Advertisement

Think Mobility Over: A Survey on Car2go Users in Milan

  • Davide Arcidiacono
  • Ivana Pais
Chapter
Part of the Research for Development book series (REDE)

Abstract

In a moment when city rethinks mobility and users redefine urban transport practices, car sharing takes on a strategic function. However, the ability to develop a shared mobility encounters different resistances—cultural, social and economic—that need to be considered for a truly effective service design. The chapter analyzes the case study of the car2go car-sharing service in Milan based on data collected from a representative sample of users (N = 3758). The analysis shows that the most frequent users are young (under 35), employed, male, with higher education, residents in the city and with limited mobility needs related to the family. They are attracted by the flexibility and convenience of the service, in terms of access to limited traffic areas or free parking. The affordability of the service sets car sharing as a potential replacement of car ownership. Moreover, the price is the factor that most affect the level of overall satisfaction of the users. This doesn’t mean costumers asking for a lower price, rather eliminating price-burdens and, at the same time, elaborate more transparent pricing policy. The inter-modality is the most important challenge for the service configuration, with the coverage of areas and times when the public service is most lacking and the provision of integrated subscriptions.

References

  1. Ademe. (2015). Etude nationale sur le covoiturage de courte distance, enquêtes auprès des utilisateurs des aires de covoiturage. Retrieved May 28, 2017, from http://www.ademe.fr/etude-nationale-covoiturage-courte-distance.
  2. Arcidiacono, D. (forthcoming). Innovare la mobilità urbana attraverso la condivisione. In Lodigiani, R. (ed.). Rapporto Ambrosianeum. La città dell’innovazione. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  3. Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: the case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 881–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, E. (1999). Le nouvel esprit du capitalism. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  5. Cervero, R. (2003). City CarShare: First-year travel demand impacts. Transportation Research, 1839, 159–166.Google Scholar
  6. Daconto, L. (2017). Mobilità quotidiana e inclusione nel lavoro: sfida dell’accessibilità e politiche urbane. In Bidussa, D., Polizzi, E. (eds.), Agenda Milano: Ricerche e pratiche per una città inclusive. Milano: Fondazione Feltrinelli.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, B., Dutzik, T. (2012). Transportation and the new generation: Why young people are driving less and what it means for transportation policy. Retrieved May 28, 2017, from http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Transportation_theNewGenerationvUS_0.pdf.
  8. Eurobarometer (2013). Attitudes of europeans towards urban mobility. Retrieved May 28, 2017, from http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_406_en.pdf.
  9. Fainstein, S. (2001). Competitiveness, cohesion and governance: their implications for social justice. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25, 884–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frenken, K. (2013). Towards a prospective transition framework. A co-evolutionary model of sociotechnical transitions and an application to car sharing in The Netherlands. Retrieved May 28, 2017, from  https://www.uu.nl/en/file/21519/download?token=Lk6VTAOC.
  11. Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8), 1257–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Handke, V., & Jonuschat, H. (2013). Flexible ridesharing. new opportunities and service concepts for sustainable mobility. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Jankal, R. (2003). Tr*m—The customer retention system. Journal of Information, Control and Management Systems, 1, 39–46.Google Scholar
  14. Le Galès, P. (2002). European cities: social conflicts and governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Martin, E., Shaheen, S., Lidicker, J. (2010), Car sharing’s impact on household vehicle holdings: results from the North American shared use vehicle survey, Institute for transportation Studies, working paper. Retrieved May 28, 2017, from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0850h6r5.
  16. Martin, E., Shaheen, S. (2010), Greenhouse gas impacts of car sharing in North America. Retrieved May 28, 2017, from http://transweb.sjsu.edu/MTIportal/research/publications/documents/CarsharingandCo2(6.23.2010).pdf.
  17. Nesta (2015), Making sense of the collaborative economy in UK-final report. London.Google Scholar
  18. Onsm (2016), I Rapporto La Sharing Mobility in Italia: numeri, fatti e potenzialità. Retrieved May 28, 2017, from http://osservatoriosharingmobility.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Rapporto-Nazionale-SM_DEF_23_11_2016.pdf.
  19. Owyang, J., Samuel, A. (2015), The new rules of collaborative economy. Crowd Companies Report, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, A., & Berry, L. (1985). A conceptual model of service, quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rydén, C., Morin, E. (2005). Environmental assessment, Report WP 6. Retrieved May 28, 2017, from http://www.communauto.com/images/Moses_environnement.pdf.
  22. Shaheen, S., Cohen, A. (2008). Worldwide carsharing growth: An international comparison, Institute for transportation Studies, working paper, Retrieved May 28, 2017, from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1139r2m5.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento Di SociologiaUniversità Cattolica Del Sacro CuoreMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations