sustainability

Review
Impact of Car Sharing on Urban Sustainability
Vasja Roblek 1 , Maja Meško 2,3 and Iztok Podbregar 3, *

1 Faculty of Organisation Studies in Novo Mesto, 8000 Novo Mesto, Slovenia; vasja.roblek@gmx.com
2 Faculty of Management, University of Primorska, 6000 Koper, Slovenia; maja.mesko@fm-kp.si
3 Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Maribor, 4000 Kranj, Slovenia
* Correspondence: iztok.podbregar@um.si

Abstract: The article gives us an insight into the key issues of car sharing and its impact on urban sus-
tainability. A selection of 314 articles published in peer-reviewed journals from the Scopus database
were analysed using Leximancer 5.0 for Automated Content analysis. A total of seven themes were
identified explaining the researched topic of the car sharing situation in Europe, which are sharing,
economy, model, systems, electrical car sharing, policy and travel. There are two ways of sharing
owned cars in Europe; access to cars from the fleet of private organisations and P2P car sharing.
Sustainable environmental solutions in the context of the electrification of cars are used. Car sharing
usually takes place online and can be free or for a fee as defined by The European Economic and
Social Committee. The article provides an overview of understanding the concept of urban car
sharing in Europe.

Keywords: sustainability; urban sustainability; car sharing; Europe

1. Introduction



This article aims to provide an overview of understanding the concept of urban car

 sharing, whose growth and development has been influenced by the recent financial crisis
Citation: Roblek, V.; Meško, M.; that caused an economic recession in both the US and Europe between 2007 and mid-2009,
Podbregar, I. Impact of Car Sharing the emergence of the fourth industrial revolution that introduces new digital solutions for
on Urban Sustainability. Sustainability car sharing, the different social value system of the younger generations Y and Z, and the
2021, 13, 905. https://doi.org/ breakout of COVID-19 in 2020.
10.3390/su13020905 In the context of the fourth industrial revolution, which accelerated the development
of community-based digital platforms and the use of Big Data, there was a boom in the
Received: 30 December 2020 sharing economy as a peer-to-peer (P2P) economic model whose activities are associated
Accepted: 14 January 2021
with the acquisition, provision or sharing of goods and services between individuals or
Published: 18 January 2021
between businesses and individuals (B2C) and business-to-business (B2B) [1]. One of
the essential characteristics of sharing is that it can be free or pays the cost of sharing.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
The sharing economy’s first applications were observed in durable goods such as cars and
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
houses [2].
published maps and institutional affil-
Socio-demographic factors are also important for the growth of the car sharing model
iations.
in the last decade. It is evident that younger generations have a somewhat different value
system and do not consider material goods ownership as necessary. As a result, they are
increasingly advocating a sharing economy, an economy that values universal access over
ownership [3,4]. In this way, a good is available to multiple users, and there is no longer an
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. intermediary between the provider and the demander. People are enthusiastic about this
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
concept because it entails lower costs of use or rent. In addition to the financial savings,
This article is an open access article
it also brings savings in storage space and, last but not least, it has an ecological touch,
distributed under the terms and
because fewer things usually cause less waste [5,6].
conditions of the Creative Commons
The article focuses on the analysis of academic texts written by social researchers
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
dealing not only with environmental issues in cities where car sharing plays a positive role
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
in the social environment but also with the problems they face in cities where a ride-hailing
4.0/).

Sustainability 2021, 13, 905. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020905 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 905 2 of 19

type of car sharing service such as Uber (so-called social cost of Uber) [7–9] is introduced,
and finally with the influence of the COVID-19 [10,11] on the changes of the service to
provide a safe and sustainable sharing business model. Considering the far-reaching
importance of the sharing economy, the article explores the car sharing model’s significance
and situation in Europe. Based on the academic work, the authors developed a research
question: what are the core problems of car sharing as a sustainable economic model in
Europe?
In Germany, the largest market for car sharing in Europe—the number of users has
increased from 0.26 million in 2012 to 1.29 million in 2020 [12]—have also been recognised
the risks of this economic model. For example, experts point out that there is no planned
decline in car ownership, that there are differences between urban and regional areas,
that Germans have a particularly emotional attachment to car ownership and that younger
users value high-performance cars from well-known brands [13]. Car sharing providers in
Europe also face local legislation problems, differences in consumer behaviour and local
transport competition 9. In Germany, for example, a court in Frankfurt has banned Uber
from operating as a ride-hailing service in 2019 [14]. It is also worth mentioning the impact
of the coronavirus pandemic and possible phenomena in the coming years that could
affect the model’s performance. The general criticism of the sharing economy refers to the
regulatory uncertainty, the lack of government supervision, and the security of the online
platform users’ information. When sharing information with the online platform, it is also
important to know the possibility of racial and/or sexual bias due to algorithms [15,16].
This review article presents a car sharing economy based on the analysis of research
articles published over a period from 2011 to 2020. Since there are many articles, it is
necessary to adopt an alternative analytical approach that can effectively and successfully
categorise large amounts of data. It is this analysed data that enables the researcher to
explain the research phenomenon adequately and comprehensibly. For the topic discussed
here, the automated content analysis (ACA) method was used to identify key themes and
concepts of interest to the researcher [17].
This thesis consists of the following sections: introduction, followed by the research
method, including data collection and literature selection. The following chapters contain
data analysis and ACA findings. The paper concludes with a discussion of the findings and
conclusions, including a comparative analysis of the results, research limitations, and future
research suggestions.

2. Data Sources and Method

2.1. Data Source and Data Collection
The selection of the papers was made in the following steps. In the first step, the au-
thors used the Scopus platform to search for and identify the scientific articles on thematic
car sharing in Europe. The authors used a logical combination of keywords to find the rele-
vant article: TITLE-ABS-KEY (*Carsharing) AND Europe. The Scopus database contains
articles from 2011 to 2020. Of all articles, the authors have selected only those published
in peer-reviewed journals, while have omitted publications in books and conference pro-
ceedings. The review of the articles was limited to those written in English. The search
result within Scopus yielded a selection of 314 articles published in peer-reviewed journals.
After a thorough review of the abstracts and full texts, 70 irrelevant articles were excluded,
i.e., those that did not consider the research phenomenon’s importance. In this way, it was
used to analyse 244 articles published in 127 journals. The systematic literature review is
prepared according to the Prisma 2009 technique presented in Figure 1 [18].
 Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 20

Sustainability 2021, 13, 905 3 of 19

Id e n tificatio n
Records identified through Additional records identified
database searching through other sources
(n = 314) (n = 0)

Records after duplicates removed

(n = 0)
Scre e n in g

Records screened Records excluded

(n = 0) (n = 0)

Full-text articles assessed Full-text articles excluded,

for eligibility with reasons
E lig ibility

(n = 314) (n = 70)

Studies included in
qualitative synthesis
(n = 244)
In clu d e d

Studies included in
quantitative synthesis
(meta-analysis)
(n = 0)

Figure1.1.Prisma
Figure Prisma2009
2009flow
flowdiagram.
diagram.

Mostofofthe
Most thearticles
articlesselected
selectedfor
forfurther
furtheranalysis
analysisarearefrom
fromthethenext
nextscientific
scientificjournals:
journals:
Sustainability Switzerland (21), Journal Of Cleaner Production (12),
Sustainability Switzerland (21), Journal Of Cleaner Production (12), Transportation Re- Transportation Re-
searchPart
search PartAAPolicy
PolicyAnd
AndPractice
Practice(10),
(10),Transport
TransportPolicy
Policy(8),
(8),Transportation
TransportationResearch
ResearchPartPart
DDTransport
Transport And
And Environment
Environment (7),(7), International
International Journal
Journal Of Sustainable
Of Sustainable Transportation
Transportation (6),
(6), Transportation
Transportation Research
Research RecordRecord (6), Electric
(6), World World Electric
Vehicle Vehicle Journal
Journal (6), (6), Applied
Applied En-
Energy (5),
Research
ergy (5),InResearch
Transportation Economics (5),
In Transportation Journal Of
Economics (5),Advanced
Journal OfTransportation (4), Journal
Advanced Transportation
Of(4),
Transport
Journal OfGeography
Transport(4), Sustainable
Geography (4),Cities And Society
Sustainable Cities(4),
AndTechnological Forecasting
Society (4), Technological
And Social Change
Forecasting (4), Transportation
And Social Science (4), European
Change (4), Transportation Science (4),Journal
European of Operational Re-
Journal of Oper-
search
ational(3),Research
International Journal of Automotive
(3), International Journal ofTechnology
Automotiveand Management
Technology and(3), Research
Management
in(3),
Transportation
Research inBusiness and Management
Transportation Business and (3), Scientific
Management Reports(3),(3), Transport
Scientific Reviews
Reports (3),
(3), Transportation
Transport Reviews Research Part B Methodological
(3), Transportation Research Part (3),BTravel Behaviour (3),
Methodological andTravel
SocietyBehav-
(3).
iour and Society (3).
2.2. Method
2.2.The ACA method is a method for the qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the
Method
literature.
The It is a text-mining
ACA method is atool that uses
method textqualitative
for the parsing and machine
and learning
quantitative and focuses
synthesis of the
onliterature. It is a text-mining tool that uses text parsing and machine learningalgorithms
pattern recognition and prediction from data. ACA uses a set of statistical and focuses
that can detect concepts in a text [19]. The concepts discovered by the ACA are defined
as groups of words that are strongly related in the literature and, therefore, represent a
common theme [20]. Leximancer performs content analysis after three stages of the ACA
Sustainability 2021, 13, 905 4 of 19

