Do we really consider their concerns? User challenges with electric car sharing

Abstract

Electric car sharing is highlighted as a needed solution for reducing air pollution and the emission of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, its dissemination in many places is too slow and the market is still not profitable. This calls for research about whether electric car sharing corresponds to users’ conditions and concerns. This article applies the domestication theory examining insights gained from in-depth interviews with participants joining a car-sharing trial in a low-income, suburban area with rental apartments. The aim is to understand the initial adoption of electric car sharing, focusing on the challenges facing users. The findings reveal three interrelated processes and various challenges to be considered: making the technology understandable and useful, integrating car sharing in everyday practices, and negotiations and communications about the proper way to share a car. Besides the environmental advantages of sharing, the social benefits and how it might enrich everyday life should be stressed.

Keywords:

• Electric car sharing
• user
• technology adoption
• domestication
• qualitative
• interviews

1. Introduction

Sustainable mobility concerns developing solutions that contribute to ‘deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants, while also being affordable and accessible to the full population’ (Axsen and Sovacool 2019, 2). Car sharing is one such solution of importance. It reduces the number of cars on the road, the need for parking spaces, and air pollution caused by the emission of fossil fuels (Baptista, Melo, and Rolim 2014; Clewlow 2016; Nansubuga and Kowalkowski 2021). In addition, if the cars shared are run on electricity instead of fossil fuels, it will further contribute to the reduction of fossil fuels as well as accelerating a transition towards clean-energy cars (Julsrud and Farstad 2020). Also, using electric cars within a car-share fleet might contribute to making them more accessible to people (Schlüter and Weyer 2019).

In Europe, car sharing has been going on for decades, and there are many different business models for car sharing, such as business to business (see Clark et al. 2015), business to consumer, or peer-to-peer, where private car owners rent out their cars, and companies serve as an intermediary (Cohen and Kietzmann 2014). Also, there are different ways to provide car sharing: the two-way service where the car is picked up from and parked at a specific place, one-way service where the car is picked up from one place and parked at another designated destination, and the free-floating mode, when cars can be picked up and returned in different places within an area (Ferrero et al. 2018). Still, research on car sharing demonstrates that knowledge and use are low among the general public (Ballús-Armet et al. 2014), and it is described as a ‘sociotechnical innovation dominated by innovators and early users’ (Julsrud and Farstad 2020, 2), which is disproportionally used by more privileged groups, such as well-educated persons with higher income (Tyndall 2017; Dill and McNeil 2021). Moreover, it is mainly established in high density residential areas, such as urban city centres (Kent and Dowling 2013), and has not gained ground in suburbs or smaller cities (Prieto, Baltas, and Stan 2017; Rotaris and Danielis 2018). Similar conclusions regarding the limited physical access to car sharing are drawn from a study of car-sharing services in four large cities in Sweden, where this solution has been available for 50 years, but is still not widespread among the citizens (Bocken et al. 2020). However, car-sharing services in Sweden have a higher proportion of electric cars in car-sharing fleets than in the regular vehicle fleet (SOU 2020:22 n.d.) since the providers typically promote the environmental aspects of using such a service.

These aspects served as a motive for a car sharing trial with electric cars in Sweden. Located in a low-income, suburban area with rental apartments in a middle-sized town, it was an atypical area for car sharing. This trial is the empirical context of the present paper.

Even though car sharing is established in an area, it is not necessarily regarded as accessible. This is reflected in studies about services that are started and shut down, as the inhabitants do not use them enough (Hahn et al. 2020). In their review of car sharing business models, Lagadic, Verloes, and Louvet (2019) conclude that the car sharing market is still not profitable, and the number of customers is low. These are the circumstances, especially in medium to small-sized towns, where the demand is lower than in larger cities due to factors such as higher car ownership levels, more availability of parking, and fewer possibilities to use public transport (Rotaris and Danielis 2018). Doody et al. (2022) state that car sharing demands a greater effort from users, who often feel that they have less control and freedom with such a service compared to owning a car. Svennevik, Dijk, and Arnfalk (2021) also point out the additional digital skills required for managing the technologies used for car sharing. These studies call for further research on how to make this service more accessible to a larger population beyond ‘well-off central city dwellers’ (Lagadic, Verloes, and Louvet 2019, 76). This is echoed by Dill and McNeil (2021), who conclude that research on car sharing has rarely examined barriers to use.

Ultimately, the success or failure of car sharing depends on whether it fits into the living conditions and concerns of the users. User studies offer an insight into motives for using car sharing (e.g. Lempert, Zhao, and Dowlatabadi 2019; Hjorteset and Böcker 2020; Jain, Rose, and Johnson 2021). For instance, a review of the subject reveals that cost and convenience are the main motivators for joining a car-sharing service, thereby avoiding the cost and hassle of owning one or two private cars, including parking (Münzel et al. 2019), whereas the motives for using car sharing in everyday life are often to facilitate shopping and leisure activities (Costain, Ardron, and Habib 2012; Julsrud and Farstad 2020).

