Shaheen and Martin
ASSESSING EARLY MARKET POTENTIAL FOR
CARSHARING IN CHINA:
A CASE STUDY OF BEIJING
Susan A. Shaheen, Ph. D.
Honda Distinguished Scholar in Transportation, University of California, Davis, &
Policy and Behavioral Research Program Leader, California PATH
University of California, Berkeley
1357 S. 46th Street. Bldg 452; Richmond, CA 94804- 4648
510- 665- 3483 ( O); 510- 665- 3537 ( F); sashaheen@ path. berkeley. edu
and
Elliot Martin
Graduate Student Researcher, California PATH
University of California, Berkeley
1357 S. 46th Street. Bldg 452; Richmond, CA 94804- 4648
510- 665- 3576 ( O); 510- 665- 3537 ( F); elliot@ berkeley. edu
Shaheen and Martin 1
ASSESSING EARLY MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CARSHARING IN CHINA:
A CASE STUDY OF BEIJING
ABSTRACT
China’s economic expansion is fueling an accelerated demand for private vehicles. While
China’s growing motorization is similar to that of other developing nations, the scale of
this growth is unprecedented. Personal motorization provides numerous benefits to
individuals and society; however, roadway congestion, parking inefficiencies, and
environmental challenges typically accompany widespread auto use in urban areas.
Carsharing is an innovative transportation demand management strategy, which can offer
its members the convenience and flexibility of vehicle ownership at lower cost. It has
also demonstrated environmental and social benefits.
In Spring 2006, the authors implemented an 840- person intercept survey within
Beijing to explore carsharing familiarity and response. The questionnaire assessed
respondents’ travel patterns and needs, vehicle purchase intentions, and carsharing
interest. The results indicate a potential demand for carsharing services. Over 25% of
respondents expressed a high level of interest in carsharing. Interestingly, only 40% of
this group was previously familiar with the concept. Those “ interested in carsharing” are
more inclined to take transit, bicycle, and walk and have slightly higher income and
education levels. While respondents “ interested in carsharing” are less auto- reliant than
those who are “ uninterested” ( 18% vs. 21% drive alone), a higher proportion of the
former ( 30% vs. 15%) indicated a planned vehicle purchase/ lease. Since only 21% of
respondents reported that they are able to drive, driver education may be critical to future
carsharing adoption. Despite this finding, survey results indicate a notable interest in
carsharing as an alternative to vehicle ownership among urban residents in China.
KEY WORDS: China, Beijing, carsharing, response, market potential
WORD COUNT: 7,481
Shaheen and Martin 2
INTRODUCTION
China’s remarkable economic expansion is a major driving force for present day
globalization. Internally, China’s growing economy is exhibiting many of the same
developmental patterns and trends that were traditionally observed within the world’s
developed nations during the 20th century. In particular, China’s economic growth has
been characterized by increased private vehicle ownership and accelerated urbanization.
Swelling population density has overwhelmed many of the largest cities. In response,
local urban policy decisions have focused on lowering city density by developing
specialized towns on the urban fringe ( 1). Historically, Chinese cities developed prior to
the age of motorization. After the communist revolution of 1949, motorization was
limited and slow to grow. During this period, walking, bicycling, and public transit were
the primary transportation modes.
China’s transformation began with an economic reform policy in the early 1980s.
Collaboration with industry internationally exploded, and China has since become the
manufacturing center of the world. China’s citizens were also officially encouraged to
acquire personal wealth. The central government in Beijing made auto ownership and the
development of a domestic auto industry both national priorities ( 2). From 1999 to 2002,
the number of cars in China increased by 55% ( 3).
China’s automotive expansion has notable implications for the rest of the world.
With vehicle ownership rates a mere fraction of those present within most industrialized
countries, China is already the world’s third largest oil consumer after the U. S. and Japan
( 3). While autos can provide a high degree of personal freedom and mobility to society,
their widespread use has negative implications for traffic management, air quality, energy
and land use, and human health. China’s central government is aware of the impacts of
increased auto use, particularly urban air quality and energy security. In response, it has
retraced some of its earlier policies by: encouraging public transportation development,
increasing deployment of alternative fuels ( 2), and investigating travel demand
management tools, such as carsharing.
Carsharing offers individuals an alternative to private vehicle ownership. It
benefits individuals by transferring the fixed costs of ownership into variable costs,
allowing users to tailor their auto- use expense to their personal needs. Furthermore,
carsharing has documented social and environmental benefits including: reduced auto
ownership, miles/ kilometers traveled, and emissions; increased transit, walking, and
cycling; more efficient land use; and mobility benefits for lower- income populations ( 4).