process. In the first step, Leximancer identifies concepts using concept seeds extracted
from the literature by uncontrolled seeding or provided by the researcher with controlled
seeding. In the second step, the ACA Leximancer defines each concept. In the last step,
the ACA ranks the concepts according to the weights [21].

3. Results
Leximancer created 35 concepts and seven themes from 244 articles published in
127 journals. The authors set the slider Visible Concepts to 100% and rotated the model
for 76 degrees. The theme size was moved from 33% (automatic) to 47%. A theme is
defined as a group or composite of concepts that share common features or connections,
as indicated by their spatial proximity in the concept map. The names of themes present
the most prominent concepts in related concepts [17]. Table 1 shows themes, hits and
related concepts.

Table 1. Themes and concepts.

Theme Hits Concept

sharing 1097 sharing, car, transport, mobility, cities, services, urban, sustainable, environmental, development
systems 968 systems, use, vehicle, public, potential, users, service, private, energy
economy 389 economy, social, benefits, innovation, countries
model 367 model, factors, information, market, proposed, power
policy 360 policy, provide, network, impact, quality, management, tube
travel 267 travel, cars, modes, people
electric car sharing 247 electric car sharing, cost, time, work

Figure 2 shows the related concepts that are connected to the themes, which are
presented in circles. Themes on a Leximancer concept map are heat mapped, and this means
that hot colours (red, orange) denote the most important themes, while cool colours (blue,
green) denote those less critical [22]. The themes are »sharing«, «systems«, »economy«,
»model«, »policy«, » travel« and »electrical car sharing«.
Figure 2 shows that the circles of specific themes overlap with the circles of other
themes, forming cross-sections that contain individual concepts, which fall into both over-
lapping themes. For example, the theme »sharing« overlaps with the themes »economy»,
travel«, »policy« and »systems«. The theme »travel« overlaps with the themes »systems«
and »policy«. The theme »systems« overlaps with the themes »sharing«, »policy«, »travel«,
»model« and »electric car sharing». The theme »electric car sharing« overlaps with the
themes »systems« The theme »model« overlaps with the themes »systems« and »policy«.
The theme »economy« overlaps with the themes »sharing« and »policy«.
The concept »car« lies between the intersection of the themes »sharing« and »travel«.
The concept »modes« lies between the intersection of the themes »sharing«, »travel« and
»systems«. The concept »people« lies between the intersection of the theme’s» travel« and
»systems«. The concepts »public«, »private« and »services« lie between the intersection
of the themes »sharing« and »systems«. The concept »environmental« lies between the
intersection of the themes »policy« and »sharing«. The concepts »potential« and »ser-
vice« lie between the intersection of the themes »systems« and »policy«. The concepts
»work«, »time« and »energy« lie between the themes »systems« and »electrical car sharing«.
The concepts »market«, »factor« and »information« lie between the themes »model« and
»policy«. Finally, the concepts »countries«, »social« and »benefits« lie between the themes
»policy« and »economy«.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 905 5 of 19
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 20

Figure 2. Concept map for selected articles.

4. Discussion
With Leximancer 5.0 for ACA, seven themes were identified explaining the car sharing
situation in Europe. The seven themes (see Figure 2) regarding the car sharing situation in
Europe are
Figure 2. Sharing,
Concept mapEconomy, Model,
for selected Systems, Electrical car sharing, Policy and Travel.
articles.

4.1. Fundamentals of Car

Figure 2 shows Sharing
that the circles of specific themes overlap with the circles of other
4.1.1. The Review of Car Sharing Development
themes, forming cross-sections that contain individual concepts, which fall into both over-
lapping
The themes.
emergence Forofexample, the theme
online internet »sharing«
or digital overlaps
platforms with the themes
(thematic: sharing)»economy»,
has had a
travel«,
major »policy«
impact on theandintroduction
»systems«. The and theme
further»travel«
development overlapsandwith the themes
growth »systems«
of sharing goods
and
andservices
»policy«.in society [23]. The
The theme conceptoverlaps
»systems« of sharing goods
with theand services
themes has been»policy«,
»sharing«, around
before the »model«
»travel«, launchingand of the internet.
»electric car In the UK, The
sharing». so-called
themesmall car sharing
»electric was known
car sharing« in
overlaps
the 1970s [24].
with the themes »systems« The theme »model« overlaps with the themes »systems« and
In theThe
»policy«. pre-internet era, the costs
theme »economy« overlapsassociated
with thewith finding
themes partners
»sharing« andfor sharing and
»policy«.
creating
Thecontracts were lies
concept »car« paramount.
between theHowever, the risks
intersection of theassociated with sharing
themes »sharing« before
and »travel«.
the
Theinternet
conceptwere mainly
»modes« liesrelated
between to the intersection
limited and of more
the difficult to access information
themes »sharing«, »travel« and
about the offer
»systems«. Theitself, the provider’s
concept »people« lies reliability,
betweenand thethe validity ofofthe
intersection thecontracts
theme’s»[25]. Theand
travel« in-
troduction of the internet has significantly impacted reducing transaction
»systems«. The concepts »public«, »private« and »services« lie between the intersection of costs between
unknown
the themes participants
»sharing«in andthe»systems«.
sharing process. From an»environmental«
The concept economic point of view,
lies transaction
between the in-
costs
tersection of the themes »policy« and »sharing«. The concepts »potential« andeconomic
present all the costs and difficulties (risks) associated with carrying out an »service«
transaction
lie between[26]. In the pre-internet
the intersection era, the
of the themes costs associated
»systems« with The
and »policy«. finding partners
concepts (in
»work«,
newspapers
»time« and or from mouth
»energy« to mouth)
lie between theinthemes
the process
»systems«of sharing and creating
and »electrical carcontracts
sharing«. were
The
of utmost »market«,
concepts importance. In Figure
»factor« and 3»information«
are exposed to liethe main characteristics
between the themes »model«of theand
sharing
»pol-
model development.
icy«. Finally, the concepts »countries«, »social« and »benefits« lie between the themes
»policy« and »economy«.
 Sustainability 2021, 13, 905 6 of 19
tainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20

Figure 3. Characteristics
Figure 3.of Characteristics
sharing model ofdevelopment.
sharing model development.