Some user studies concerning electric cars show how the users’ driving practice as well as their mobility and transportation needs are redefined (e.g. Ryghaug and Toftaker 2014), or how drivers’ identity and gendered interpretations of car-technology may change (e.g. Anfinsen, Lagesen, and Ryghaug 2019). Many studies also focus on motives for purchasing electric cars (see Hui 2019), where the users are primarily regarded as consumers.

Studies focusing explicitly on electric car sharing are mostly limited to survey-studies of end users (e.g. Kramer et al. 2014; Curtale, Liao, and van der Waerden 2021) and therefore fail to thoroughly explain the challenges faced by the users when introducing such a service. Thus, in-depth knowledge about the initial process and challenges of integrating electric car sharing into everyday life is largely missing.

According to studies in technology adoption, in-depth examinations of how technology begins to be used and integrated in everyday life are essential for capturing the conditions and various concerns of the users (Silverstone, Hirsch, and Morley 1992; Lie and Sørensen 1996). Accordingly, the aim of this article is to examine the initial adoption of electric car sharing, with a focus on the challenges facing users concerning their first experiences of car sharing as well as how to handle electric cars and any charging issues. The emphasis is on the early phase of adoption, where a person becomes acquainted with new features, figures out the proper way to handle the technology, and tries it out while going about everyday activities. The outcome of this phase is crucial for whether the solution will be accepted or rejected (Lehtonen 2003; Sørensen 2006).

The next section grounds the article in studies of technology adoption and more specifically the concept of domestication. The empirical data, which are foremost comprised of in-depth interviews with drivers joining a free, six-week car-sharing trial, are further described in the methodology section.

2. Theoretical approach

The concept of domestication captures the process through which technologies become integrated into the everyday lives of the users. The concept, originally developed in the 1990s (Silverstone, Hirsch, and Morley 1992; Lie and Sørensen 1996), has been further developed (Berker, Hartmann, and Punie 2006) and used in different studies to understand how technologies are experienced in everyday life. The empirical context has often been private homes, such as passive houses (Isaksson 2009), smart-home technologies (Hargreaves, Wilson, and Hauxwell-Baldwin 2018), or the use of assistive technologies at home (Frennert 2016). Other contexts include workplaces (Pols and Willems 2011; Isaksson and Björquist 2021) and transportation, such as the introduction of electric vehicles (Ryghaug and Toftaker 2014; Ingeborgrud and Ryghaug 2019).

The core of domestication is that the process of integrating technology into the everyday lives of users is dynamic and changeable. In contrast to linear models of the way technologies are implemented in society and where users are seen as passive or ‘rationalistic’ individuals acting in line with the intentions of the designers, domestication emphasizes how users shape technology in everyday life (Silverstone, Hirsch, and Morley 1992).

Sørensen’s (2006) research on domestication theory understands the integration of technology as a process, in which the users both adapt to and shape the novel technology, and thereby undertake three types of interrelated work in relation to technology. On the one hand, there is cognitive work, indicating that technologies are objects that must be interpreted and made comprehensible to be used effectively. This work entails learning about the technology, how to use it, and what it can do. The practical work centres on the concrete use of the technology in everyday life and for what purposes. Finally, the symbolic work deals with the way people construct meaning out of the technology. It is a process of making the technology meaningful in their lives.

The work undertaken by the user is intrinsically a social process. It may take the form of people supporting each other while becoming acquainted with some of the features (Bakardjieva 2006), or co-using it with others. The use of technology is often negotiated between the users and/or other people affected by technology, and there may, for instance, be various views on how to best use an iPad in a social care setting (Isaksson and Björquist 2021), or assistive technologies (Brodersen and Lindegaard 2014) at home.

Moreover, domestication is a process where the use of technology is successively incorporated into the temporal structure of everyday routines (Silverstone, Hirsch, and Morley 1992). The latter is emphasized by social practice theorists, who highlight its potential impact in practice: ‘New technologies are employed within particular practices, where users transform the technology to fit them to their own routines and goals’ (Pols and Willems 2011, 485). The technologies are integrated within practices, which at the same time may change the performance of these practices (McMeekin and Southerton 2012; Shove, Pantzar, and Watson 2012).

This means that domestication is a process where inexperienced users carry out cognitive, symbolic, and practical work in relation to the technology, while simultaneously associating the new technology with existing routines, knowledge, people, and various artefacts (cp. Sørensen 2006).

In this process, the meaning of technology is reviewed and reassessed over time (Sørensen 2006). Silverstone, Hirsch, and Morley (1992) describe it as the adoption of technology going through various phases, from early expectations and the initially often experimental use of a technology to a normalized, taken-for-granted way of handling it in practice (Silverstone, Hirsch, and Morley 1992). Lehtonen (2003) labelled this process as a ‘set of trials’ in which the capabilities of the users and technologies are tested in various ways and where the users constantly judge their relationship with it. These judgements ultimately determine whether the technology will be accepted or rejected.

