Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
INTRODUCTION
Car Sharing is an innovative and emerging concept that raises large interests from many
societal actors, like policy makers, entrepreneurs, consumer organisations and the
individual consumers. Car Sharing is basically a service that offers rental cars as an
alternative to the privately owned car. The service is aimed at providing access to and
utilisation of a car whenever necessary. The Car Sharing concept relies on a new
organisation structure for the car system. The car is no more the users' property, but it
is owned by an organisation, the fleet manager. This fleet manager provides all its
clients with a car, whenever they need one.
The focal interest in the concept can be explained by the rather inefficient use of the
privately owned car in western societies. Although cars in the Netherlands are
relatively frequently used, on the average, they are occupied only 72 minutes a day.
(CBS, 1992) The fact that many ears are not intensively used (despite their large fixed
costs) and the fact that these cars put a high pressure on (scarce) space, especially in
crowded cities, make the privately owned car a rather inefficient solution for the need
for individual mobility.
For the individual consumer the relevance of Car Sharing schemes can be found in
some relative advantages of this alternative to the private car: Sharing cars is far more
cheaper for those who do not frequently use their car. The consumer has to pay only for
the use of the car, whenever needed. And the service supplier takes care for (the costs
of) the repairs, maintenance, the insurance and the taxation.
The policy relevance is basically twofold. First, by means of Car Sharing the number of
cars for private purposes could be reduced significantly. Especially in crowded
innercities this means a positive contribution to the quality of living within cities and a
more efficient utilisation of scarce space. Secondly, Car Sharing is assumed to have a
positive effect on the mobility behaviour of its participants. Dutch (Meijkamp and
Douma, 1995) as well as other international, tentative studies (Muheim, 1992; Hauke,
1993; Petersen, 1993; Baum ea.., 1994), most of them small scale, suggest a reductional
effect on car use and on modal split towards relatively more public transport use.
However, until now it remains unclear how these effects can be explained, and what
variables influence the variations.
The present research aims, to examine the effects on mobility behaviour, and especially
on car use of those who already have adopted Car Sharing. Through a survey research
among participants of Car Sharing schemes in the Netherlands the behavioural effects
have been established. The present paper serves basically three goals. First, we will
explain the psychological antecedents of the adoption of the Car Sharing system by
testing a model that describes the adoption. Secondly we will present the reported
changes on mobility behaviour among the present participants in Car Sharing systems.
And thirdly, the effects on mobility behaviour of those participants will be discussed for
exploratory reasons by means of the self reported effects on mobility behaviour.
In general, the reported aggregate changes on mobility behaviour in the above
mentioned studies have been confirmed. Therefore possible" explanations for the
reported changes on mobility behaviour have been developed and investigated by
making an inventory on the perceptions of the participants regarding the effects of Car
Sharing on their own mobility behaviour.
309
In search for a plausible explanation for the changes on mobility behaviour one basic
assumption is guiding: If Car Sharing is used as an alternative to the private car, the
cognitive process involved in travel mode choices, is being influenced. Since, Car
Sharing requires planned car use, and prevents from spontaneous car usage, traveI
mode decisions are forced to be taken more deliberately. Habitual behaviour and
habitual car use, as a consequence is therefore less likely, instead, a deliberate choice
between the various travel modes is being stimulated.
The effects on mobility behaviour of the participants will however only occur if Car
Sharing has been adopted. People, who have build up a strong car habit, won't adopt
Car Sharing at all, due to the absence of making deliberate travel mode choices. Hence,
the effects might only be expected among people that didn't built up a strong car habit.
In the remainder of the introductional sections we will elaborate on the main issues
relevant for understanding the adoption of Car Sharing systems and their potential
effects. First the focus is on Car Sharing in the current practice. Next, we will discuss
some theoretical issues as to the way in which the adoption of Car Sharing may be
modelled, and the factors that may play an important role in this model. In the paper a
discussion regarding reasoned action versus habit formation will be set up. After that,
we present our conceptual model, and proceed with empirical data concerning a test of
the model, and the subsequent effects of Car Sharing on relevant mobility parameters.