The digitalisation enables

The sharing the next fundamental
economy’s step in the development
concept is based of sharing
on the economy.
emphasis on It the ability,
enables a peer-to-peer (P2P) economic model whose activities are related to
the possibility, and the personal preference of individuals to borrow goods or services the acquiring,
providing or sharing
instead of access
buyingtoand goods and services
owning them. The between
sharingindividuals
economy or between
thus enables busi-
individuals to
nesses and individuals (B2C) and business
monetise underutilised resources. to Underutilised
business (B2B)resources
[1]. The digital platforms
range from al- to cars to
real estate
low faster search
productssharing
such providers of goods
as tools, toys, services Sharing
and clothing. and do can theirbetransactions
free of charge, through
or the user pays
the sharing
standard contracts that costs [2].
are already met in sharing through online platforms, the process
itself is completed The European
through Economic
payment services and Social
over Committee
the internet. Thehas defined the
development sharing economy
of digital
(theme policy) as a system in which property and
services has enabled a reduction in transaction costs and greater legal certainty for services are shared between
the private
individuals,
tenant, especially with theandemergence
sharing canofbeblockchain
free or for as a fee, usually taking
a disruptive place online.
technology that ena-The European
Commission
bles smart contracts [28].states that years,
In recent the economics
blockchain of cooperation
technology has refers to business
spread. models. Certain
It is widely
known througheconomic activities are facilitated
the cryptocurrency by cooperation
Bitcoin [29], which, togetherplatformswiththat create
credit an open
cards and market for
other digitalthe temporary
payment use of (e.g.,
solutions goodsmobile
or services that private
applications), individuals
forms a digitaloften
paymentprovide.
sys- In this case,
tem that is the
alsosharing
becomingeconomyone of is not
the limited
advantages to activities in which
of digital sharing the platform
ownership of a good change,
services
but in most cases implies activities aimed at creating and
[30,31]. In practice, digital platforms allow providers to share goods or services, reduce gaining profit, but it can also refer
to voluntary activities (theme economy) [27].
transaction costs and mitigate business risks, but platforms must collect and share infor-
The digitalisation
mation about individual users’ past enables the next
behaviour andstep in the development
reliability. The consumer’s of sharing
role in economy.
the It en-
ables ahas
sharing economy peer-to-peer
evolved in(P2P) economic model
two directions, whose activities
with consumers acting as areboth
related to the acquiring,
acquirers
and providersproviding or sharing
of resources. Digitalaccess to goods
platforms alsoand
allowservices between
consumers individuals
to approve or between busi-
resource
nesses
providers [32]. and individuals (B2C) and business to business (B2B) [1]. The digital platforms
allow faster search sharing providers of goods
Two groups of business models of car sharing have emerged [33,34]: services and do their transactions through
standard contracts that are already met in sharing through online platforms, the process
• Private organisations (operators) that own a car fleet and enable users that they have
itself is completed through payment services over the internet. The development of digital
access to the cars from the fleet;
services has enabled a reduction in transaction costs and greater legal certainty for the
• P2P cartenant,
sharing is going for
especially with organisations
the emergence that
of offer to customers,
blockchain both thetechnology
as a disruptive owner andthat enables
the carsmart
user. The digital
contracts platform
[28]. enables
In recent years,customers
blockchaintotechnology
search, reserving, signing
has spread. It is the
widely known
contract and an insurance and paying.
through the cryptocurrency Bitcoin [29], which, together with credit cards and other digital
The P2P car sharing
payment solutionsalso (e.g.,
include a sub-form.
mobile It is going
applications), formsfor the non-profit
a digital payment type systemof that is also
sharing economy,
becoming where
one goods and servicesofare
of the advantages provided
digital sharing forplatform
free (or sometimes for a In practice,
services [30,31].
modest subscription) between
digital platforms the closed
allow providers group. The goods
to share juristicor characteristic
services, reduce of this type is costs and
transaction
that the user is signing
mitigate the contract
business risks, butwith the car owner
platforms only once,
must collect whileinformation
and share by commercial about individ-
type of car sharing,
ual users’ where
past abehaviour
business provides a service
and reliability. Thetoconsumer’s
customers the rolecontract has to economy
in the sharing
Sustainability 2021, 13, 905 7 of 19

has evolved in two directions, with consumers acting as both acquirers and providers of
resources. Digital platforms also allow consumers to approve resource providers [32].
Two groups of business models of car sharing have emerged [33,34]:
• Private organisations (operators) that own a car fleet and enable users that they have
access to the cars from the fleet;
• P2P car sharing is going for organisations that offer to customers, both the owner and
the car user. The digital platform enables customers to search, reserving, signing the
contract and an insurance and paying.
The P2P car sharing also include a sub-form. It is going for the non-profit type of
sharing economy, where goods and services are provided for free (or sometimes for a
modest subscription) between the closed group. The juristic characteristic of this type is
that the user is signing the contract with the car owner only once, while by commercial
type of car sharing, where a business provides a service to customers the contract has to
be signed every time before the beginning of the car sharing service [28,29]. In Figure 4,
characteristics of both types are shown.
The fundamental dividing line between the definition of car sharing and car rental
itself is that car sharing is about the ability to share a car on demand. The demarcation
coincides with the idea of providing a public car that can be used as easily as a private
car. The concept itself has gained momentum in the last decade by introducing internet
technologies and smart devices [24,35]. Collaborative car sharing has taken on a new
organisational form centred around digital platforms and smart applications to deliver car
sharing services [36–38]. For example, the process of renting a car and the fact that access to
the car is not autonomous is more reminiscent of traditional car rental in providers such as
Avant2go and Giro car share in Slovenia. However, peer-to-peer providers have also started
to experiment with other procedural plans, such as introducing advanced technology to
open up private cars, which will enable a new type of car sharing in the future. With peer-
to-peer technology development, it will probably be possible to distinguish between a
private and a public car (thematic systems) [39].

4.1.2. Car Sharing Types of Services

In the last ten years, two types of car sharing services in Europe (and the world)
were developed. As shown in Figure 5, the transportation model is subdivided into so-
called transportation by ride-hailing services, as is the case with Europe Uber and the
US-based Lyft. Here, an object is rented together with labor, i.e., human capital, and implies,
for example, the rental of a car or other vehicle with the person driving it [40]. In Europe,
there is an outcry among taxi drivers because, in their opinion, Uber provides taxi services
without a license [41].
According to car sharing in Europe research [32] it can be concluded as it is shown in
Figure 6 that operational characteristic of the European car sharing providers with an own
fleet based on:
1. Roundtrip station-based or “back to base”: a shared car has to be picked up and
returned to the same (dedicated) parking spot.
2. Roundtrip home zone-based: a shared car has to be picked up and returned to the
same area/(home)zone of the city. (No dedicated parking spots are in play).
3. Free-floating with operational area: a shared car can be picked up and returned in
a large operational area. In most cases it is a whole city or even a different city. (No
dedicated parking spots are in play).
4. Free-floating with pool-stations: a shared car can be pick up and returned in a large
operational area but always in dedicated pool stations. In most cases it is a whole city
or even a different city. This kind of service is also known in the literature as one-way
station-based car sharing.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 905 8 of 19
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 20

In theory, some concerns can be identified that ride-hailing can be a part of the sharing
be signed every time before the beginning of the car sharing service [28,29]. In Figure 4,
economy. There is evidence in various research papers that this form should be classified
characteristics of both types are shown.
as an on-demand or gig economy [42–44].

Contract
for an
indefinite
period

Nonprofit car
sharing
service

The rules
are
Cost
defined
by the
based
group

The price is
determined
by the
market
situation

Person to
Person (P2P)

A new The rules

contract is
are set by
required for
each
the
transaction platform

Figure 4. Two ways ofFigure

sharing owned
4. Two carsofinsharing
ways Europe.owned
The figure is prepared
cars in according
Europe. The to prepared
figure is the Car Scheme 33. to the Car
according
Scheme 33.
The fundamental dividing line between the definition of car sharing and car rental
itself is that car sharing is about the ability to share a car on demand. The demarcation
coincides with the idea of providing a public car that can be used as easily as a private car.
The concept itself has gained momentum in the last decade by introducing internet tech-
nologies and smart devices [24,35]. Collaborative car sharing has taken on a new organi-
sational form centred around digital platforms and smart applications to deliver car shar-
ing services [36–38]. For example, the process of renting a car and the fact that access to
the car is not autonomous is more reminiscent of traditional car rental in providers such
as Avant2go and Giro car share in Slovenia. However, peer-to-peer providers have also
 transportation by ride-hailing services, as is the case with Europe Uber and the US-based
Lyft. Here, an object is rented together with labor, i.e., human capital, and implies, for
example, the rental of a car or other vehicle with the person driving it [40]. In Europe,
there is an outcry among taxi drivers because, in their opinion, Uber provides taxi services
without a license [41].
Sustainability 2021, 13, 905 9 of 19

21, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 20

Figure 5. Sharing economy and transportation models.

Figure 5. Sharing economy and transportation models.