This article examines the initial phase of domesticating electric car sharing with a focus on the challenges facing drivers in a car-sharing trial. This involves initial challenges experienced when sharing instead of owning the car, including the technology used in the car-sharing service, or challenges encountered when driving and charging the electric car instead of using their own fossil-fuelled one, and sometimes, challenges raised by the combination of both.

3. Methodology

This study was part of a project entitled Sharing Economy and Smart Mobility Acceptance (SESMA). Collaborating partners were an interdisciplinary research team from a university, representatives from a car manufacturer, a municipality, a research institute, and a public housing authority. The overall aim of the project was to examine attitudes and mobility habits in everyday life, including the use of electric and shared cars, in a municipality of 55,000 inhabitants with a fairly low population density. One goal of SESMA was to include the residents of the city in developing sustainable mobility, and one main activity was to arrange a six-week-long, free car-sharing trial with electric cars. The trial was intended to enable less affluent citizens, with little or no previous experience of car sharing or electric cars, to try out such a service, while conducting the study presented in this article. A low-income, suburban area with rental apartments that matched the criteria was chosen.

The main empirical data presented in this article are based on interviews with drivers participating in the trial. The interviews were conducted by the university research team including the authors of this paper. A pre-study was also done, based on interviews with users of an existing two-way, commercial, business-to-consumer electric car-sharing service located in the centre of the city. The latter is briefly described first, followed by the conditions of the car-sharing trial and the subsequent interviews. Thereafter the analysis and ethical implications are addressed.

3.1. The pre-study

To gain a pre-understanding of users’ experiences, in April–May 2020 five semi-structured interviews were conducted with inhabitants of the central parts of the city who had used the car-sharing service. The interviewees, three women and two men, were 25–59 years of age, and the interview questions covered travel habits, reasons for using the cars, as well as advantages and disadvantages of using the service, including the technical car-sharing solution. These interviews lasted 45–60 min, were conducted online, recorded, transcribed, and then analysed, based on thematic analysis (see below). We briefly refer to the pre-study in the results, where the interviewees are named, P1–P5.

3.2. The car-sharing trial

In the trial, two electric cars were made available to ∼10 drivers in a business-to-consumer, two-way, car-sharing service setting. To examine how car sharing was adopted by the participants, renting and driving costs were eliminated by offering the service free of charge.

To attract participants, in the late spring of 2020 e-mails, including a reminder about the possibility of joining the trial, were sent out to about 500 households in rental apartments in the area. Posters were also put up in the area. An outdoor information-meeting was arranged in September 2020, where interested inhabitants could obtain information about the trial, as well as test drive the cars. The first 11 persons who decided to participate were included in the trial and received support for installing a mobile app necessary for booking the cars.

The trial started the following week with a Renault ZOE and a BMW i3, equipped with key boxes. Each car had a centrally located parking space with a charger.

In the mobile app, it was possible to see available timeslots for the cars and book, cancel, or extend a car reservation. The app was also used for checking in and unlocking the booked car as well as locking the car and checking it out when it was returned to its parking space. The app communicated with the key boxes via Bluetooth. For insurance reasons, it was recommended to take several digital photos of the car after driving, to document any damage.

Information was available in the cars and sent to the drivers via email explaining the project and providing a support number. Also, the app, how to charge and drive the cars as well as how long and how often the drivers could use the cars was explained.

Due to Covid-19 restrictions, the cars were equipped with cleaning kits, and the drivers were all informed about how to use the cars in a hygienic manner. The cars were also controlled and cleaned by the research team every week during the trial.

3.3. The interview-study

3.3.1. Drivers

Table 1 shows background data including driving licenses and the number of cars owned by each household as well as the number of rides taken with the cars for each driver. The first three drivers belonged to the same household. As illustrated in the table, the frequency of use varied, and two drivers did not use the cars at all.

Table 1. Interviewed drivers in the electric car-sharing trial.

Driver No.	Male/female	Age	Persons in the household	Cars owned by the household	Driving licences in the household	Rides taken
1	M	25	6	1	4	16
2	F	28	6	1	4	8
3	M	60	6	1	4	2
4	M	35	4	1	1	8
5	M	78	2	1	2	0
6	M	25	2	1	1	15
7	M	21	8	2	3	16
8	M	24	2	0	1	14
9	M	30	3	1	2	3
10	M	25	4	2	3	3
11	F	25	2	1	1	0

The rides taken exclude the information meeting where everyone tried out the cars.

The selection of the participants in the trial resulted in an uneven representation in terms of gender. Except for two women, where one of them drove an electric car once (at the information meeting of the trial), there were only men. This uneven use of car sharing, where men are overrepresented, is also described by Dill and McNeil (2021) and further explored by Singh (2020). Also, participants needed to have a driving license to be included in the trial (and interview study), and accessibility for people with special needs, such as physical and intellectual disabilities, was not considered. In addition, the pandemic may have impacted people’s willingness to participate.