Based on the findings in the empirical study, some implications of the analysis for
transport policy regarding Car Sharing will be discussed.
2.
CAR
SHARING IN PRACTICE
recent developments
Car Sharing has become an official instrument in transport policy in the Netherlands.
Both the development of supply of Car Sharing services and the adoption of Car
Sharing by the public is strongly supported by many recent transport policy initiatives
(Nora Milieu en Economie, 1997; Stichting voor Gedeeld Autogebruik, 1997; Sweers,
1996). Co-operation among the different suppliers is strongly encouraged and
facilitated by the government and the continuous communication of the innovative
concept to the market is realised by means of several national campaigns. Mid 1997, an
estimated 24.000 households have been registered as participant in one of the more
than 20 various schemes.
Car Sharing is an umbrella concept for a large variety of commercial schemes aimed at
providing consumer services for car access and regular car use. All schemes can be
characterised as a kind of (innovative) rental services. All these schemes, however,
have to a certain extent different characteristics. The way in which the service is
delivered, varies. The outlet (unmanned in the living area or centralised at a regular
rental office), the minimum rental period (one hour or one day), the reservation time
(no need or even 24 hours), the payment procedure and the availabihty of different
type of cars are the most important characteristics that makes the various schemes
distinct from each other. In the research here, the investigations are made on the
conceptual level.
The concept of Car Sharing has in any case at least two major consequences for
customers in their daily practice:
1.
Car use with the scheme requires planning and mostly reservation in advance.
Direct ear access is prohibited because the car is not available in front of the house.
This might facilitate to search for alternative travel modes, especially on the shorter
distances.
2.
The costs of car use are based on utilisation only, without separate fixed costs.
That makes that there is a regular feedback on the costs for car use, not on a perception
basis, but on real economic basis. The full-cost accounting and its feed-back may
therefore balance the cost benefit analysis between public transport and car use better
and stimulate more frequent public transport use.
3.
THEORY
311
In fact, Triandis hypothesised that as the same behaviour is more frequently executed
in the past and thus increases in habit strength, the behaviour is less guided by attitudes
and intentions toward performing that behaviour. Habit strength may thus moderate
the relationship between reasoned-based concepts (attitudes and intention) and
subsequent goal-directed behaviour (see also Ronis et al., 1989). Indeed, empirical tests
of Triandis model have shown that habit and attitudinal concepts interact in the
prediction of repeated behaviours (e.g. Aarts et al., 1997; Mittal, 1988; Montano &
Taplin, 1991).
HYPOTHESES
From the preceding discussion one central assumption may hold regarding the
explanation of the changes on mobility behaviour: If Car Sharing is used as an
alternative to the private car, the decision process involved in travel mode choices, is
being influenced. It can be assumed that a more deliberate travel mode choice is likely,
which results in a changed mobility behaviour.
For these effects to take place, it is a precondition that people have to have adopted
Car Sharing first. The adoption itself is likely to be affected by habits as well. That
means that in the adoption of Car Sharing already a filtering function with respect to
habitual decision making exists. People, who have build up a strong habit, won't adopt
Car Sharing at all, due to the absence of making deliberate travel mode choices. Hence,
it can reasonably be expected that effects on mobility behaviour only take place among
those people who do not have built up a strong car habit.
attitude and
intentiontowards
Car Sharing
adoption of
Car Sharing
I habit
strength
figure i.
It can be hypothesised from the forgoing theoretical framework that habit in travel
mode choices will negatively and significantly relate to the adoption (H1), that the
attitude and intention towards Car Sharing will be positively and significantly related to
the adoption (H2) and that a significant moderating effect of habit on the predictive
value of the intention on the adoption can be expected (H3).
These hypothesis will be tested for the (former) car owners only, for several reasons:
-Tentative foreign research suggests that for this group the effects of Car Sharing are
likely to be highest.