If carsharing is integrated into China’s developing motorization strategy, it could provide
an attractive alternative to auto ownership, particularly among urban residents.
This paper includes six main sections. It begins with a brief overview of China’s
existing transportation system with an emphasis on Beijing. Second, the authors review
documented carsharing benefits from Europe and North America. Next, the study
methodology, detailed intercept survey results, and expert interview findings are
presented. Finally, the authors conclude with a summary of key findings.
Shaheen and Martin 3
CHINA’S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM: TRENDS AND FUTURE
DIRECTIONS
With 1.3 billion people, China is the most populous country in the world and the second
largest land mass nation. About 90% of its population lives in the eastern half of the
country, driving the high population densities observed in many Chinese cities. Most
developed East Asian nations have high- density urban environments and rich transit
networks. Unlike most nations in East Asia, which are spatially confined, China still has
numerous sparsely populated regions. In this way, China is distinct from other Asian
countries because low- density, auto- oriented development is now possible for many
areas. Previously, national policy constraints on wealth prevented this.
As with most of the world’s metropolitan regions, population density in China’s
largest cities is variable. For instance, the city of Beijing has 18 districts. Four of
these  Dongcheng, Xicheng, Chongwen, and Xuanwu  have population densities
between 22,000 and 29,000 people per kilometer, which are comparable to some of the
densest cities in the world. Four other districts have densities between 3,000 and 5,000.
The remaining ten districts have densities below 700, with four of those under 200 ( 5).
Current urbanization trends show that density is increasing in many Chinese cities. This
has been fueled by a massive, and sometimes seasonal, rural- to- urban migration, which
has caused local governments to increase edge- city developments and municipal densities
to increase ( 6). While Beijing is the political and cultural hub of China, Shanghai and
Chongqing rival it in population and density.
Transportation System Evolution in China
Urban transportation systems within China have experienced a unique evolution that has
been heavily influenced by the country’s communist history. China’s centrally planned
economy inhibited the advancement of transportation systems across the country. From
1949 to 1980, motorized transportation largely consisted of bus travel. Most trips were
short distance; walking and cycling were the dominant modes. And, Beijing had the only
subway system in China ( 7).
Economic liberalization in the mid- 1980s started the gradual modernization of
China’s transportation systems. The number of buses grew, but taxis and other forms of
paratransit developed even faster ( 8). In addition, the early 1980s experienced a 5 to 10%
increase in transit ridership per year. However, towards the mid- to late- 1980s, transit
ridership started to decline ( 7). During and after this period, the government still
supported public transportation as the dominant transportation mode in urban areas. This
policy soon conflicted, however, with the desire for economic growth and a domestic
automotive industry ( 2). As part of its 8th five- year plan ( developed for 1991 to 1995), the
central government declared its goal of making auto manufacturing a leading domestic
industry ( 9). During this period, paratransit growth alone caused bus ridership declines.
From 1991 to 1998, the total number of taxicabs quadrupled from 75,000 to over 300,000
nationwide ( 7).
Congestion caused by increasing motorization in China initiated a decline in
transit services. While the number of public transit vehicles increased across China
during the mid- 1990s, there were mixed ridership effects. In some cities, including
Shaheen and Martin 4
Beijing, Tianjin, and Ghanzhou, the total number of passengers carried increased ( 10).
However, many cities witnessed a decline in total passengers carried, despite a doubling
in transit vehicles ( 10). Indeed, China's economic capital of Shanghai witnessed one of
the most pronounced drops in transit ridership. From 1986 to 1995, transit modal share
fell from 24 to 15%, while personal motorized transport rose from 3 to 7%. During this
timeframe, there was an increase in bicycle ridership and a decline in walking ( 8). Faced
by increasing congestion and industrialization, the central government made investments
in urban rail systems in the mid- 1990s. These systems are still expanding today. At
present, there are ten urban rail systems in China; about half have just one or two lines. In
contrast, South Korea and Japan have at least six and 12 urban rail systems, respectively.
The underlying forces fueling China’s motorization are consistent with those of
other countries. China fits well within the international experience of vehicle growth as
correlated with income measures, such as gross domestic product ( GDP) per capita ( 9).
Today, China's vehicle ownership density is 28 per 1000, while the United States ( U. S.)
has 785 vehicles per 1000 people ( 6). Another aspect of China's motorization is vehicle
technology. A recent joint study of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and the
National Academy of Sciences reports that the prevailing automotive technology on
Chinese roads today produces emission levels similar to U. S. autos during the 1970s. A
recent report states that suspended particulates within the city of Beijing are seven times
as high as New York and Tokyo ( 7).