3.3.2. Logbook

The cars had a logbook that the drivers filled in after each ride with information about the time, destination, purpose of the drive, and number of passengers.

3.3.3. The interview procedure

All drivers consented to participation in an interview at the end of the trial. Most of the interviews were conducted in November 2020. They were held online due to restrictions related to the COVID pandemic and lasted about 1 h. The interview guide from the pre-study served as a basis and was modified in line with the concept of domestication (e.g. to fully capture the social context, as well as the cognitive, practical, and meaning making dimension of using the service) and the specific conditions of the car sharing trial.

As background information, the drivers’ notes from the logbook and log data from the app, as well as emails, telephone calls, and text messages to the support number made during the test period, were used. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. In the results section, the drivers are referred to by their number (Driver 1–Driver 11), according to Table 1.

3.3.4. Ethical considerations

Oral and written information about the interview study was communicated at the information meeting in September including information about the rules of confidentiality and the voluntary nature of participation. The participants signed a consent form with information about how personal data would be handled, including that the anonymized interview material might be reviewed by researchers other than those in the study and used in future studies. The study did not involve collecting sensitive personal data.

3.3.5. Data analysis

A thematic analysis of the empirical data, described by Brown and Clark as a ‘method for identifying, analysing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data,’ was used (Braun and Clarke 2006, 79). The procedure is often both deductive (guided by theory) and inductive (data-driven) and involves recurrent and in-depth studies of the empirical data. In line with this method, both authors of this article read andre-read the transcribed interview manuscripts, and subjected them to a detailed coding of words and phrases using the digital tool NVivo. The analysis was guided by the concept of domestication and how the drivers shaped their use of car sharing—the cars, the app, and electric charging—to make these technologies comprehensible, useful, and used in a socially correct (or non-correct) way. Moreover, attention was paid to how car sharing fit into and created meaning in their everyday lives, and the various challenges faced by the drivers were carefully identified. The result of the analysis is described next.

4. Results

The results present the initial phase of domesticating car sharing with electric cars and are structured around the three generic processes highlighted by Sørensen (2006): the cognitive, symbolic, and practical work. The first emphasises the initial phase of domestication and the process of making electric car technology and its use in a car-sharing service understandable and useful by relating it to existing artefacts and knowledge. The second centres around the initial attempt to make electric car sharing meaningful and fit into everyday activities. The third describes how the electric cars and car sharing are associated with other people’s understanding of usage, including negotiation and communication of the proper way to use and take care of the cars.

4.1. Making technology comprehensible and useful

This section presents how new procedures and technology features, including the car-sharing app, electric engine, and charging, were associated with already existing procedures and technologies, and adjusted to the conditions of everyday life.

4.1.1. Making sense of new technologies and procedures

The car-sharing app presupposed that the user already had access to various digital resources including a smartphone with Bluetooth, mobile Internet, BankID (a mobile app-based authentication solution), and an email address. One initial challenge was to connect the car-sharing app with these existing digital resources. For some that meant changing the existing resources, such as registering a new email address, since their existing ones were identified as invalid by the app. However, changing existing resources was not always possible. In fact, one of the drivers dropped out of the trial because the app was not compatible with his smartphone. Thus, the digital technology that was supposed to facilitate car sharing interrupted it instead when it did not conform with the resources of users (cp. Dowling, Maalsen, and Kent 2018).

Making sense of the app involved comparing it to similar types of procedures. For instance, the procedure necessary to book a car, which involved digitally locating the car parking space and browsing for available timeslots, was contrasted to previous, similar booking experiences. As one driver said, ‘…I think it’s something like these booking systems you have for laundry rooms, or similar’ (Driver 9). In this case, the similarities were mentioned, other times it was the differences and how they had changed the procedure for how they normally carried out a car trip. One example is when existing experience from handling their own private cars was contrasted to car sharing. In the following quotation, opening a car with the app was described:

The first time, I felt that it was a bit odd to check into a car. Usually, I just have the car key, ‘click’, and then I get in the car. Now I needed to log in, confirm with BankID, and then start the whole system to be able to get in. It felt a little odd. However, over time, after three, four, five bookings, it became like a routine. (Driver 1)

This quotation indicates that in comparison the procedure for opening the car door both involved more steps and took longer than they were used to.

The comparison with existing technologies and procedures not only entailed physical activities but also perceptual ones (cp. Berner 2008): Especially the absence of familiar sounds, like not hearing a running engine in the electric car, was mentioned as positive, albeit there was an uncertainty of not knowing if the car had been started. Also, the presence of new sounds was noticed. In the following excerpt, this is related to charging the electric cars:

… So, it went well, to drive away, and then, come back, connect it (the car) to the charger, and then, I also noticed that it clicks when you connect it so that you know it is really charging. It’s something like that you have to think about, every time … (Driver 2)

As indicated by the driver, making sense of the ‘click’-sound meant recognizing its importance for charging the car, and that not paying attention to new sounds might cause problems, in this case for the next driver, who would then pick up a car that was not fully charged.

