Motivational Patterns and Personal Characteristics of Potential Carsharing Users: A Qualitative Analysis

Abstract

In the last decade, in Europe and the US, carsharing has become a mainstream transportation mode offering a sustainable solution to serious urban problems such as pollution, economic crisis, congestion, and parking. In Greece, carsharing is currently entering its commercial phase. Planners and providers strive to gain an insight into the factors influencing the use of carsharing to effectively implement carsharing systems (CSS). In this context, understanding the motives and usage conditions are considered necessary. Based on a qualitative analysis (semi-constructed interviews, n = 52), this paper identifies motivational patterns as well as personal characteristics of potential users that can be further explored through quantitative research methods. During the data analysis process, participants’ responses were classified into categories that revealed not only the factors that motivated them but also unveiled the challenges they face when utilizing carsharing schemes. These factors were the following: familiarity, comfort, mindset, everyday life, usability, and economy. Next, these factors were analyzed further based on the personal characteristics of the respondents preparing the ground for quantitative research in future research initiatives. Notably, the present findings could be beneficial to operators, policymakers, and stakeholders endeavoring to appraise shared mobility schemes in Greece and Mediterranean countries in general.

1. Introduction

During the last decade, sharing economy has become a mainstream option [1,2]. Sharing economy, for example, carsharing, bike sharing, property sharing, device sharing, tools sharing, etc., are currently highly favored. Considering carsharing, it should be noted that it has gained significant ground in the transportation market. There are numerous operators of carsharing in Europe, America, and Asia. Recently, many automakers started participating in carsharing programs. Their success contributes to reducing serious urban challenges such as pollution, economic crisis, congestion, and parking [3].

Carsharing systems lead to a decline in car ownership, when they are efficient and user friendly [4,5]. Each shared vehicle might replace four to eight private cars. On the other hand, carsharing could be also beneficial for people that do not own a private vehicle like students or low-income households [6]. Through this way, some people could be served occasionally by carsharing (especially for routes where other modes provide inadequate service), without being forced to buy a car that will bring about negative externalities (e.g., consumption of public space, environmental degradation, etc.).

Furthermore, carsharing induces a reduction in vehicle-kilometers traveled, thus leading to lower gas emissions [7,8]. There are multiple benefits for carsharing users since carsharing services exempt users from vehicle ownership and maintenance costs [9], cover the need to use a vehicle (when it occurs) [10], and strengthen the environmental consciousness of users and their sense of responsibility towards the community [11]. As for the benefits to society, carsharing contributes to enhancing the use of public transportation, to improving the mobility of disadvantaged people (which also strengthens social equality), and to protecting the environment through the reduction in energy consumption and emissions [12]. It is clearly demonstrated that carsharing services could function as one key tool for promoting sustainable mobility and bringing about positive impacts, especially in urban or rural areas where private car usage prevails [13]. Nevertheless, carsharing may also nurture a rise in automobility culture against sustainable modes [14]. To this end, the factors influencing (support or hinder) carsharing usage should be thoroughly understood; thus, paving the way for successful policy measures that appraise carsharing as a supplementary tool for sustainable mobility.

In this context, this article aims to explore the view of the public (i.e., potential user perspective) in terms of carsharing and to identify those parameters that play an important role in the intention of selecting it as a transportation mode. Special emphasis is given to spatial parameters. The main research hypothesis is the following: the choice of carsharing services is influenced by personal characteristics, spatial attributes of the users’ activities, and emotional/utilitarian factors. A qualitative approach to this subject was considered necessary, in order to gain in-depth knowledge of the factors that motivate or prevent carsharing use, going beyond existing quantitative studies. Tellingly, qualitative methods are capable of capturing participants’ nuanced perspectives and experiences, thus, providing a deeper understanding of the influential factors [15].

This qualitative approach that entails in-depth semi-structured interviews was carried out in Greece since it is a new ground for the adoption of carsharing. While there have been numerous studies in the last two decades addressing the motives and challenges related to carsharing (see Section 2), however, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there has not been an in-depth qualitative study conducted in Greece. Apart from being a newcomer in carsharing, Greece is a challenging case for exploring influential factors, as it presents urban environments favorable for establishing carsharing systems (limited parking provision, inadequate public transportation, etc.), while car ownership is highly appraised to be a status symbol. To this end, exploring this topic in a challenging newcomer country will significantly contribute to understanding the motives and challenges of the public referring to carsharing use. For instance, is car ownership a deterrent for carsharing or does the place of residence affect the probability of using a shared car. The results of this research could be used by local authorities, planners, and carsharing operators to deploy successful carsharing systems or improve those already established. Interestingly, these insights might be useful in other similar contexts like other Mediterranean countries that present common characteristics and culture.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: The second section presents the theoretical background, demonstrating some similar previous works. The third section contains the research method and basic assumptions made. The fourth section illustrates the results of the in-depth interviews. Next, the fifth section discusses the outcomes of this study. Finally, the sixth section draws conclusion, thus underlining key insights for the future.