Transportation assessments in China suggest that current road infrastructure is a
major factor limiting personal motorization growth. Although highway length has
increased by 60% between 1980 and 2000, intercity roadway networks are exceptionally
sparse given China’s size and geographic area ( 11). During this same period, railway
length increased by 30%. A major component of China's transportation strategy is to
continue developing a national trunk highway system, which is similar to the U. S.
Interstate System. While the overall expansion of paved roads ( in aggregate) has kept
pace with China's income growth, urban roadway expansion  where most vehicle use is
occurring  has proceeded far more slowly ( 11).
Technology and The Future
Internet and telephone use in developing nations, such as China and India, is also
increasing. China already has 111 million Internet users ( 12). While this is less than 10%
of the population, Internet use will continue to expand rapidly. Thus, integration of
carsharing services in China, using Internet- based reservations, should not present a long-term
barrier to member use and adoption.
In the future, China will continue to expand roadway infrastructure and personal
motorization due to the economic rewards of a national auto industry and the private
benefits of vehicle ownership. Despite this trend, the Chinese government is cognizant of
the many challenges of motorization including: energy use, parking/ land use
requirements, congestion, and pollution. Indeed, the government has stated that public
transportation and sustainability are part of the solution to a growing auto culture. Thus, it
is not surprising that China might consider carsharing as a possible alternative to auto
ownership given its flexibility, cost savings, and environmental benefits.
Shaheen and Martin 5
CARSHARING BENEFITS: A BRIEF WORLDWIDE OVERVIEW
Much of the cost of owning and operating a personal auto is fixed. About 77% of private
vehicle expenses are paid regardless of how much a car owner drives ( 13). Since the
variable costs associated with vehicle ownership are relatively low, there is an economic
incentive for owners to drive more frequently. Shared- vehicle services transform the
fixed costs of auto ownership into variable costs because a member’s use is closely tied
to the actual expense ( typically an hourly and mileage fee). Thus, carsharing offers
individuals many of the benefits of personal vehicle use ( e. g., convenience, flexibility)
without the costs and hassles of ownership. Depending upon the location and
organization, the maximum annual mileage up to which carsharing is more cost effective
than owning or leasing a personal vehicle lies between 10,000 to 16,000 kilometers ( 13,
14, 15).
Carsharing programs began in Europe during the mid- 1980s and later spread to
Canada, the U. S., and Japan during the mid- to late- 1990s. Shared- vehicle programs have
since expanded to other regions including: Australia and Singapore. Malaysia plans to
launch carsharing in late- 2006 ( 16). Today, carsharing is operating in approximately 600
cities around the world, in 18 nations, and on four continents. Another eight countries are
exploring shared- vehicle services. At present, there are approximately 348,000 carsharing
participants worldwide ( 17).
Research from Europe and North America has documented the social and
environmental benefits associated with carsharing. Differences in data collection and
study methodology frequently produce inconsistent results, often with limited samples,
which makes it difficult to precisely estimate carsharing impacts. Thus, results are often
represented in the context of a range to account for variability in results across studies.
Carsharing reduces the need for many individuals to own a car. Several countries
in Europe are home to successful carsharing programs that have had a measured impact
on car ownership. An ongoing review of a program in Denmark suggested that shared
cars replaced between 4.6 to 6.2 personal vehicles ( 18). In Germany, a review of an
unpublished study of 14 carsharing organizations suggested that 13% of shared- vehicle
customers gave up their car, while 4% gave up a second or third vehicle ( 19). In the
Netherlands, a study in the late- 1990s found that carsharing induced a 39% reduction in
private vehicle ownership among carsharing users ( 20, 21). A review of North American
carsharing impacts found that up to one third of participants sold a vehicle after joining a
carsharing service ( 22, 23). And, up to nearly two thirds of participants delayed or
forwent a vehicle purchase ( 24, 25). According to European and North American studies,
each carsharing vehicle replaces between 4 to 20 vehicles from the road ( 24, 26, 27, 28).
Not surprisingly, reduced vehicle ownership leads to declines in personal vehicle
kilometers/ miles traveled, energy use, air pollution, and land allocations for parking.