According to car sharing in Europe research [32] it can be concluded as it is shown in

pool-stations
Free-floating
Roundtrip station-based

operational area
Roundtrip home zone-based

Free-floating

Figure 6 that operational characteristic of the European car sharing providers with an own
fleet based on:
1. Roundtrip station-based or “back to base”: a shared car has to be picked up and re-
turned to the same (dedicated) parking spot.
2. Roundtrip home zone-based: a shared car has to be picked up and returned to the
same area/(home)zone of the city. (No dedicated parking spots are in play).
3. Free-floating with operational area: a shared car can be picked up and returned in a
large operational area. In most cases it is a whole city or even a different city. (No
dedicated parking spots are in play).
4. Free-floating with pool-stations: a shared car can be pick up and returned in a large
Figure 6. Operational
operational 6. Operational
Figurearea
characteristic of the
but characteristic
European
always of the
car sharing
in dedicated European
providers
pool car
Insharing
with
stations. an providers
fleet it is awith
owncases
most an own
whole city fleet based.
based. or even a different city. This
The second type of kind of is
service service
basedisonalso known
sharing (or in the literature
renting) as one-
the property itself, such as
way station-based
renting a car,car sharing.
bike, or another form of transportation. The second type of collaborative
In theory, some concerns can be identified that ride-hailing can be a part of the shar-
transportation service is based on sharing (or renting) the property itself, such as renting a
ing economy. There is evidence in various research papers that this form should be clas-
car, bike, or another form of transportation. It is going for a car sharing platform between
sified as an on-demand or gig economy [42–44].
individuals, such as GetAround, and corporate car sharing platforms such as, e.g., Enjoy or
The second type of service is based on sharing (or renting) the property itself, such
ZipCar or Car2Go. The Uber allows individuals, drivers to provide transportation, taxi
as renting a car, bike, or another form of transportation. The second type of collaborative
services using their private cars. The Zipcar platform allows individuals to rent a car for
transportation service is based on sharing (or renting) the property itself, such as renting
shorter distances, such as a short trip or a grocery store trip [30]. Some of the companies
a car, bike, or another form of transportation. It is going for a car sharing platform between
in this segment of the sharing economy are ZipCar in the United Kingdom [41], Car2Go
individuals, such as GetAround, and corporate car sharing platforms such as, e.g., Enjoy
in Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain [45] and
or ZipCar or Car2Go. The Uber allows individuals, drivers to provide transportation, taxi
Autolib in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,
services using their private
Greece,cars. The Zipcar
Hungary, platform
Ireland, allows individuals
Italy, Luxembourg, to rent a car
Netherlands, for Poland, Portugal,
Norway,
shorter distances, such as a short trip or a grocery store trip [30]. Some of the companies
Romania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom [46]. Bikes
in this segment of thecansharing economy
be rented througharethe
ZipCar in the[47].
Spinlister United Kingdom [41], Car2Go
in Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy,
According to the theory, the car sharing the Netherlands, Spain [45] and
model represents an example of a sharing
Autolib in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Ger-
economy, where lending rather than owning an asset is the access to a service that allows
many, Greece, Hungary, Ireland,
better use ofItaly, Luxembourg,
the shared Netherlands,
asset, making it much Norway,
cheaperPoland,
and more Por-accessible to a wider
tugal, Romania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom
range of people [31,32,48]. The research findings also emphasise the role of car sharing
[46]. Bikes can be rented through
in urban the Spinlisteras[47].
environments, it is a sustainable environmental solution in the context of
According to thethetheory, the car sharing
electrification of cars model represents
(the topic an cars).
of electric example of asuch
Thus, sharinga model ensures that no
economy, where lending rather than owning an asset is the access to a service that allows
better use of the shared asset, making it much cheaper and more accessible to a wider
range of people [31,32,48]. The research findings also emphasise the role of car sharing in
urban environments, as it is a sustainable environmental solution in the context of the
Sustainability 2021, 13, 905 10 of 19

harmful emissions are produced, and the sustainable aspect of this car sharing model is
further emphasised by the use of electricity from renewable sources [49–52]. The increasing
popularity of the car sharing model in recent times is based on electric vehicle fleets’ design.
Electric vehicles are more suitable than a car with an internal combustion engine. Electric
vehicles are characterised by lower operating costs so that the additional price of an electric
vehicle pays for itself more quickly in shared fleets than if one person only uses it [53–55].
Policymakers in European countries are increasingly supporting electric car sharing
schemes to reduce congestion-related pollution and reduce the need for additional road
infrastructure. The provision of shared electric vehicles thus multiplies the effect of positive
environmental impacts. It is also important to note that automobile producers themselves
have launched their electric car sharing offerings, and they have done so largely to find
new ways to regulate congestion and change consumer attitudes [56].
The European car sharing sector hosts a mix of both local players and global OEMs.
Our analysis shows that overall, about 45 percent of car sharing providers in Europe already
operate a 100% electric fleet and that this trend is increasing. Experts argue that sharing
electric vehicles paves the way for private adoption of electric vehicles, an argument that
makes OEMs a better fit. Other concerns revolve around enforcement of laws, such as
low-emission zones in cities, while smaller players often cite faith. Take, for example, Aimo
(Stockholm), InnogyGo! (Warsaw) Alternatively, ELoop (Vienna) has started building
electric-only fleets in their home cities. OEM-funded services for most cities, i.e., fully
electric in several cities, will increase electric vehicles’ overall share in the total fleet.
Simultaneously, about 35% of vehicle owners still do not have zero-emission cars, while 20%
of providers manage a mixed EV fleet in ICE [57].
The most known OEM’s or independent organisations EV in Europe are [57,58]:
• Autolib is a program of City of Paris together with 63 surrounding municipalities.
It has over 4300 charging stations and 850 rental kiosks.
• Share Now was created years ago through the merger of BMW DriveNow and Daim-
ler’s car2go. The program offers the BMW i3 model and other fuel-powered variants
like the 1 Series and Mini. With 3030 e-cars in 15 markets (excluding London, where the
service is being discontinued), DriveNow has the largest e-fleet in Europe to date.
Four of those markets can boast an all-electric ShareNow fleet, namely Stuttgart,
Paris Amsterdam and Madrid. The remaining cities in the mix are Milan, Vienna,
Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Copenhagen, Rhineland, Helsinki, Budapest and Lisbon,
with these cities having varying E percentages, ranging from 2% (Milan) to 45%
(Copenhagen). Overall, share Now is on track to increase the number to at least
4000 electric vehicles.
• The car sharing provider WeShare from Volkswagen and Skoda currently operates the
biggest fleet of EVs in one market. WeShare deployed 1500 e-Golfs in Berlin and has
plans for ramping up the service to eight cities in 2020, including Paris and Madrid
and Budapest, Munich or Milan. The fleet would then amount to around 8400 electric
vehicles in total.
EV sharing providers are also proactively addressing increasingly stringent emissions
regulations as they seek to secure long-term access to city centers. Madrid has banned
the passage of ICEs within the urban area and is now only accessible to electric cars and
hybrids with an electric range of more than 40 km. It is going for one reason why the city
has become a hotspot for electric vehicle replacement. Among the first to respond were
Wible, Kia and energy company Repsol, which operates a fleet of 500 plug-in hybrids in
the Spanish capital. Zitty, Emov and Share Now also offer electric vehicles [57].
Opening up new fields has its problems. Charging large EV fleets is one of the
challenges platform operators face. Here, providers rely on two to three different pillars.
In cities like Berlin or Paris, public charging infrastructure is an integral part of charging
vehicles in the business area.
A second pillar is partnering with other private companies to install and operate
charging infrastructure. For example, WeShare has announced a strategic alliance with
Sustainability 2021, 13, 905 11 of 19

Schwarz Group, including retail chains such as Lidl and Kaufland. Both chains roll out
charging stations in their parking lots that customers can use during business hours—while
the e-car sharing provider uses the charging stations at night [57].
Renault’s Moov’in in Paris took a similar approach by partnering with ADA to operate
and charge. The vehicles are charged either at public charging points or the charging
infrastructure set up on the cooperation’s premises. ADA is a leading car rental provider
in France with several hubs and branches in and around Paris [57].
While the trend towards electric vehicles increases, cars are, of course, not the only
electric vehicles that make good sharing vehicles. While the bigger players like Share Now
and WeShare focus on providing cars per minute, smaller, local companies like Poppy in
Belgium or Aimo in Sweden show a more innovative approach by adding electric two-
wheelers to their fleets. Poppy deployed a fleet of electric mopeds and kick-scooters in
Antwerp and Brussels that users book through the same app as the car sharing service.
Recently, Denmark’s all-electric car sharing provider GreenMobility also announced plans
to launch 400 electric vehicles in Vienna. GreenMobility has signed a letter of intent with
the Austrian Automobile, Motorcycle and Touring Club to merge with the latter’s e-scooter
sharing service in the Austrian capital [57].
The first data collected shows that a multimodal fleet has synergies on user growth
and user activity. Friedel’s report [57] shows that users’ activity increased by up to 30%
for providers like Aimo or Poppy. In general, users play a significant role on the road to
larger EV fleets. It includes increasing environmental awareness and electric cars’ positive
reception when used for marketing approach in car sharing fleet electrification [59].
For understanding the social relations and economic processes of the car sharing
economy, which influenced the socioeconomic development of urban places and launching
urban sustainability, it is necessary to understand the historical events.

