Sustainable sharing in local communities: exploring the role of social capital

Figures & data

Table 1. Municipality profiles.

	Population	Area (m^2)	Density^a	Centrality^b
Drammen	102,273	318	335	916
Follo	61,032	203	301	929
Tromsø	76,974	2525	31	804
Lillestrøm	89,095	457	217	938

^a People per m².

^b National index composed of two sub-scores: access to jobs and service functions within a 90-minute drive. Source: Statistics Norway. https://www.ssb.no/en.

Table 2. Age, household income (NOK) and gender (sample) – percentages.

	Drammen (n = 389)	Follo (n = 287)	Lillestrøm (n = 265)	Tromsø (n = 372)	Total (N = 1,313)
Age***
<30	6	5	6	11	7
30–44	14	10	15	21	15
45–59	27	28	29	34	29
60<	53	57	50	34	48
	100	100	100	100	100
Household income**
<400,000	11	8	9	13	10
400,000–799,999	39	27	30	32	33
800,000–1,199,999	32	34	33	35	33
>1,200,000	18	31	29	20	24
	100	100	100	100	100
Gender
Male	51	56	51	47	51
Female	49	44	49	53	49
	100	100	100	100	100

** Chi Square <0.05; *** Chi Square <0.01.

Table 3. Variables indicating sharing activities.

Type of sharing	Min	Max	Mean	St. d.	Scale (M)	Cronb. alpha
Activities coordinated on digital platforms
Rented house through P2P applications (e.g. Airbnb)	1	5	1.21	0.638
Lent/lent out car through P2P applications	1	5	1.07	0.399
Lent/lent out items through P2P applications	1	5	1.15	0.413	1.1	0.669
Organised activities in the local community
Bought or given away used clothes through re-use arrangements	1	5	3.22	1.166
Bought or given away items on flea markets	1	5	2.45	1.21	2.8	0.666
Sharing time in community
Participated in voluntary work in the community	1	5	2.67	1.165	2.8	0.72
Conducted work for others without payment	1	5	2.92	1.105
Activities among friends, family and neighbours
Borrowed/lent out or given away food	1	5	1.85	0.991
Borrowed/lent out trailer or vehicles	1	5	1.89	1.144
Borrowed/lent out smaller tools or items	1	5	2.25	1.122	2	0.674

Table 4. Social capital indicators and motives for sharing – mean values.

	Social capital				Motives
	Bonding**	Bridging**	Trust**	Reciprocity	Economy	Social	Environment**
Drammen (n = 393)	3.7	2.6	3.3	3.4	3.0	3.2	4.0
Follo (n = 287)	4.2	2.7	3.5	3.6	3.0	3.3	4.2
Lillestrøm (n = 265)	3.7	2.6	3.2	3.4	3.2	3.4	4.1
Tromsø (n = 372)	4.0	2.6	3.5	3.5	3.1	3.3	4.3
Total (N = 1313)	3.9	2.6	3.4	3.5	3.1	3.3	4.1

Sig. *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.

Table 5. Linear regression with sharing forms as dependent variables.

	P2P	Organised	Time	Informal
Social capital
Bonding	0.002	0.063*	0.087**	0.065*
Bridging	0.103**	0.109***	0.23***	0.155***
Trust	−0.05	0.034	0.066*	0.079*
Reciprocity	−0.015	0.056	0.068*	0.037
Motives
Economic	0.045	0.074*	−0.001	0.01
Social	0.074*	0.059	0.061	0.055
Environment	−0.043	0.086**	0.093**	0.087**
Community
Drammen	0.012	0.031	0.004	0.034
Follo	−0.011	0.071*	−0.053	−0.051
Lillestrøm	−0.066	0.071*	−0.045	−0.036
Demography
Age	−0.225***	0.131***	0.074*	−0.042
Income	−0.04	0.065*	0.036	0.074*
Gender	−0.034	0.206***	−0.042	−0.013
F-Value	6,658	13,439	13,439	7,808
Adjusted R^2	0.062	0.127	0.127	0.074
R^2	0.073	0.137	0.137	0.085

*** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05

^a Ref. = Tromsø

Figure 1. Boxplot of sharing forms and level of bridging social capital.

Table 6. Correlation between the forms of sharing.

	P2P	Organised	Time	Informal
P2P	1	0.115**	0.095**	0.205**
Organised	0.115**	1	0.371**	0.245**
Time	0.095**	0.371**	1	0.403**
Informal	0.205**	0.245**	0.403**	1

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).