Carsharing fosters energy conservation and reduced emissions by lowering the overall
number of vehicle kilometers/ miles traveled. A review of surveys conducted in Germany
found that the annual kilometers driven among members had dropped by 32% ( an
average reduction of 1,627 kilometers) ( 29). Another German study reported that mileage
among members dropped by 58% ( 30). Other European countries, including Denmark
and Switzerland, observed reductions in driving among carsharing members ( 18, 26). In
North America, studies have suggested a wide range in driving reduction  from 8 to 80%
Shaheen and Martin 6
( 24, 27, 31). Such a range is due to differences in data collection, analysis timeframe,
location, and behavioral variations among members. In a recent review of North
American studies, Shaheen et al. ( 2006) calculated an average VMT reduction of 44%
among existing programs ( 4).
Carsharing also lessens the pressure to expand parking facilities by serving many
individuals with a single carsharing space and reducing overall vehicle ownership. A case
study in Milton Keynes of the United Kingdom found that a local carsharing program
reduced parking needs and increased transit use ( 32). Carsharing can also facilitate more
efficient and compact urban land- use patterns. In the U. S. and Canada, for instance,
municipalities are supporting policies, such as parking reduction ( i. e., downgrading
number of spaces in a new development) and allowing greater floor area ratios ( i. e.,
developers can build more intensively on the site) ( 33, 34, 35). Carsharing also can
provide an economic benefit to users when the annual cost of shared- vehicle use is less
than the annualized cost of ownership ( 36, 13). Finally, low- income households and
college students can benefit from participating in carsharing ( 37).
Historically, carsharing has developed in regions where widespread motorization
is essentially complete. In these nations, shared- vehicle services have typically spread
into urban environments with good transit networks and generally obviated the need for a
first or second household vehicle. In contrast, carsharing may be more readily
incorporated into developing nations where motorization is still in its early stages,
ultimately preventing or lessening the demand for private vehicle ownership. While
carsharing has documented benefits throughout numerous industrialized nations, the
greatest impacts may have yet to be realized in developing countries, such as China. In
the future, carsharing may help to shape Chinese cities just as cycling, walking, and
transit did previously.
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH: BEIJING CARSHARING SURVEY
From May to June 2006, the authors employed a Chinese research institute to implement
an intercept survey developed by Dr. Susan Shaheen in several locations within Beijing.
This survey was designed to be exploratory. The response rate was approximately 33%,
with 840 completed surveys. During this period, 12 interviewers in teams of two were
dispatched to busy locations within five of Beijing’s 18 districts including: Chaoyang,
Haidian, Chongwen, Xicheng, and Xuanwu. Three of these districts are among the
densest in Beijing, exceeding 20,000 people per square kilometer. The other two, Haidian
and Chaoyang, have a medium population density of 3,500 to 4,500 ( 5).
Researchers intercepted individuals passing by a pre- defined area on the street,
near supermarkets as well as within residential areas. Interviewers received a strict
protocol for engaging and surveying citizens and were instructed to approach only
individuals who appeared to be between the ages of 20 to 50. Prior to being asked
questions about carsharing midway through the survey, respondents were read a
description of carsharing as it is commonly understood in the United States. Participants
then answered questions pertaining to carsharing. Following survey completion, each
respondent received a gift.
Interviewers also were instructed to seek out approximately 400 individuals who
were familiar with carsharing and 400 who were not. Participants who were familiar
Shaheen and Martin 7
carsharing were intentionally over sampled. The success rate for recruiting those familiar
with carsharing was approximately 10% ( i. e., approximately 10 individuals were
approached to identify one person familiar with carsharing). Ultimately, researchers
collected 317 surveys from people who were familiar with carsharing and 520 from those
who were not. While the total number of participants familiar with carsharing is below
the intended target, the authors deem this quantity satisfactory for exploration.
After the intercept survey was completed, researchers conducted an in- depth
interview with 15 respondents who expressed interest in carsharing during the intercept
survey. These participants were interviewed more extensively to understand their specific
travel patterns and how carsharing might fit into their tripmaking routines. The in- depth
interviews also probed for potential challenges that carsharing organizations might
encounter in China.
INTERCEPT SURVEY RESULTS
To gain an understanding of carsharing demand, Shaheen designed the intercept survey to
examine respondents’ familiarity and experience with private autos as well as future
plans to acquire a personal vehicle. This included perceptions of the various costs and
benefits of auto ownership. Interviewers also queried the basic travel needs of
respondents, including daily transportation modes. In addition, the survey explored
attitudes toward automobiles and perceptions towards environmental issues associated
with urban motorization. Next, respondents were read a detailed definition of carsharing;
this was followed by a series of questions exploring carsharing familiarity and overall
response. The questionnaire ended with a series of demographic questions.