4.2. Urban Sustainability and Car Sharing

4.2.1. Car Sharing in Europe and Sustainability
In Europe, car sharing first appeared between 1987 and 1988 and was introduced in
1989 in Germany and Switzerland, where people almost simultaneously came up with
the idea of replacing a private car with a shared car. Later, car sharing was introduced in
Austria and Denmark in 1997. In Belgium, it has appeared since 2002, in France since 1999.
In the UK, the so-called new car sharing was introduced in 1999. In Italy, the concept has
been in use since 2009 [37]. In the 1980s, all European cities had centres open to automobile
traffic. The negative impact of traffic on the environment in the centres themselves was
already becoming apparent, and social groups began to draw attention to it and demand
action from the authorities. For example, car sharing advocates suggested that a sharing
model should be developed to reduce most households’ reliance on cars and introduce
more sustainable transport modes (thematic travel). It would take into account that people
would not be denied access to cars [60].
The time of car share launching in Germany and Switzerland coincides with the
emergence of the idea of sustainability. Thus, citizens’ initiatives emerged in cities, calling
for a change in urban development policy in line with the then-emerging concept of
sustainability, aiming at social well-being and natural harmony [61].

4.2.2. Emergence of the Urban Sustainability

Awareness of the importance of sustainable development in the urban environment
led, in 1991, to the European Union making urban sustainability one of its main objectives.
Research in the 6th and 7th Framework Programs has developed urban sustainability indi-
cators, which are considered the most effective method for assessing urban sustainability
and serve as a tool for setting several sustainability targets. However, in 2020, we do not
yet have a set of urban planning indicators or assessment, and the topic is not included
in EU policy [62]. The importance of sustainable urban indicators and urban planning
indicators can be recognised in the definition of urban sustainability of the authors Verma
Sustainability 2021, 13, 905 12 of 19

and Raghubanshi [63], who pointed out that urban sustainability includes different topics
such as biodiversity, energy, material balance, air pollution, heat island, noise pollution
and others. The indicators importance is that they show the condition of environmental
quality and, on the other, provide the framework for the development of a sustainable
urban policy, within which it is necessary to take into account, in our opinion and ac-
cordance with the fundamental concept of sustainable development, all three cores of
sustainable development, environmental sustainability, economic sustainability and social
sustainability.
Why urban planning policies are important in line with sustainable policies and the
role of transport in this is shown by the estimate that over 50% of the world’s population
now live in urban areas and this is expected to rise to 70% by 2050 [64]. There is a huge
change coming, which will affect both the millions of people moving and the cities to which
they are moving. Nevertheless, cities also offer opportunities; humans are social creatures.
We thrive in urban spaces that foster social connections. Such urbanisation change presents
a challenge to planners and developers, who see rural suburbs as an opportunity to look
at them as urban sprawl indicators [65]. Despite what some people think, urban systems
can be more environmentally sustainable than rural or suburban living, where people may
be further from each other, from essential services and the workplace. With people and
resources located so close to one another, it is possible to save energy and resources by
effectively planning services such as food transportation and mass transit systems. Cities
also benefit the economy by bringing people together in one relatively small area where
ideas can easily be generated and developed. Some experts think that cities will be the
future growth drivers, stimulating both supply and demand in the economy. Cities need
lots of things, but they can provide lots of things and employment opportunities and
economic success. However, things can go wrong in cities. If their systems are not well
organised or maintained they can have a large negative impact on the environment; they
may use large amounts of energy generated in unsustainable ways, they may scar and
poison the land and pollute the atmosphere. Technology-based on the Internet of Things
and the Internet of Everything, big data, smart mobile apps, etc., has an important role in
enabling positive outcomes for cities [66,67]. Today’s solutions will be critical in ensuring
that tomorrow’s cities represent a positive social environment based on sustainability.
In practice and the literature, various experts try to find parallels between the sustain-
able cities and smart cities [68–70]. By our opinion, a smart city comprises four key urban
aspects that are essential for achieving its sustainability (sustainable urban growth and
urban economy): (i) density (building density), (ii) mobility and connections (intelligent
urban mobility), (iii) mixing of purpose and function (condensation of functions and pro-
grams) and (iii) public space and participatory urbanism (involvement of the profession
and the public—involvement of all actors in establishing a smart city). These aspects have
to be considered and presented if the city wants to realise the urban sustainability goals.
Density is the most critical factor of a sustainable city [71]. The density factor enables
us to control the amount of development and manage the number of actors in a given space.
The building density process allows for better land use, thus preserving undeveloped land
destined for the natural environment or agriculture. The density factor within a smart city
can also be used concerning the physical location of the traffic and public transport [72].
Due to the passenger car’s affordability and the economy’s dependence on constant
economic growth, cities are developing large suburban areas, typically characterised by
low building density and/or the absence of the intertwining of various functions. Suburbs
are attractive for investment because of less complicated ownership situations (usually
vast land with few owners) and easier access to the construction process. The result is
large suburbia areas, which today are increasingly turning into post-suburbia—a mixture
of decentralisation and suburbia urbanisation [73]. The process of post-suburbanisation
and the development of smart cities (smart suburbs) could make a significant contribution
to sustainable urban planning in the future. The suburbia phenomenon is primarily
focused on car use and makes public transport uneconomical, thus removing an essential
Sustainability 2021, 13, 905 13 of 19

aspect of sustainable cities. Sustainable mobility (transport theme) today means the use
of public transport, walking and cycling (bicycle network in the city) and is seen as one
of the fundamental approaches to transform cities into sustainable cities, as in the case of
Berlin, Helsinki, Copenhagen, Vienna, etc. [74,75]. The importance of sustainable cities
also become smart is shown by the role of implementing smart technologies, enabling the
development of concepts and models such as car sharing, automated driving, on-demand
public transport, and co-travel via mobile applications, etc. [76]. Stakeholders are expected
to reach most of their daily needs and services via a smart network or on foot. Mixing
goods and services allows for another process in cities to be regulated—gentrification.
Policies on balancing interests between different stakeholders prove essential in managing
sustainable urban development [77]. Smart city systems, with their data capture and
interpretation of data (big data), better define and understand interests. A study carried
out in Rome by Mugion et. al. [78] shows that citizens consider it important that the city
has a well-developed public transport infrastructure. Thus, quality directly impacts using
public transport, which has a positive effect on citizens to use cars less and to use more
sustainable modes of transport, which includes the concept of car sharing.
Nevertheless, information and communication technology has reduced the time re-
quired for individual transactions, and people can rent cars for an hour as technological
changes have drastically simplified the process [79]. Car sharing providers in Europe also
face local legislation problems, different consumers’ behaviour and competition in local
transport. In Germany, for example, a court in Frankfurt banned Uber from operating as a
ride-hailing service in 2019 [80]. The court made this decision because, according to the
court, the mobility app Uber does not have the proper license to operate in Germany. A case
from Paris where was in 2018 came to the collapse of the French car sharing system Autolib,
which was operated on a non-profit basis. The collapse was due to increased competition
in the alternative transport sector, including hailing apps such as Uber, and poor fleet
maintenance [81].
The Deloitte research [82] about car sharing in Europe shows that it is successful
in Germany, UK, France, Switzerland, Austria, Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, Belgium,
Norway and Denmark. The use of car sharing varies in Europe, depending on the level
of car ownership and European countries’ geographical characteristics. It is important to
note that residents across Europe have begun to adopt car sharing as an alternative form
of mobility, as it allows them to retain the features of a private car, but without the cost
of ownership [82]. EU rules and air quality standards (theme policy) significantly impact
the introduction of alternative public transport and vehicles powered by alternative fuels
such as gas and electricity [83]. The use of car sharing can be considered as an alternative
sustainable mobility solution because it reduces people’s decision to drive, reduces the
number of private cars and because car sharing fleet owners increasingly choose to buy
electric cars. All these solutions have a positive effect on reduced pollution and greenhouse
gas emissions [84,85].