Thus, how the drivers made sense of new features of the technology was not an individual and isolated process; rather, it had consequences for others. In addition, figuring out how the app, cars, and charger functioned was often performed together with others, as in the following statement, where a driver and his friend investigated whether someone could steal electricity from the charger:

I closed the car, and so he (the friend) tried to pull it (the cable) out…he told me:

‘You cannot steal the cable if you have turned off the car. Someone else cannot take it and charge their own car after you have returned it’. (Driver 7)

This is also in line with Caperello, Kurani, and TyreeHageman’s (2013) study, revealing how electric car owners helped each other establishing an acceptable behaviour and correct way to use public chargers.

4.1.2. Adapting technology to the conditions of everyday life

As the drivers made sense of the new technologies and procedures, they tried to make using the electric car fit into already established, everyday conditions and routines. In this case, the limited range was not something they previously had to consider and thus became a source of uncertainty and stress, which has also been found in other studies (Rauh, Franke, and Krems 2015).

One way to make the technology better suited to everyday life was to add time—before and after the planned car trip That meant booking extra hours before departure to ensure a fully charged car, as well as booking additional time for the planned route, to be sure to return the car in time since finding an available and functioning charging station might be time consuming. As one driver expressed it: ‘And it takes time. It takes more than you think. Once, it took about 30, 40, 50 min to find a charger that worked’ (Driver 6). Even though adding time was not a solution for everyone, the limited range was an issue to ‘check’ and plan for when they carried out a car trip, as in the following:

The first thing I did when I got to the car was to check that it was fully charged. Then I figured it out, so I knew it would be enough, to be able to get back… otherwise I would probably have checked in the app or googled where there are stations in City X, and then charged there, in a worst-case scenario. (Driver 2)

4.2. Incorporating car sharing into everyday practices

The following section demonstrates the initial attempt to incorporate electronic car sharing into the drivers’ daily practices, like going shopping, visiting friends, or going to leisure and work activities. By associating the electric car technology and the sharing of cars with other people and their needs, they began to understand how car sharing could make sense in their own lives. Since using the cars in the trial was free of charge, this process differed from previous research, including the pre-study. As a comparison, the section starts with a brief insight into the latter.

4.2.1. Difficulties in incorporating car sharing in everyday life

Mostly it’s been when we were going shopping for something large or for a lot of food and that sort of thing. (Driver 3)

In the pre-study, shopping was the most prominent reason for using commercial car sharing, which is in line with previous studies (Costain, Ardron, and Habib 2012, Julsrud and Farstad 2020). Car sharing is often regarded as a complement to other transportation options including public transport, cycling, and walking (Kent and Dowling 2013). It is when these other transportation options fail to support activities, such as picking up and moving heavy or a large amount of goods, that car sharing becomes relevant in everyday life. In addition, the pre-study shows that access to another private car must also be restricted (as when the household’s only car is in for service or occupied by a partner) if car sharing is to be a viable option. In fact, occasions when car sharing was not used, as when commuting to work or as highlighted below, visiting someone, were discussed just as much:

That’s when it seems a bit unnecessary, if you are going to go visit someone and the car stands there for a few hours, costing money. So, it’s mainly that which has been the reason we haven’t chosen the carpool, on occasions like that. (Driver 4)

Whether or not car sharing is an option depends on how well it fits into one’s everyday practices. As indicated above, a car in a car-sharing service must be in motion; it must not stand still. Otherwise, it will cost too much, and this condition excludes several everyday practices. The limited use is reflected in a survey including a variety of car-sharing business models in Sweden (Stockholms Stad 2021) indicating that 2% of the residents in Stockholm used car sharing. Another example from Sprei et al. (2019) shows the low use of free-floating car sharing in Sweden, even compared to other cities in Europe and the US.

4.2.2. Enriching everyday life

Now it was free, and it didn’t matter, everyone drove as much as they wanted here and there, possibly without any specific need to. (Driver 4)

In contrast to the limited way of using car sharing in the pre-study, the cars in the car-sharing trial were used every day and for multifaceted purposes. Grocery shopping and moving heavy goods were still common purposes, but so were commuting to work, or leisure activities as one driver described it: ‘I think the most common was just golf, the gym, and then work’ (Driver 1). A car that is free to use does not need to be in motion; it may be left standing for a long time, such as 8 h at work, or when visiting friends and relatives, which were two other common purposes for using the cars.