-For this group the change in direct car access is largest, since this group lacks suddenly
private car access. The expected effects on travel mode choices will therefore be larger.
-From a transport policy perspective the former car owners are most difficult to
influence in their car use, and therefore most interesting for research purposes.
5. i
RESEARCH METHOD
respondents
In the context of the national evaluation program on Car Sharing in the Netherlands,
co-ordinated and funded by the Dutch ministry of Transport ( A W ) a survey research
has been conducted (Meijkamp & Theunissen, 1997). This research was aimed at two
groups: (1) all participants of four Car Sharing schemes, as well as (2) people that
showed interest over the last year in these schemes by demanding more (specific)
information. Of four Car Sharing schemes all participants (847 households), at that
time (1996), were mailed with a response of 40% (337 questionnaires). Those who
showed once interest in one of the four schemes were mailed as well. The response rate
on 2445 questionnaires was 33% (809 questionnaires). The group of the interested is
selective and has a certain pro-adoption bias, in a sense that these people have
knowledge about what Car Sharing is; they are familiar with a specific scheme and they
showed initiative in getting more information.
EventuaUy we selected for the analysis 458 respondents, who all of them own a car, or
owned a car before participation in the scheme.
measures
adop6on Adoption was identified by the criteria whether people have signed the
contract or not.
inten6on towards adoption of Car Sharing The intention towards Car Sharing was
measured by asking whether they (the participants) were intended to extent their
contract next year, or whether they (the interested) were intended to become member
of the Car Sharing organisation the next year. The opinion was measured on a 5-point
scale, from very sure to certainly not.
313
attitude towards Car Sharing The attitude toward Car Sharing was measured by asking
the opinion about the statement "Car Sharing is for me a good alternative to a private
ear". Their opinion was measured by a 5-point scale ranging from agree to disagree.
habit strength Habit strength was measured by a two items scale. The statements to
which people gave their opinions (5-point scale, from agree to disagree) were: "I never
trade off between the car and public transport" and "I never trade off between the car
and the bicycle". Both items correlated .39 (Pearsons' r) and were therefor added into
one measure.
car use (in annual mileage) Both car use in the year before, as well as after participation
was measured by asking the respondents to estimate their mileage by private, rental,
borrowed and shared car per year.
frequency of use of various transport means The frequency of use of the various
transport means was measured by asking the respondents to estimate their weekly use,
just before participation and in the present situation. The frequency of use is measured
for cars, bicycles, intercity busses, trams and city transport and requested explicitly to
calculate a to-and-return trip as two trips. The frequency of car use in the past serves as
a measure for past behaviour.
Decisional involvement Decisional involvement, as a measure for the awareness in the
travel mode decision making could be established by applying an 8-item scale,
developed by Aarts (3_996).
6.
RESULTS
This research alms, in general, to examine the changes in mobility behaviour, and
especially on car use of those who have adopted Car Sharing. As argued, the effects of
those who substitute the private car for a shared car are particularly interesting. Since,
it can be expected that especially this group shows substantial changes in mobility
behaviour, due to an enhanced deliberate decision making process. In the assessment of
the psychological antecedents of the adoption process however, we will address the
former car owners as one single group; whether these people finally realised
substitution, will be left out, because conceptually it is not possible to differentiate to
this criterion for the interested.
a.
1
2
3
4
5
Adoption
(1= adoption, 2= non-adoption)
Intention
(1= positive, 5= negative)
Attitude
(1= positive, 5= negative)
Habit
(2= strong, 10= weak)
Past beh~viour
(frequency of car u s e / w e e k /
Table 1.
SD
458
1,7
0,4
452
2,7
1,3
44*"
447
2,4
1,3
33**
54"*
440
7,3
2,4
458
6,6
7,8
-24**
t3**
-13"*
27.'*
-17"*
28**
-15""
Descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics presented in table 1. show that, for our data
(1) non-adoption was over represented, (2) the intentions were moderate (M=2,7 on 15 scale), (3) the attitudes towards Car Sharing were moderate as well and varied widely
(M=2,4 with SD=1,3 on a 5-point scale), (4) the habit was relatively weak, and (5)
compared with the Dutch population the respondents the respondents showed a
moderate ear use, but the variance among the sample is considerable.