4.2.3. COVID-19 Impact on Car Sharing

The COVID-19 pandemic also contributed to understanding smart cities’ concept as a
sustainable city model in 2020, which led to a change in urban mobility. Cities started to
accelerate the construction of pedestrians and cyclists’ construction and prepare, together
with private partners, a new car or bike-sharing concepts in cities [86]. The outbreak
of COVID -19 in 2020 led to the closure of car sharing providers. For example, in Italy,
where car sharing is very popular, 60 to 70% of services are no longer used, while elsewhere,
e.g., in Berlin, bike-sharing has increased. It is predicted that the upswing in car sharing will
continue after the pandemic. For example, as the pandemic’s consequences are expected to
cause job losses and revenue losses in this sector, companies focus on new mobile solutions
that offer users more cost-flexible approaches (system such as the introduction of “pay-as-
you-go”) and increase payment via apps. A pandemic’s consequences are also likely to be
seen in the emergence of innovations based on micro-mobility solutions (sharing scooters,
Sustainability 2021, 13, 905 14 of 19

bicycles and scooters). It is predicted that the pandemic could promote sustainable mobility
in many polluted urban areas [87].

4.3. Ride-Hailing Practices and Changes in Urban Sustainability

The best-known provider of the ride-hailing concept in Europe is Uber. With Uber’s
relatively rapid penetration of the European market, the question arises as to why certain
cities in Europe such as London, Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam, Rome, Madrid and Zagreb
support a model like Uber’s. The answer can be found between city governments’ goals
to enable low-income residents and marginalised groups to access new forms of public
transportation by enabling ride-hailing practices. Ride-hailing practices enabling is also
beneficial to individuals and families who do not live near traditional public transportation
or cannot afford to live in a denser area with well-developed transit access [88–90].
However, city governments need to be aware that affordable ride-hailing services (on-
demand transportation) can significantly impact the course of urban planning, economic
development, and transportation policies of the city itself. Thus, ride-hailing services can
impact on [91,92]:
• Inhibiting transit development: the service could increase migration from densely
populated urban areas to suburbia. This situation is coming because Uber picks up
users wherever they are, and on the other hand, city subsidies make it cheaper than
other modes of transportation. Thus, Uber can also significantly impact reducing
the number of private cars and the use of public transport, which can also lead to a
change in urban planning (e.g., fewer car parks and roads, increased cycle paths and
pedestrian zones) [90,93].
• There is a declining interest in public transportation: Soon, it can be expected the
emergence of autonomous vehicles and their integration into ride-hailing services.
Such a scenario will allow self-driving vehicles to pick up and drop off people any-
where. The consequences will be a sharp decline in public transportation and the
discontinuation of mass transit expansion projects [94].
• Increasing vehicle traffic: a long-term increase in the number of vehicles in the fleets
of ride-hailing providers may translate into increased traffic in the future. Investors in
companies that provide ride-hailing services anticipate that, in the future, people will
choose to own a vehicle less and less, and therefore opt for the ease and technological
advancements of ride-hailing services that allow them to reach their desired destina-
tion. In the short term, there is a possibility that cities will face increased urban traffic
and congestion due to the increased interest in ride-hailing services.
Cities need to address these development concepts and pursue developing a multi-
modal environment where ride-hailing services are only one of the other forms of develop-
ment.
After considering the positive changes that ride-hailing services can cope with, it is
necessary to analyse this service’s negative consequences in European cities.

4.4. Criticism of the Sharing Economy and Ride-Hailing Practices

By sharing economy as an economic system (theme economy), it should not be ignored
that venture capital plays an important role in developing sharing business models. It is the
owners of venture capital who have become the biggest players in the sharing economy and
have gained considerable power in the global economy with the help of their rise. The ac-
tors have gained such power in the global economy by influencing information asymmetry
and the lack of control between the platform and the participants and promoting growing
inequality concerns [95]. All of this has led researchers such as Slee [96] and Scholz [97]
to argue that the sharing economy has nothing to do with sharing itself. Calo and Rosen-
blat [98] even point out that it is a business model that takes away its customers. In effect,
its owners gain more value from participants while presenting themselves to the outside
world as a socially oriented business. Based on these views, Srnicek [99] writes that this
new phenomenon of the sharing economy and its business models are better described as
Sustainability 2021, 13, 905 15 of 19

“a form of platform capitalism” representing the phenomenon of Uber’s so-called social

costs. Uber practices from different countries, and for which it is even banned in many,
are mainly [100]:
• violation of labour legislation (mainly because it does not recognise the status of
employees as drivers, regardless of the amount of work they perform);
• violation of legislation setting traffic/workplace safety standards;
• the vulnerability of Uber drivers and customer databases.
The Uber practices include also avoiding paying a fair share of taxes whenever possible.
Furthermore, above all, they avoid any responsibility to drivers by not admitting that he is
acting as an employer. It must be pointed out that the state should pay attention to citizens’
concerns, as Uber is one of those companies that profit from lowering labour standards
and precarious work practices [101]. All of this represents a step away from sustainable
thinking and represents a gradual disintegration of welfare state systems. Of course, Uber
is not the only example of such changes in the labour market; it is neither the first nor the
last, as the flexibility of the workforce has become part of everyday life. Therefore, it is
essential to open a wider debate—which should also include the general public—on the
direction in which things are evolving in work and where we as a society want them to
go [102].
There is no problem in application development. However, all that Uber presents as a
platform for exploiting workers by denying its role as an employer is not good. The purpose
of technology and advancement is to improve people’s lives without making them worse.

5. Conclusions
The sharing economy is a quite young economic system. In this system, property and
services are shared between individuals. Companies operating in the sharing economy
have enabled and provided people with a new way of buying and using everyday products
and services. Today, the term sharing economy is used to describe an online marketplace
that allows users to offer and buy any goods or services. Therefore, in the global market,
a new form of competition has emerged for traditional companies. These are the online
start-ups of the sharing economy. These web platforms connect people who own a new
property with people who want to rent that property for a short period. The type of
property these start-ups work with is very different, and it is free time for everyday tasks
(example: TaskRabbit, Fiverr), free time and cars for driving people (example: Uber, Lyft).
It is important to keep in mind that the sharing economy has boomed incredibly as part
of the fourth industrial revolution (after 2011). Therefore, it is no longer a discussion
of a monolithic phenomenon, but rather a series of different digital and cyber-physical
platforms, business models and transactions [103]. Based on the research carried out,
we can assess the gaps in knowledge regarding the procedures of article selection, analysis
feature and the purpose of the analysed results.

Author Contributions: The authors V.R., I.P. and M.M. contributed equally. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 905 16 of 19