2. Literature Review

In the existing literature, much attention is paid to highlighting aspects of the carsharing system, to identifying carsharing users, and to quantifying their characteristics and choices, mainly through the lens of a quantitative perspective. Carsharing was found to be particularly influenced by age, marital status, and car ownership [16]. Curtale et al. [17] applied a structural equation modeling to a survey with 656 respondents in the Netherlands, demonstrating that the user acceptance of electric carsharing is affected by social influence, performance expectancy, and personal attitude. Through a large study in 177 cities from Western European Countries, Münzel et al. [18] found that education level and lifestyle play a significant role in adopting carsharing services. Wang et al. [19] studied individuals’ acceptance of free-floating electric carsharing in China through a web-based survey with 826 participants. They concluded that intention to use carsharing is affected by familiarity, distance of the trip, and income level. Another research by Ullah et al. [20] explored travelers’ acceptance of carsharing through a stated preference survey with 453 respondents in Peshawar, Pakistan, and found that both demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, and income, and service attributes, like travel time and cost, play an important role. In the same direction, Safdar et al. [21] carried out a stated preference survey with 242 respondents in Lahore, Pakistan, to reveal that generic attributes like cost, waiting time, and sociodemographic attributes, like income, age, and education level, were found to be significant for adopting carsharing.

Chun et al. [22] underlined that lifestyle and income level has the most influential impact on intention to use carsharing. The survey of Hu et al. [23] revealed that carsharing services in Bei**g, China, are influenced by age, gender, time, distance of the trip, and cost. Zhou and Kockelman [24] carried out a survey with 403 participants to explore travelers’ preferences and estimate latent demand for Austin Carsharing (ACS) in Austin, Texas, USA. They demonstrated that car ownership, income level, and educational status quo have major influence in adopting carsharing services. Furthermore, according to Acheampong and Siiba [25], who used structural equation modelling, highly influential factors are lifestyle, familiarity, gender, education, usability, and public transport provision. Finally, Ohta et al. [26] conducted a web survey with 1095 respondents to examine the acceptance rate of carsharing and eco-cars in Japan. This survey illustrated that the most influential factors are car ownership, familiarity, centrality, age, gender, and trip period.

Despite the previous research works, a few studies use qualitative research methods, either because they want to collect high-quality and in-depth data [27], or as a basis to building correct questionnaires. A notable work was conducted by Jain et al. [28]. The authors employed a qualitative study utilizing focus groups and semi-structured interviews in Melbourne, Australia. This study displayed that while cost, convenience, and environmental concerns are major motivators, other factors like the feeling of sharing with the community and reducing costs related to car ownership also play a critical role. Another interesting example is the study carried out by **. Also, they would use it if finding parking is difficult at their destination or if their destination is poorly served by public transportation or if their destination is considered unsafe (criminality or fear of crime). This parameter strongly indicates that using sharing economy is related not only to ownership status but also to geography.

Place of residence/work/study: Choosing carsharing depends on the destination as mentioned above. In particular, public’s intention to use carsharing is greater when the area visited is considered problematic due to unavailability of parking, lack of public transportation services, or crime rate, e.g., P7 (Female, 35–44 years) “…I go for shop** in Halandri after work, I take the metro and then walk, cause I go to work by train, I do not use my motorcycle, …but afterwards, yes, I would get a car, especially if I could make a reservation before and I find it parked somewhere there cause I carry heavy bags…” (sic) and P25 (Male, 35–44) “… if I went somewhere and if I knew I would drink or a friend could give me a lift back home, I would definitely use it so that I do not have to worry about what to do with the car, how I will return it…” (sic). During the interviews, particular focus was given to the “place” parameter, since research works examining the link between geographic location and the use of carsharing schemes are still limited in the international literature [31].

4.2. Place of Activities

Living in the suburbs or in the center of a city was preliminary but thought to be a key determinant for using carsharing services; however, it was not defined in any case as a key factor. The interviewees frequently provided contradictory responses related to this parameter. Nevertheless, despite the contradiction, it is considered that further exploration through quantitative research is critical since it is likely to be related with the “distance decay” parameter, which affects social computing platforms and volunteer geographic information platforms [53].