Intercon'elations. With respect to almost all correlations, we must conclude that the
values are rather low. Obviously, as one would expect, the highest correlations exist
between adoption and intention (r=. 44), between adoption and attitude (r= .33) and
between attitude and intention (r= .54). These three central concepts in reasoned action
theory suggest that dehberate decision making is an important factor in the explanation
of the adoption of Car Sharing.
314
tests of hypothesis
Table 1. shows the correlations between adoption and respectively attitude, intention
and habit. From these findings it can be concluded that hypothesis 1 is accepted, since,
though rather low, the correlation between adoption and habits is negative (r= -.24) and
significant (p= .000). This means in practice that the less individuals trade off
alternatives for the car in their travel mode decision making and thus behave more
habitually, the less they will be likely to adopt Car Sharing as an alternative to the
private ear.
Hypothesis 2 is accepted as well, because positive attitudes towards Car Sharing (with
an r of .33 and p= .000) and the behavioural intentions (with an r of .43 and p= .000) do
both correlate significantly with the adoption. That means that, despite the rather low
values, rational decision making regarding the adoption of Car Sharing is likely to be
true.
For the testing of the interaction effect (H3) a diseriminant analysis has been made with
the adoption as grouping or the dependent variable (table 2.). The discriminant analysis
was chosen because of the dichotomous nature of the dependent variable. Three
independent variables were stepwise (F to enter = 3,84, F to remove = 2,71) entered,
maximising the minimum Mahalanobis distance (D squared) between the two groups:
the intention (I), the habit measure (H) and the interaction variable (IxH). In the table
below the results of the analysis are shown.
Summary table
Predictor
step 1
step 2
step 3
Intention (I)
Habit (H)
Interaction (I x H)
Wi[ks'
Lambda
.8098
.7797
.7668
Sign.
Minimum
D squared
1,36
1,66
1,79
After
Fcn
Wilks'
ChiLambda square
df
Sign.
.766
.0000
.0000
.000O
.0O0O
Sign.
.0000
.000O
.O00O
Eigenvalue
% of
Var.
Cure.
%
Canonical
Corr.
.8041
100
100
.4829
114,8
Table 2.
315
Table 3.
attitude
.33"*
inteni~on
.44"*
N
440
.32"*
,28"*
.46"
.38"*
234
206
As can be seen in table 3., for both habit groups the correlations are still highly
significant (p< .01). However the difference is not very significant in a Fishers z-test, z=
.85. The intention-behaviour correlation is stronger among the weak habit group and
this is what could have been expected. In the weak habit group, the deliberate choice is
(a little) stronger than among those who have a stronger habit. The last group is less
guided by deliberate choices, but by habits. Thus when habits are strong 14% of the
variance is explained by the intention and when habits are weak by only 21%.
b.
bl.
In the context of this paper not the fact whether people owned a car or not before
participation, is held relevant, but the actual change in car ownership. Whether Car
Sharing functions as a substitute for the private car, or, is an addition to the already
available transport means and mobility services, is of major interest, since only in the
first case a possible habitual behaviour could be broken through. So, not only car
ownership before participation, but also during participation should be taken into
account when analysing the hypotheses. We therefore distinguish not only between
former carless people and former car owners, but also among former car owners
between "second car drivers" and "substituters".
The table 4. below lists the proportions of each group, and gives an overview of the
variations of the proportions among the four different schemes or subsamples. From
this table it can be concluded that Car Sharing at the moment prlmarily (71%)
functions as an addition to available transport services for the former carless, and that
9% uses it as a second car alternative.
car ownership during
participation
no private car
% respondents
new cardfivers
substitutere
car owner
no pnvate car
21%
9%
second oardrivers
table 4.
b2.