References
1. Kauffman, R.J.; Naldi, M. Research directions for sharing economy issues. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2020, 43, 100973.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Clewlow, R.R. Carsharing and sustainable travel behavior: Results from the San Francisco Bay Area. Trans. Policy 2016, 51, 158–164.
[CrossRef]
3. Prieto, M.; Baltas, G.; Stan, V. Car sharing adoption intention in urban areas: What are the key socio-demographic drivers. Trans.
Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 101, 218–227. [CrossRef]
4. Ferrero, F.; Perboli, G.; Rosano, M.; Vesco, A. Car sharing services: An annotated review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 37, 501–518.
[CrossRef]
5. Yun, J.J.; Zhao, X.; Wu, J.; Yi, J.C.; Park, K.; Jung, W. Business Model, Open Innovation, and Sustainability in Car Sharing
Industry—Comparing Three Economies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1883. [CrossRef]
6. Joo, J.H. Motives for participating in sharing economy: Intentions to use car sharing services. J. Distrib. Sci. 2017, 15, 21–26.
7. Rogers, B. The social costs of Uber. University of Chicago Law Review. Dialogue 2015, 82, 85.
8. Thelen, K. Regulating Uber: The politics of the platform economy in Europe and the United States. Perspect. Politics 2018,
16, 938–953. [CrossRef]
9. Čičin-Šain, N. Taxing Uber. In Uber—Brave New Service or Unfair Competition. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and
Justice; Marin, J., Petrović, S., Mudrić, M., Lisičar, H., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 76, pp. 181–198.
10. Hossain, M. The effect of the Covid-19 on sharing economy activities. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280, 124782. [CrossRef]
11. Moslem, S.; Campisi, T.; Szmelter-Jarosz, A.; Duleba, S.; Nahiduzzaman, K.M.; Tesoriere, G. Best–worst method for modelling
mobility choice after COVID-19: Evidence from Italy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6824. [CrossRef]
12. Statista. Car Sharing in Germany. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/415310/carsharing-services-number-of-
vehicles-germany/ (accessed on 26 December 2020).
13. Kearney. The Demystification of Car Sharing. Available online: https://www.kearney.com/automotive/article?/a/the-
demystification-of-carsharing (accessed on 26 December 2020).
14. McGaughey, E. Uber, the Taylor review, mutuality and the duty not to misrepresent employment status. Indiana Law J. 2019,
48, 180–198. [CrossRef]
15. Cherry, C.E.; Pidgeon, N.F. Is sharing the solution? Exploring public acceptability of the sharing economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,
195, 939–948. [CrossRef]
16. Ganapati, S.; Reddick, C.G. Prospects and challenges of sharing economy for the public sector. Gov. Inf. Q. 2018, 35, 77–87.
[CrossRef]
17. Nunez-Mir, G.C.; Iannone, B.V., III; Pijanowski, B.C.; Kong, N.; Fei, S. Automated content analysis: Addressing the big literature
challenge in ecology and evolution. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2016, 7, 1262–1272. [CrossRef]
18. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA
statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [CrossRef]
19. Blei, D. Probabilistic topic models. Commun. ACM 2012, 55, 77–84. [CrossRef]
20. Krippendorff, K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, 3rd ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013.
21. Pucihar, A. The digital transformation journey: Content analysis of Electronic Markets articles and Bled eConference proceedings
from 2012 to 2019. Electron. Mark. 2020, 30, 29–37. [CrossRef]
22. Leximancer. Leximancer User Guide. 2020. Available online: https://info.leximancer.com/ (accessed on 5 January 2021).
23. Rohan, P.J.; Furlong, D.A. The No-Buy Pledge: A Potential Tool for Tenants in a Condominium Conversion. William Mitchell Law
Rev. 1984, 10, 49.
24. The State of European Car Sharing Final Report D 2.4 Work Package 2. Available online: https://www.eltis.org/sites/default/
files/trainingmaterials/the_state_of_carsharing_europe.pdf (accessed on 26 December 2020).
25. Benkler, Y. Sharing nicely: On shareable goods and the emergence of sharing as a modality of economic production. Yale Law J.
2004, 114, 273–358. [CrossRef]
26. Williamson, O.E. The economics of organisation: The transaction cost approach. Am. J. Soc. 1981, 87, 548–577. [CrossRef]
27. European Commission. Office Journal of the EU2018/C 081/09; p. 66. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/
EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:2018:081:FULL&from=ES (accessed on 17 January 2021).
28. Nam, K.; Dutt, C.S.; Chathoth, P.; Khan, M.S. Blockchain technology for smart city and smart tourism: Latest trends and
challenges. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2019. [CrossRef]
29. Nelms, T.C.; Maurer, B.; Swartz, L.; Mainwaring, S. Social payments: Innovation, trust, Bitcoin, and the sharing economy.
Theory Cult. Soc. 2018, 35, 13–33.
30. Lee, J.Y. A decentralised token economy: How blockchain and cryptocurrency can revolutionise business. Bus. Horiz. 2019,
62, 773–784. [CrossRef]
31. Yli-Huumo, J.; Ko, D.; Choi, S.; Park, S.; Smolander, K. Where is current research on blockchain technology—A systematic review.
PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0163477. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Matzler, K.; Veider, V.; Kathan, W. Adapting to the sharing economy. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2015, 56, 71.
33. Car Sharing in Europe: A Multidimensional Classification and Inventory. Available online: http://stars-h2020.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2019/06/STARS-D2.1.pdf (accessed on 29 December 2020).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 905 17 of 19

34. Cepolina, E.M.; Farina, A. A new shared vehicle system for urban areas. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2012, 21, 230–243.
[CrossRef]
35. Bardhi, F.; Eckhardt, G.M. Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing. J. Consum. Res. 2012, 39, 881–898. [CrossRef]
36. Standing, C.; Standing, S.; Biermann, S. The implications of the sharing economy for transport. Trans. Rev. 2019, 39, 226–242.
[CrossRef]
37. Sutherland, W.; Jarrahi, M.H. The sharing economy and digital platforms: A review and research agenda. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018,
43, 328–341. [CrossRef]
38. Uteng, T.P.; Julsrud, T.E.; George, C. The role of life events and context in type of car share uptake: Comparing users of peer-to-peer
and cooperative programs in Oslo, Norway. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2019, 71, 186–206. [CrossRef]
39. Grieger, M.; Ludwig, A. On the move towards customer-centric business models in the automotive industry-a conceptual
reference framework of shared automotive service systems. Electron. Mark. 2019, 29, 473–500. [CrossRef]
40. Berger, T.; Frey, C.B.; Levin, G.; Danda, S.R. Uber happy? Work and well-being in the ‘gig economy’. Econ. Policy 2019, 34, 429–477.
[CrossRef]
41. Pakusch, C.; Meurer, J.; Tolmie, P.; Stevens, G. Traditional taxis vs automated taxis–Does the driver matter for Millennials?
Travel Behav. Soc. 2020, 21, 214–225. [CrossRef]
42. Sanders, D.E.; Pattison, P. Worker characterisation in a gig economy viewed through an Uber centric lens. South. Law J. 2016,
26, 297.
43. Malos, S.; Lester, G.V.; Virick, M. Uber drivers and employment status in the gig economy: Should corporate social responsibility
tip the scales? Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 2018, 30, 239–251. [CrossRef]
44. Zipcar. Available online: https://www.zipcar.com (accessed on 23 December 2020).
45. Car2go. Available online: https://www.fleeteurope.com/en/tags/car2go (accessed on 23 December 2020).
46. Autolib. Available online: https://www.fleeteurope.com/en/tags/autolib (accessed on 23 December 2020).
47. Splinster. Available online: https://www.spinlister.com (accessed on 23 December 2020).
48. Frenken, K.; Schor, J. Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 2017, 23, 3–10. [CrossRef]
49. Novikova, O. The sharing economy and the future of personal mobility: New models based on car sharing. Technol. Innov.
Manag. Rev. 2017, 7, 27–31. [CrossRef]
50. Cruz, I.S.; Katz-Gerro, T. Urban public transport companies and strategies to promote sustainable consumption practices.
J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 123, 28–33. [CrossRef]
51. Dlugosch, O.; Brandt, T.; Neumann, D. Combining analytics and simulation methods to assess the impact of shared, autonomous
electric vehicles on sustainable urban mobility. Inf. Manag. 2020, 103285, in press.
52. Julsrud, T.E.; Farstad, E. Car sharing and transformations in households travel patterns: Insights from emerging proto-practices
in Norway. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 66, 101497. [CrossRef]
53. Illgen, S.; Höck, M. Electric vehicles in car sharing networks–Challenges and simulation model analysis. Transp. Res. Part D
Transp. Environ. 2018, 63, 377–387. [CrossRef]
54. Folkestad, C.A.; Hansen, N.; Fagerholt, K.; Andersson, H.; Pantuso, G. Optimal charging and repositioning of electric vehicles in
a free-floating carsharing system. Comput. Oper. Res. 2020, 113, 104771. [CrossRef]
55. Müller, J.M. Comparing Technology Acceptance for Autonomous Vehicles, Battery Electric Vehicles, and Car Sharing—A Study
across Europe, China, and North America. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4333. [CrossRef]
56. Rode, P.; Floater, G.; Thomopoulos, N.; Docherty, J.; Schwinger, P.; Mahendra, A.; Fang, W. Accessibility in cities: Transport and
urban form. In Disrupting Mobility; Meyer, G., Shaheen, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 239–273.
57. Friedl, A. Current Development and Future Trends: Free Floating Car Sharing Report 2020. Available online: https://www.
dropbox.com/s/keaudxjq9aje2on/2020%20Free%20Floating%20Car%20Sharing%20Report.pdf (accessed on 29 December 2020).
58. Statista. In Depth e-Mobility 2020. Available online: https://www.statista.com/study/49240/emobility/ (accessed on
29 December 2020).
59. Lemme, R.F.; Arruda, E.F.; Bahiense, L. Optimization model to assess electric vehicles as an alternative for fleet composition in
station-based car sharing systems. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2019, 67, 173–196. [CrossRef]
60. Hansen Henten, A.; Windekilde, I.M. Transaction costs and the sharing economy. Info 2016, 18, 1–15. [CrossRef]
61. Gardner, J.; Roseland, M. Thinking Globally and Acting Locally Part II: Acting Locally: Community Strategies for Equitable
Sustainable Development. Perspect. Soc. Technol. Environ. 1989, 16, 36–48.
62. Corredor-Ochoa, Á.; Antuña-Rozado, C.; Fariña-Tojo, J.; Rajaniemi, J. Challenges in assessing urban sustainability. In Urban
Ecology; Verma, P., Singh, P., Singh, R., Raghubanshi, A.S., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 355–374.
63. Verma, P.; Raghubanshi, A.S. Urban sustainability indicators: Challenges and opportunities. Ecol. Ind. 2018, 93, 282–291.
[CrossRef]
64. Angel, S.; Parent, J.; Civco, D.L.; Blei, A.; Potere, D. The dimensions of global urban expansion: Estimates and projections for all
countries, 2000–2050. Prog. Plan. 2011, 75, 53–107. [CrossRef]
65. Epstein, J.; Payne, K.; Kramer, E. Techniques for mapping suburban sprawl. Photogr. Eng. Remote Sens. 2002, 68, 913–918.
66. Sánchez-Corcuera, R.; Nuñez-Marcos, A.; Sesma-Solance, J.; Bilbao-Jayo, A.; Mulero, R.; Zulaika, U.; Azkune, G.; Almeida, A.
Smart cities survey: Technologies, application domains and challenges for the cities of the future. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw.
2019, 15. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 905 18 of 19