Serving the residential, work, or educational area by adequate public transportation was a reason for also using carsharing services. However, it did not appear to be a focal point in the decision-making process. P9 (Female, 25–34 years old) “I live in (…) there is a bus and it’s near the metro station… I do not have a car because I do not want to. Also, I do not need it because I work and go out in the center. I also can’t afford it and there is a lack of parking spaces… so I would have a subscription for a carsharing service to use whenever I need it”(sic) and P18 (Male, 35–44 years old) “… it is difficult use public transportation, you must drive first and then take either a train or a bus, so it’s preferable to go straight to your destination by car, that’s why I would use it, but I don’t know how often, but I would like to have this choice” (sic).

Parking provision: The level of availability of parking spaces, either around their residence or at various destinations, is a key factor in choosing carsharing. Many participants seem to appreciate this particular benefit of carsharing.

Dominant land uses: The dominant land uses in each area play an indirect role in choosing carsharing, since it is closely related to the purpose of each trip. For example, areas with recreational activities are likely to be accessed with carsharing: P6 (Male, 25–34 years old) …if I intended to visit Gazi (in central Athens) with friends, I would prefer to use carsharing services rather than use my own car as I would be afraid that drunk people would crash it…also because I would like to drink so I would travel by taxi, carsharing or both” (sic).

Crime rate: This parameter was particularly noticeable in interviewees familiar with carsharing economy or in those that were interested in it. The crime rate of an area is a determining factor for someone to use carsharing services. This term refers to crime incidents (of various seriousness) taking place in an area. P6 (Male, 25–34): “I would use it to go to places that I would not like to take my own car… if I was afraid that drunk people would damage or break my own car…” (sic). P15 (55–64 Male) “… if I had to go to an area that I knew it has high crime rate, I would probably not take my own car because I would be afraid of parking it there, but I would prefer a shared car…” (sic).

4.3. Emotional/Utilitarian Factors

Convenience: An important factor influencing the adoption of carsharing schemes is to enhance comfort and relaxation. The factor, according to the participants, reflects the opportunity to relieve them of their responsibilities, to reduce the stress of everyday life, to help them create more free time, and to assist them in saving money.

Usability (usefulness, functionality): Another criterion for the use of carsharing is how useful a service is, meaning the easiness of use and its functionality: more specifically, if it is easy to make a booking, if there are always cars available, if the platform is understandable, etc. This parameter also includes the factor of whether the interviewees need carsharing. P2 (Female, 35–44 years old): “I have a driving license and I do not have a car…so It would be of great use to me to have such a service” (sic).

Savings (time, money): The concept of the “savings” did not appear directly from the participant’’ responses but mainly emerged from the questions they were asking the researcher about the economic cost aspect of using carsharing: “and is it cheaper than having your own car”, “how much does it cost, to be a member?”, and “ which of the car expenses do you pay” (sic). During the interviews, “savings” have often been linked to time. If the use of these services saved time, then the participants stated a clear preference for carsharing schemes.

Lifestyle: Daily routine has to do with everyday habits, obligations, and problems faced by everyone. In cases where it was reported that carsharing “matches/does not suit my lifestyle” (sic), the interviewees have clarified that lifestyle is understood as the obligations, the problems, the things they want to do, and the things they actually do. This parameter is both an emotional and utilitarian approach to carsharing, influencing the intention to adopt carsharing notably.

Familiarity: This parameter greatly influences the intention to use carsharing since participants who had either used carsharing or had feedback from relatives or friends were keener to use it: “My roommate in Berlin often rented one, cause we did not have a car…” (sic). However, familiarity in some cases did not have to do with personal experience, but simply whether they had seen carsharing abroad “carsharing existed when I was studying in London…” and “I have seen it in European cities, but I do not know how it works…there were special signs at the airport and in parking spaces… I have seen a lot of people entering shared cars, but I have never used them” (sic). P1 (Female, 35–44 years old) for P2 carsharing “In the UK, let’s say, I know there is a possibility of renting cars, but I do not think they are private. They belong to some offices…, they bring you a car, you go out in the evening and the next day you notify them where you left it. -If there was a possibility to do that with an individual…, yes, I would rent one” (sic). Hearing experiences from others or even just seeing shared cars passing by, helps people to understand that carsharing is a feasible option. Hence, people who are not familiar, begin to consider a possible participation in such services.

Mentality (way of thinking—mindset): The interviews highlighted the importance of participants’ personality when choosing between using carsharing or not. The way people think, their habits, and their values affect their decision. The “mentality” parameter emerged especially when carsharing was rejected without actual reason. In those cases, it was rejected because the interviewees did not accept the idea of borrowing something or because they considered that a car “should” only be used by its owner. Respectively, carsharing is accepted and is likely to be adopted by those who believe in borrowing/lending/renting or do not want to own a car, but simply use one: P2 (Female, 35–44):”—You have no hesitation in renting something for a short period of time or that you do not own that object? -No. It relieves me of the fact that I do not own it” (sic).