71%
The total car mileage can be calculated by adding the yearly estimated mileages by
private car, by rental car, by borrowed car and -in the after situation- by "Car Sharing"cars (shared cars). In the table 5. below, the results of what the respondents reported on
316
their own car use are listed, split up in changed car ownership. It is therefor not
surprising that although some people didn't own a car before, the (former) carless have
a considerable car mileage as we ll As a reference, the values for the interested people
are added.
participants
average
cartess
carowner
substauter
"sign. p<. 05
ear mileage
BEFORE
car mileage
AFTER
table 5.
second car
driver
8450
5360
13.380
5660 *
3820 *
4.730"
(-33%)
(-29%)
C langes in car mileage Ckm/year~
21.700
(-65%)
22.386
(+3%)
If the differences between the mileages before and after are being compared, it can be
concluded that a substantial average reduction of 33% has been reported by all
respondents, from 8450 down to 5660 kilometres per year. Split up to changed
carownership, a clear difference between the three groups can be reported; 29%
reduction for the carless and a 65% reduction for the substituters, in contrast to an -non
significant- increase (+3%) in mileage by the second car drivers. Besides the large
differences in relative changes the absolute levels of mobility by car are substantial.
All these values suggests large variations among the participants and the interested, as
well as between the participants and the interested. It can be questioned what variables,
besides former car ownership constitute the variations in changed car use.
b3.
the effects on the frequency o f use of the various means for transport
Besides changes in carmileage, also changes in the use of the various means for
transport have been reported by the respondents. Based on estimated frequencies of
use (per week) of the car, the train, city transport and intercity busses as well as the
bicycle, some substantial changes in mobility behaviour have been determined, as can
be viewed in table 6. below.
pa~cipants
avemge
table 6.
caness
car owner
sues~tuter
2,5
2,0
1,9"
1,6
1,6
1,6
3,8
1,6 *
1,5"
6,5
5,8
5,0
14,3
16,3"
15,1
16,5
11,6
14,8 *
14,5
17,3
2,2
3,0 *
2,4
3,0
2,0
3,5"*
1,0
1,4
0,6
1,3"
0,8
1,4"
0,2
1,5 *
0,3
0,4
2,9
3,9"
3,2
4,0"
2,0
3,5"
2,9
3,8
sign. p<. 05
seconcl car
driver
The above reported changes provide insight in the effects on mobility behaviour among
the respondents. These effects -over a year- are however on a highly aggregate level,
and do not suggests which kind of habits are being maintained within a pattern of
mobility behaviour and which habits are (being) changed. For exploratory purposes 19
items with a 5-point Likert scale have been formulated, that enable to get some further
insight in possible changing habits related to the adoption of Car Sharing. The items
question some possible effects of Car Sharing as perceived by the participants. The
table 7.-below shows the scores on the items (1 = agree, 5 = disagree) and the overall
percentages of agreement.
table 7.
average
score
2,4
2,6 *
2,7
2,8 *
3,0
3,1
3,1
3,2 *
3,3 *
3,3 *
3,3 *
3,3
3,4
3,6 "
3,7 *
4,0
4,0"
4,0 *
4,3
earless
2,4
2,8
2,7
2,5
3,0
3,0
3,2
2,8
3,5
3,6
3,3
i 3,6
I 3,8
I 3,8
3,9
4,0
3,9
4,2
4,3
earowner
suhstltuter
2,0
1,8
2,5
3,6
8,3
3,1
2,8
4,3
2,4
2,4
8,1
2,4
2,0
2,7
3,1
4,0
4,2
3,5
4,5
second car
ddver
2,7
2,8
2,8
3,4
2,8
4,1
3,7
4,2
4,0
3,5
4,4
3,5
3,3
3,9
3,7
4,1
4,5
4,3
4,2
The research provides, based on self reported changes some remarkable results
concerning qualitative changes in mobility behaviour. Overall, regarding the effects on
the cognitive process with respect to travel mode choices a large agreement among all
respondents seems to exist. This supports the basic assumptions that have been
formulated on theoretical grounds. Relatively high percentages of participants agree
nith the statements that Car Shariug makes them choose mo~e consciously trave[
modes, and use the car more consciously as well. Above all many (51% of all
participants) agree with the fact that Car Sharing raises cost knowledge about the car. It
must be stressed that these effects are perceptions that do not necessarily have to
correspond exactly with what really changed.