It was frequently noted in the logbooks and interviews that the drivers often travelled together with others. Common activities were longer trips to other cities with family or friends or, bringing along a friend for moral support in the initial stages when they took test drives, figuring out how the electric car worked. Thus, sometimes the purpose of the trip was using the car itself. One driver arranged a date in the car, another mentioned just driving around with friends without any particular destination. Car sharing also became a topic of conversation with relatives and friends, and as demonstrated below, access to an electric car that was free of charge gave rise to a certain status:

Many people have been impressed and thought it was awesome […] I attracted a lot of attention. In other words, they said to me ‘Don’t you need to get fuel?’ ‘No’ ‘Did you say it was free?’ ‘Oh, is that an electric car?’ You know, questions like that. (Driver 7)

4.2.3. Cost vs. availability

Participating in free car sharing was a social activity that fits into many everyday practices well. During the six-week trial, the fact that it was free enabled access to and enriched the drivers’ leisure activities, which became evident during the discussion about how they would use the cars if they had to pay for them:

I don’t think I would’ve travelled as much. Then I usually don’t play rounds of golf during the week so much, but rather wait until the weekends. Exercise, I would probably just ride my bike or skip it if it was raining too hard. (Driver 1)

If car sharing turned into a service they had to pay for, the responses from the drivers were strikingly similar to those interviewed in the pre-study: ‘I think often it would have been in connection with shopping’ (Driver 6), one driver said, whilst others highlighted ‘rare trips’ (Driver 5), or that it would be a spare car when their own car was not available. Thus, the drivers would no longer use car sharing as a means of carrying out a variety of everyday practices. However, even though the cost of renting a car is a noticeable hindrance for usage, it has the advantage of increasing the availability of cars. In the car sharing trial, the lack of available cars was an issue:

There are quite a few people who share, and sometimes you get a car, sometimes not. So, there’s some uncertainty in everyday planning. (Driver 4)

Thus, one challenge of incorporating car sharing into everyday practices was to fit the use of the cars into the driver’s own schedule and hence their preferred and/or required time for carrying out a certain activity. In the trial, this was a demanding task due to cars too often being occupied. As highlighted in the quotation, this ‘bad fit’ was partly overcome by planning the use of the car sharing ahead of time, and hence only for those activities that allowed it. However, even if one booked a car, some uncertainties about the forthcoming trip remained: whether the car was in a clean, drivable, and charged condition, and returned on time by the former driver.

4.3. Communication about the proper way to share a car

There were recommendations on how to participate in car sharing, such as cleaning the car interior and taking pictures of the car after use (for insurance purposes, in case of damage), and to return the cars at the right time and place. However, there was not necessarily a unified view of the importance of following these recommendations or how to carry them out:

Yes, it’s about cooperation, quite simply. Being on time, keeping to an agreement, not everyone is so good at that, there can be a lot of aggravation. Then there’s the bit about cleanliness. It varies significantly how one judges whether a car is clean. (Driver 5)

Studies of domestication show that the proper way to handle technology is often negotiated between people that know each other well, such as household members (Lie and Sørensen 1996), friends, or colleagues (Isaksson and Björquist 2021). However, in car sharing, users also handle the cars together with unknown persons with whom they do not have any direct contact. The following describes how the drivers communicated regarding the proper way to use and take care of the cars. The results reveal that this communication was non-verbal and consisted of signs about the other person’s behaviour.

4.3.1. Signs of a clean, fully charged, and drivable car

‘It was a little dirty, perhaps someone who was driving it before me had been eating something in the car and some drink, a little was spilled in the front seat’ (Driver 4). This driver referred to an incident when the norms about cleanliness had been disrespected. The bottle and the dirt, or in other situations the absence of it, were communication clues about how the former user behaved. However, due to the pandemic, these clues were not enough:

You don’t know who you are sharing the car with. And now when there’s a Corona pandemic […] you don’t know whether they have cleaned very well. (Driver 4)

Even though cleaning equipment and disinfectant were placed in the cars, there were no signs indicating that the former drivers had used it. The lack of information about the others and their behaviour led to the need to add activities: Cleaning both before and after using the car to ensure it was tidy, or taking pictures, not just afterwards to verify that the car was undamaged, but also before using it, to check the driving behaviour of the previous driver. These activities were not only highlighted as bothersome but also stated as a reason for not using the cars. The latter especially concerned a driver that realized she did not feel comfortable sharing a car and concluded that she ‘sees it [the car] as something personal’ (Driver 11).

Further, complaints about not returning the car at the right time and place are found in previous research (Kent and Dowling 2018). The empty parking space signalled the non-appropriate behaviour of others and hence that a rule had been disrespected. But, even when the car is found in the right place at the right time, it is not certain it is drivable, as highlighted by this driver:

Once when I went to the car it was not sufficiently charged, it was not connected, and perhaps a bit irresponsible, the person who drove before me and just pushed it in a little and then walked away, so it wasn’t connected … (Driver 4)

In this case, the driver had to postpone the car trip an hour until it was sufficiently charged. An inconvenience created by the previous user and as indicated in the quotation, it tended to create distrust of the others.

