly into the environment, guests can experience a sense of belonging rather than feeling forced to engage with complex devices. Authenticity-related experiences in smart accommodation are therefore shaped not only by local elements or host interaction, but also by the visibility, tone and perceived intrusiveness of technological mediation.

Third, this study shifts the focus from user adoption to host–guest expectation alignment. Previous research often examines hosts and guests separately or prioritizes adoption outcomes over relational fit, overlooking how hosts and guests may interpret the same technology differently (Wang and Li, 2021). Our findings demonstrate that smart technology integration in P2P accommodation requires balancing conflicting needs. Smart devices that increase operational efficiency for hosts may simultaneously reduce guests’ sense of control or comfort. The central challenge is therefore not technical functionality alone, but relational alignment between host control and guest privacy, autonomy and comfort. More broadly, the key theoretical issue lies in the interpretive fit between hosts’ hospitality intentions and guests’ reception of technological mediation, since smart technologies become viable only when these meanings fall within guests’ expectations, comfort thresholds and desired levels of connection (Zhou et al., 2025).

These findings highlight the importance of host–guest alignment in smart P2P accommodation, where authenticity-related experiences are supported only when technological mediation remains legible, non-overreaching and compatible with guests’ desired levels of control and connection. Figure 4 summarizes this perspective by showing how smart technology mediates host hospitality intentions and how guests interpret them under different experiential boundaries, leading to either supportive or disruptive authenticity-related outcomes.

The practical implications follow from the host–guest alignment perspective: smart technology is most effective when it fits host intentions as well as the heterogeneous expectations and boundaries of guests in P2P accommodation (Farmaki et al., 2025).

First, drawing on the concept of ambient intelligence, practitioners should integrate smart technology as a seamless presence rather than a collection of separate devices. As Buhalis (2020) envisioned, the ideal smart environment is one that senses context and facilitates value creation without requiring constant user attention. For designers and hosts, this implies integrating interfaces into familiar objects or spaces so that technology operates as a supportive layer rather than a focal point. In this way, smart technology can act as a “subtle hint” or “non-disturbing reminder, improving orientation and information delivery without drawing undue attention. Yet subtlety must be carefully balanced with perceptibility to ensure that key moments, such as welcoming guests or prompting interaction, remain intuitive and accessible. Striking this balance allows smart technology to foster a warm atmosphere and encourage exploration, while preventing information overload or interference with ongoing activities. The practical goal is therefore not maximum visibility, but an appropriate degree of presence.

Second, smart technology should support social and emotional connection as an optional, asynchronous layer rather than as default interaction. Even in a high-tech environment, the appeal of P2P accommodation remains rooted in social and emotional connections rather than technical novelty. Hosts should use smart technology for storytelling and asynchronous communication to foster a sense of human connection. By focusing on elements that are “beautiful,” “natural” and “fun” smart technology can enhance joy and contribute to memorable experiences (Li et al., 2023). For instance, by allowing guests to leave their own memories or view those of others, smart technology can build a narrative for the space, making the house feel “alive” and enhancing the guests’ sense of belonging. At the same time, such emotionally oriented design should remain optional and appropriately bounded.

Third, practitioners should be aware of the risk of value co-destruction, particularly regarding privacy and autonomy. Design should therefore prioritize transparency by clearly communicating what information is collected, who can access it and for what purpose (Han et al., 2025; Tiwari et al., 2024). Features like real-time monitoring in public areas should be strictly limited. Building trust requires giving guests control over their privacy settings, such as physical indicators showing when devices are off or temporary guest-level permissions over selected functions. In addition, guests should be able to activate, disable or limit selected smart functions, making autonomy and choice a concrete design requirement rather than a general principle. Since guests differ in their preferred level of engagement, key functions should be easy to activate, deactivate or override. Such flexibility is especially important in P2P accommodation, although many consumer IoT systems still lack sufficiently granular multiuser permissions or simple temporary access modes.

Finally, introducing smart technology into P2P spaces requires early alignment with the expectations and boundaries of different users. Involving hosts and guest-side perspectives early can help identify friction points regarding privacy, usability and authority over who can control or override smart functions during the stay. This may include pre-arrival preference settings, a short digital orientation or prototype testing with Airbnb-experienced guests before implementation.

This study has several limitations.

First, the speculative design approach focuses on exploring future possibilities rather than evaluating current realities. Consequently, the findings should be interpreted as potential value tensions and design directions rather than empirically validated behavioral patterns.

Second, for ethical reasons, we did not contact the hosts’ actual past guests. Instead, we involved designers in the codesign process. While this facilitated critical engagement with speculative concepts, designers’ professional training may orient their evaluation toward interaction details and usability rather than typical guest concerns.

In addition, individual differences (e.g. innovativeness and technology readiness) can also shape how service technologies are perceived (Hailey Shin et al., 2021). Their role in this study should therefore be understood as providing informed, guest-oriented interpretations of speculative concepts rather than representing the full population of Airbnb users.

Third, the study relies on a small, localized sample. Perceptions of privacy and hospitality are often culturally dependent, so the findings may not be fully transferable to other cultural contexts or broader demographic groups.

Future research could address these limitations by complementing this qualitative and speculative approach with large-scale quantitative surveys to test the design considerations suggested here. Cross-cultural studies are particularly encouraged (Chan, 2025), as they would help verify the boundaries of our findings across diverse hospitality contexts. Future work could also examine how actual Airbnb guests respond to selected smart accommodation concepts in more naturalistic or prototype-based settings.

The authors would like to thank the Airbnb hosts and designers who participated in this research, as well as the colleagues who offered valuable advice. The authors are especially grateful to Berry Eggen and Yaliang Chuang, for their dedicated guidance and support throughout this research.