From the table 7. it can be concluded that the effects differ among different user
groups. The distinction has been made with regard to the changed situation in car
ownership. The former carless enjoy within the Car Sharing scheme a larger car
availability.That seems to have consequences for their mobility behaviour: it enhances
their possibilities to visit more remote places, and it seems to stimulate car use. In
contrast to the reported frequency of car use -that would remain unchanged- and to the
reported mileage -that would have been reduced with 29%- the former carless agree
relatively stronger with the statement that Car Sharing make them drive more frequent
by car.
The former car owners have been split up into those who have substituted and those
who still have their car, besides their membership. In the results that makes a
difference:
The substituters state, stronger than the others that they use the car more consciously.
In comparison to the others, they tend to be more influenced in their car use for
shopping, for commuting, in their use of the car for short trips and in general in their
frequency of car use. This is supported by the reported changes in frequency of car use.
Compared to the others they seem to substitute the ear stronger for train use and even
the bicycle.
Regarding the "second car drivers" the results suggest that these people are being least
influenced in their mobility behaviour. They still have a car at their disposal. The
shared car is thus an addition to their option. High values on the more conscious travel
mode choices and the more conscious car use suggest that social desirable answers are
very likely. It is hard to see how their availability of cars, which has rather increased,
could have any effect on travel mode decision making.
7.
The title of this paper "Breaking through habitual behaviour, Is Car Sharing an
instrument for reducing car use?" suggested that Car Sharing, when adopted, results in
a less habitual mobility behaviour and thus in a reduced car use. This suggestion is
actually put forward by most of the empirical studies till now on the effects on mobility
behaviour of Car Sharing (Muheim, 1992; Petersen, 1993; Baum ca., 1994). This study
shows that, at least in the Dutch practice, it is not possible to characterise the effects of
Car Sharing on mobility behaviour with "breaking through habits", since that would
mean that people would change their decisions regarding travel mode choices from a
rather habitually based process into a rather deliberately one by adopting Car Sharing
as an alternative to the private car.
In this study we first investigated the role of habit in the adoption of Car Sharing. We
showed that habit influences the adoption negatively. By an mcreasing habit in travel
mode choices, operationalised in this study as the extent to which people trade-off
between the car and alternative travel modes, the adoption becomes less likely. As a
consequence we may expect that the adoption decision selects the people that finally
use Car Sharing as an alternative to the private car. The participants, as a results will be
less habitual in their travel mode choices. It can be expected as well that this
selectiveness in the participating population affects the influences on behavioural
changes as well.
Obviously, in the adoption of Car Sharing the attitude and the intention play a
dominant role. The importance of these two central concepts of "reasoned action"
prove that deliberate choices regarding the pros and cons of Car Sharing, as an
alternative to the private car are underlying the adoption decision. In this study it is not
investigated how these attitudes and intentions regarding Car Sharing are being
formed. It can be questioned which factors contribute to a positive and negative
opinion about Car Sharing. For both marketing purposes, as well as for transportation
policy purposes, it would be indispensable to study further the evaluation process of
consumers regarding the pros and cons of Car Sharing. As Car Sharing seems to have a
high potential for reducing the amount of cars (in crowded cities) further stimulation of
the concept would be beneficial from a societal perspective.