4.3.2. Negotiating the right frequency of use

In the instructions initially given to the participants in the trial, the frequency of use was just slightly regulated by restricting the booking of a car to a maximum of 24 h each time, except for one weekend during the six-week trial when it was possible to book it for 48 h. As it turned out, the drivers had different views about how much they themselves could book the cars. Some clearly considered the expected actions and needs of others:

I think I felt that way in the beginning, that it might not be right to hire the car just to drive into the city and be there for three or four hours […] Then I thought that someone might need it a little more than I will need it. (Driver 9)

While others, quickly booked up many occasions several days in advance and thus restricted the access to a car for fellow drivers. As described below, such behaviour by others made this driver change his approach towards using the cars:

Then I felt like others are a little too greedy, so perhaps I should look out for number one. I should perhaps book the car even if I might feel that I’m being mean or something like that. (Driver 9)

Even though he still raised the importance of considering the needs of others, he changed his behaviour to conform to how he perceived those others acted, e.g. to become more selfish and not consider others’ needs. At the same time, there were drivers who adapted their behaviour in the opposite manner. This driver initially booked a lot of occasions:

Yes, as much as I could. Too much, clearly. For a while there someone in the study said to me ‘You aren’t allowed to book it so much’ And I’m like ‘Okay’. (Driver 6)

The quotation demonstrates a different interpretation of what it meant to share a car with others, where Driver 6 initially acted as if it was his own car to use with less consideration of the needs of others.

After the first week, the guidelines for the car sharing were clarified (booking the car for a maximum of three occasions at a time) and future bookings for those who had booked more than that were removed.

5. Discussion

In this article we presented three generic processes involved in domestication (Sørensen 2006): the cognitive, symbolic, and practical work of electric car sharing. Focus has been placed on the early phase where users are busier making sense of new artefacts, encountering a variety of different challenges (Lehtonen 2003). In particular, the result demonstrates three types of challenges in the electric car-sharing trial.

The first was mainly part of the cognitive work of making sense of the technology. In this context and in line with what Svennevik, Dijk, and Arnfalk (2021) suggest, this does not only include the knowledge and skills required to use the car-sharing technology but also the ability to understand the technology associated with the electric car and charging matters. In addition, this study shows that the drivers’ strategy was to make sense of the novel technology by comparing and adjusting it to familiar or existing technology and procedures, such as comparing booking systems or the way to lock and unlock a car. Also, new users are assumed to have access to specific digital resources and services that cannot be taken for granted. Therefore, challenges arose when the technology did not work as expected or was not what the drivers were used to, such as when the car-sharing app was not compatible with the smartphone or when issues arose around car-charging.

The second challenge consisted of difficulties coordinating it timewise with activities and occurred when attempting to incorporate electric car sharing into the everyday routines and goals of everyday life. Car sharing did not go very well with activities that could not be planned in advance or when punctuality was of importance, due to uncertain access to available cars, unreliable technology, or unpredictable behaviour from previous drivers.

The third challenge derived from the practical work of sharing cars with other drivers, with whom there was no direct contact. Caperello, Kurani, and TyreeHageman (2013) point out a similar problem with electric car owners who needed to regulate social behaviour around charging situations. These rules were only possible to establish when the users could communicate with each other. In the present study, there was just a restricted, indirect communication, built up and mediated through signs and clues about the other drivers’ behaviour, which led to an uncertainty whether he/she had provided an electric car that was clean, drivable, and available.

Finally, a fourth and major challenge, removed in the free trial, was the cost of using electric car sharing. In the pre-study and previous research (Curtale, Liao, and van der Waerden 2021), car sharing was often not worth paying for and never so if the temporal structure of a practice made it too expensive (such as commuting to work). Thus, the usage is restricted to the conditions specified by the technology or service. As the theory of domestication emphasises, users are not passive receivers. Instead, they shape the way the technology or the service is used and adapt it to their own circumstances and preferences. As in the pre-study, the participants carefully chose which practice would benefit from car sharing. Shopping for many goods was an example, where the car was a carrier of people and goods, and thereby added a value worth paying for. Thus, domestication is also about improving and sometimes enabling a practice (cp. Pols and Willems 2011). In addition, the meaning created helps overcome challenges, like the costs involved, and if the challenge is mitigated or removed new opportunities may arise.

As shown in the results, car sharing free of charge enabled the drivers to carry out a variety of practices, which especially enriched their spare time. However, to remove one restriction might give rise to others. In the trial, the drawback of renting the cars for free was that they became too often occupied. Also, it removed environmentally friendly and restricted use, which has often been associated with car sharing, compared to privately owned cars (Kent and Dowling 2013).

Domestication is a social process, and in the trial, the drivers continuously related their usage to other people by the co-use of exploration as well as communication about the electric cars. This social interaction added joy and led to confidence in handling the technology (see also Stewart 2007). However, the opposite proved to be the case when it came to interactions between drivers in the car-sharing service, whereby issues such as the right frequency of use were negotiated, not through direct communication, but as a reaction to the other drivers’ behaviour. The consequence of lack of social interaction and hence, restricted communication was a distrust of others and a perceived need to add activities, such as taking pictures, cleaning before using the cars, or adding time ahead of the booking.