67. Sokolov, A.; Veselitskaya, N.; Carabias, V.; Yildirim, O. Scenario-based identification of key factors for smart cities development
policies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 148, 119729. [CrossRef]
68. Yigitcanlar, T.; Kamruzzaman, M.; Buys, L.; Ioppolo, G.; Sabatini-Marques, J.; da Costa, E.M.; Yun, J.J. Understanding’ smart
cities’: Intertwining development drivers with desired outcomes in a multidimensional framework. Cities 2018, 81, 145–160.
[CrossRef]
69. Ahvenniemi, H.; Huovila, A.; Pinto-Seppä, I.; Airaksinen, M. What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities?
Cities 2017, 60, 234–245. [CrossRef]
70. Brorström, S.; Argento, D.; Grossi, G.; Thomasson, A.; Almqvist, R. Translating sustainable and smart city strategies into
performance measurement systems. Public Money Manag. 2018, 38, 193–202. [CrossRef]
71. La Greca, P.; Barbarossa, L.; Ignaccolo, M.; Inturri, G.; Martinico, F. The density dilemma. A proposal for introducing smart
growth principles in a sprawling settlement within Catania Metropolitan Area. Cities 2011, 28, 527–535. [CrossRef]
72. Salomons, E.M.; Pont, M.B. Urban traffic noise and the relation to urban density, form, and traffic elasticity. Landsc. Urban Plan.
2012, 108, 2–16. [CrossRef]
73. Moroke, T.; Schoeman, C.; Schoeman, I. Developing a neighbourhood sustainability assessment model: An approach to sustainable
urban development. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 48, 101433. [CrossRef]
74. Bottero, M.; Caprioli, C.; Cotella, G.; Santangelo, M. Sustainable cities: A reflection on potentialities and limits based on existing
eco-districts in Europe. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5794. [CrossRef]
75. Evans, J.; Karvonen, A.; Luque-Ayala, A.; Martin, C.; McCormick, K.; Raven, R.; Palgan, Y.V. Smart and sustainable cities? Loc
2019, 24, 557–564.
76. Bibri, S.E.; Krogstie, J. On the social shaping dimensions of smart sustainable cities: A study in science, technology, and society.
Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 29, 219–246. [CrossRef]
77. McBride, M.F.; Lambert, K.F.; Huff, E.S.; Theoharides, K.A.; Field, P.; Thompson, J.R. Increasing the effectiveness of participatory
scenario development through codesign. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 16. [CrossRef]
78. Mugion, R.G.; Toni, M.; Raharjo, H.; Di Pietro, L.; Sebathu, S.P. Does the service quality of urban public transport enhance
sustainable mobility? J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 1566–1587. [CrossRef]
79. Basili, M.; Rossi, M.A. Platform-mediated reputation systems in the sharing economy and incentives to provide service quality:
The case of ridesharing services. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2020, 39, 100835. [CrossRef]
80. Politico. Available online: https://www.politico.eu/article/uber-germany-court-ruling/ (accessed on 27 December 2020).
81. France 24. Available online: https://www.france24.com/en/20180621-france-paris-end-road-carsharing-system-autolib
(accessed on 27 December 2020).
82. Deloitte. From Now on. Available online: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/it/Documents/strategy/Deloitte_
Future_of_mobility_COVID19_ENG.pdf (accessed on 27 December 2020).
83. Ramos, É.M.S.; Bergstad, C.J.; Chicco, A.; Diana, M. Mobility styles and car sharing use in Europe: Attitudes, behaviours, motives
and sustainability. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2020, 12, 13. [CrossRef]
84. Mounce, R.; Nelson, J.D. On the potential for one-way electric vehicle car sharing in future mobility systems. Transp. Res. Part A
Policy Pract. 2019, 120, 17–30. [CrossRef]
85. Liao, F.; Molin, E.; Timmermans, H.; van Wee, B. Carsharing: The impact of system characteristics on its potential to replace
private car trips and reduce car ownership. Transportation 2020, 47, 935–970. [CrossRef]
86. Zhou, F.; Zheng, Z.; Whitehead, J.; Perrons, R.K.; Washington, S.; Page, L. Examining the impact of car sharing on private vehicle
ownership. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2020, 138, 322–341. [CrossRef]
87. Roblek, V.; Thorpe, O.; Bach, M.P.; Jerman, A.; Meško, M. The Fourth Industrial Revolution and the Sustainability Practices: A
Comparative Automated Content Analysis Approach of Theory and Practice. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8497. [CrossRef]
88. De Souza Silva, L.A.; de Andrade, M.O.; Maia, M.L.A. How does the ride-hailing systems demand affect individual transport
regulation? Res. Transp. Econ. 2018, 69, 600–606. [CrossRef]
89. Tirachini, A. Ride-hailing, travel behaviour and sustainable mobility: An international review. Transportation 2020, 47, 2011–2047.
[CrossRef]
90. Lavieri, P.S.; Bhat, C.R. Investigating objective and subjective factors influencing the adoption, frequency, and characteristics of
ride-hailing trips. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2019, 105, 100–125. [CrossRef]
91. Gerwe, O.; Silva, R. Clarifying the sharing economy: Conceptualisation, typology, antecedents, and effects. Acad. Manag. Perspect.
2020, 34, 65–96. [CrossRef]
92. Van Dijck, J.; Poell, T.; De Waal, M. The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World; Oxford University Press: New York,
NY, USA, 2018.
93. Bruns, A.; Matthes, G. Moving into and within cities–Interactions of residential change and the travel behavior and implications
for integrated land use and transport planning strategies. Travel Behav. Soc. 2019, 17, 46–61. [CrossRef]
94. Narayanan, S.; Chaniotakis, E.; Antoniou, C. Shared autonomous vehicle services: A comprehensive review. Transp. Res. Part C
Emerg. Technol. 2020, 111, 255–293. [CrossRef]
95. Cosenz, F.; Qorbani, D.; Yamaguchi, Y. An exploration of digital ride-hailing multisided platforms’ market dynamics: Empirical
evidence from the Uber case study. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag. 2020, in press. [CrossRef]
96. Slee, T. What’s Yours is Mine: Against the Sharing Economy; OR Booksm: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 905 19 of 19

97. Scholz, T. Uberworked and Underpaid: How Workers Are Disrupting the Digital Economy; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017.
98. Calo, R.; Rosenblat, A. The taking economy: Uber, information, and power. Columbia Law Rev. 2017, 117, 1623–1690. [CrossRef]
99. Srnicek, N. The challenges of platform capitalism: Understanding the logic of a new business model. Juncture 2017, 23, 254–257.
[CrossRef]
100. Malin, B.J.; Chandler, C. Free to work anxiously: Splintering precarity among drivers for Uber and Lyft. Commun. Cult. Crit. 2017,
10, 382–400. [CrossRef]
101. Vallas, S.P. Platform capitalism: What’s at stake for workers? New Labor Forum 2018, 28, 48–59. [CrossRef]
102. Linder, T. Surveillance capitalism and platform policing: The surveillant assemblage-as-a-service. Surveill. Soc. 2019, 17, 76–82.
[CrossRef]
103. Cheng, M. Sharing economy: A review and agenda for future research. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 57, 60–70. [CrossRef]