For a further understanding of Car Sharing, the mediating effect of habit on the
attitude-intention-adoption process (the reasoned action), is also of importance. In this
study we showed an rather modest interaction effect of habit on the (reasoned) decision
making process in the prediction of the adoption, that is the relation between attitude/
intentmns and the adoption: In case of a strong habit the relation between people's
opinions and their intentions regarding Car Sharing play a less important role in the
explanation of adoption, than in the case of a weak habit. That means that nonadoption could be explained differently from the adoption of Car Sharing. In case of
adoption, it is very likely that people become a participant of such schemes, because
they acknowledge the benefits of these systems for their situation. In case of nonadoption, instead of the negative opinion towards Car Sharing, habitual behaviour
seems to play an important role. Merely the fact that people do not trade-off between
Car Sharing and the private car, or between the private car and other travel modes,
prevents them from building up an opinion about Car Sharing and thus from a
deliberate, but negative or positive decision. In order to convince these people, it is
319
important not only convince them in their reasoning, but foremost to break trough their
habits and stimulate them to make a deliberate decision about whether or not to adopt.
In needs luther research how the habitual behaviour of the non-adopters could be
broken through.
The title also questioned whether Car Sharing would be an instrument for reducing car
use. We have in this study also reported on the behavioural changes of the participants.
Not only the changes in car use, but also the changes in the use of alternative travel
modes have been established, based on self reported behaviour of the participants.
These estimations showed e.g. that, especially among those who substituted their
private car for Car Sharing, realised a considerable reduction in car use of 65%, in
contrast to an increase in the use of alternative travel modes.
For this substantial change in mobility behaviour it is difficult to provide one single
explaining factor. Certainly the adoption of Car Sharing and the inherent properties of
such schemes, is one of the (important) contributing factors, however no controlling for
many-determinants of mobility behaviour has been performed. By means of an
investigation on the perceived effects of Car Sharing on the participants' own mobility
behaviour, some empirical evidence has been found for some theoretical explanations
regarding the effects of Car Sharing. In general, it could be expected that participants in
Car Sharing schemes differ from non-adopters on their habit strength and that these
people seem to be influenced, according to their own perceptions in their decision
making process regarding travel mode choices; that means that participants in contrast
to private car owners choose more consciously their travel mode, and that they have a
better cost knowledge about cars. To what extent these perceptions of the participants
relate to the actual changes in decision making, and to what extent these possible
influences relate to the reported behaviour changes is still unclear. Further research to
clarify the changes in mobility behaviour must be conducted in order to be able to
explain these changes and the variation in changes of mobility behaviour. As a
consequence, in the future research more attention must be paid to a further
segmentation in users groups with regard to the changes on mobility behaviour. At
least, as reported and perceived by the participants themselves, some important
differences need further explanation.
Answering the question whether Car Sharing is an instrument for reducing car use must
be related to the research design and the sampling. The reported changes on mobility
behaviour refer only to a rather selective group of participants of Dutch Car Sharing
schemes and form a very specific group of so called "lead-users". As we have shown,
this group is a selected group, with both specific psychological characteristics (habit), as
well as specific mobility behaviour. By no means we can therefor extent the
behavioural changes directly to a larger population of potential future participants of
Car Sharing schemes, moreover because no clear explanation for the reported changes
could be given yet. However, given the positive changes from a policy perspective, we
may conclude that Car Sharing deserves, despite a lack of insight in the relevant
psychological mechanisms, bather support from local and national governments, and
that it certainly has -a yet unknown- market potehtial.
REFERENCES
Aarts, H. (1996). Habits and decision making, the case o travel mode choice
Dissertation, KU Nijmegen.
Aarts, H. (1997). Predicting behaviour from actions in the past: repeated decision
making or a matter of habit? submitted for publication
Aarts, H., Verplanken, B. & Van Knippenberg, (1997). Habit and information use in
travel mode choices. Acta Psychologica, 1996, 1-14
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behaviour. Engiewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Banister, D. (1978). The influence of habit formation on modal choice: a heuristic
model. Transportation, 7, 5-18.
Baum, H. en Pesch, S. (1994). Untersuchung der Eignung von Car-Sharing ira Hinblick
auf Reduzierung von Stadtverkehrsproblemen. Institut bar
Verkehrswissenschaft an der Universit~t K6in.
Ben-Akiva, M. (1992). The evaluation of transport models: A twenty year review.
320
321