The need to add activities was also seen in the trial when the technology failed to work as expected, as when forced to register an extra email-address for using the car-sharing app, or adding extra time, before and after a car trip, making sure the car was sufficiently charged. Kent and Dowling (2018) label these types of activities ‘coping strategies’, which users employ to handle the inflexibility of car sharing.

Those challenges faced by users lead to questioning the relationship with the new technology in various ways and if, for instance, the added activities are regarded as too cumbersome and unmanageable, it may result in a rejection (see Lehtonen 2003) as in the case with the non-compatible smartphone. However, in car sharing, it is also the new relationship with the other participants that is questioned in different ways. If one is uncomfortable with this relationship and related activities, the service might also be rejected, which also happened with one person in the trial.

In addition, these new social and technical relationships are highly connected in car sharing, which is demonstrated by the interrelatedness of the cognitive, symbolic, and practical work of domestication, and that challenges not solved in one area led to consequences in the others. For instance, if the technology is not comprehensible, it will be difficult to meet the norms of a clean and drivable car, which in turn could lead to the next driver having difficulties in adapting the use of the cars to his or her own needs. This could result in general distrust of the car-sharing service, including the other users, which is also fuelled by the lack of possibilities for communication.

6. Conclusions

This article discusses the cognitive, practical, and symbolic challenges involved in domesticating electric car sharing, and how this usage is adapted to the drivers’ everyday activities associated with existing routines, meanings, knowledge, people, and artefacts (Sørensen 2006).

What distinguishes this study from previous research is that the interviewed drivers lived in a suburban area, an atypical context for electric car-sharing services. Owning an electric car or using a car-sharing service had previously not been a viable option. The domestication theory made it possible to ‘see’ the very early phase of adopting electric car sharing from a new user perspective thus illuminating a multifaceted process containing many different interrelated sociotechnical challenges. However, we are aware that the theory overlooks broader organizational and infrastructural aspects (Haddon 2011; Sovacool and Hess 2017), such as the distribution of charging stations, which has been excluded in our study but also influences the process.

The identified challenges in adopting electric cars are largely in line with other studies (e.g. Ryghaug and Toftaker 2014; Ingeborgrud and Ryghaug 2019) but, in an electric car-sharing service we have also shown that additional intertwining difficulties emerge, such as making sense of and overcoming technical issues, coordinating car sharing with daily routines, as well as trying to understand other car-sharing drivers’ behaviour. This adds knowledge to the interrelated sociotechnical challenges that build up barriers to using such a service.

In research, the cost involved with car sharing is often contrasted to owning a car (cp. Lamberton and Rose 2012; Hartl et al. 2018). However, this study shows that this assumption is not always relevant. Rather, the willingness to pay depends on how well car sharing fits into, enriches, and enables a practice in relation to other transportation modes. This means strengthening what users regard as meaningful and useful, such as collaboration with others to make sense of the technology, adjusting it to their needs, and meaning making to enrich their spare time.

We believe that car-sharing companies, policy makers, and housing companies could benefit from this user-centred perspective as a complement to the more prominent consumer-perspective, in understanding what challenges need to be addressed for lowering the thresholds for electric car-sharing services. We have shown how users undertake diverse types of coping strategies to handle these challenges, strategies that reveal the flaws with the service, making electric car sharing less convenient and less attractive to a wider public.

Other than being a substitute for car ownership, electric car sharing can be interpreted as a transport mode for facilitating and enriching people’s everyday lives, promoting equity in transportation. According to Hine (2007) and Dill and McNeil (2021), there is a lack of emphasis on social inclusion and equity in transport policies and car sharing, and how to make it an affordable solution for everyone. Dill and McNeil (2021) suggest introducing more publicly owned systems, e.g. public housing authorities, as a supplement to private for-profit operators. A similar conclusion is drawn by Rotaris and Danielis (2018), in relation to medium to small-sized towns where the demand is lower.

Finally, the social use and collaboration involved in the adoption process has been highlighted as relevant for introducing and disseminating car sharing (c.f. Peterson and Simkins 2019). This was also the case in our study: even though only 11 drivers took part in the trial, the awareness of it was spread within the area through their friends and relatives who either accompanied them in the car or discussed the various aspects of electric car sharing.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the participants in the car-sharing trial and the members of the University West research team: Lars-Olof Johansson, Ulrika Lundh Snis, Suzana Ramadani Olsson, Viktoria Färnefors, Christian Master Östlund, and Anna Sigridur Islind for their involvement and for sharing their views and experience as well as the housing company EIDAR and the car manufacturer NEVS for their assistance in the project. We also want to thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions and guidance on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Additional information

Funding

This work was part of the SESMA-project funded by Vinnova—the Swedish innovation Agency within the Strategic Innovation Program Drive Sweden (Grant No. 2018-02051).