The survey contained several distinguishing questions that enabled the authors to
analyze subgroup response ( i. e., those familiar/ unfamiliar and interested/ uninterested in
carsharing). The aim of this subgroup comparison is to understand how each subgroup
differs. The authors noted a variety of differences among specific subgroups within the
entire population, which were concealed in the aggregate analysis. A defining survey
question asked whether participants previously had heard of carsharing. Out of the entire
sample, 38% ( 317 individuals) were familiar with it. Since carsharing is a relatively new
concept to China, the authors hypothesized that those “ familiar with carsharing” had
unique characteristics from those “ unfamiliar” with it. While distinctions between the two
groups exist, they are more limited. One notable distinction is that individuals previously
aware of carsharing are slightly skewed towards higher income and education levels.
Attitudinal questions, however, detected little difference in response. Thus, the results
indicate that “ familiarity with carsharing” alone is not the most distinguishing market
feature in this study.
Researchers also sought to gauge interest in future carsharing participation. After
answering questions related to possible carsharing concerns and motivations for use,
respondents were asked to rate on a scale of one to five, their likelihood of participation.
A score of five equaled “ highly likely to participate,” while a score of one meant
“ unlikely to participate.” Out of the total sample, 26.4% of respondents ( 222 individuals)
reported that they are likely or highly likely to use carsharing. Among those participants,
40% ( 89 individuals) also belong to the “ familiar with carsharing” subgroup. Ultimately,
“ interest in carsharing” was found to be a more distinguishing feature among all
Shaheen and Martin 8
respondents. In the analysis that follows, the authors focus on illustrating differences
between the 73.6% ( 618 respondents) who are “ uninterested in carsharing” and the 26.4%
who are “ interested” in using it. These groups are mutually exclusive. Interestingly,
distinctions found between the two were often amplified in the subgroup that is both
“ interested” in and “ familiar with carsharing.”
Demographic Analysis
The gender distribution among the total sample is almost evenly split; this varies slightly
within the two subgroups partitioned by “ carsharing interest.” In addition, almost all of
the respondents are either married or single, with less than 10 instances of individuals
who are divorced or widowed within the study population. The age distribution of the
sample is characterized by four categories spanning the ages of 20 to 50 ( i. e., 20- 25, 26-
35, 36- 45, 46- 50). In general, those “ interested in carsharing” are skewed towards
younger age categories, and this is more pronounced in the subgroup of individuals both
“ familiar” with and “ interested in carsharing.” It should be noted, however, that “ interest
in carsharing” is not just consigned to younger adults ( 20- 35 years of age); 44% ( 97
respondents) of this subgroup is between the ages of 36 and 50. In addition, while
respondents “ interested in carsharing” are more highly educated than those uninterested
in carsharing, approximately 40% of interested respondents ( 88) have a high school
diploma or lower. Mobile phone use is another interesting aspect among the total
population; it is nearly ubiquitous at 95% ( 794 respondents) and even higher for the
subpopulation “ interested in carsharing.”
Monthly income is also an important demographic. The following figure
illustrates the monthly income distribution of those “ interested” and “ uninterested in
carsharing.” The income distribution of the two groups generally follows the same shape.
( See Figure 1 below.) While there is a higher concentration of wealth among those
“ interested in carsharing,” this is slight.
Shaheen and Martin 9
FIGURE 1 Monthly Income Distribution of Respondents.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
1750 yuan or
less
2001- 2250
( yuan)
2501- 2750
( yuan)
3001- 3500
( yuan)
4001- 5000
( yuan)
7501- 10000
( yuan)
15001- 20000
( yuan)
Uninterested in Carsharing
Interested in Carsharing
China currently has a fixed exchange rate with the dollar, which is gauged to
equal eight yuan. Figure 1 provides an interesting contrast between the income
distribution of survey respondents and the general population in Beijing and other parts
of China. China’s gross domestic product ( GDP) per capita in 2005 was $ 6,800 US, but
this varies widely from region to region ( 12). The national GDP per capita falls within the
4,001- 5,000 yuan interval, which is most prevalent in the survey. Interestingly, the
sample population appears to be slightly wealthier than individuals in China on average,
based on the skewed distribution of the income data.
Automobile Experience
Since auto ownership in China is rapidly growing, researchers sought to gain an
understanding of respondents’ auto experience. Across the entire sample, 21% ( 179
respondents) reported that they can drive. The majority of these respondents ( 123
individuals) are members of families that own a car. Half of the remaining drivers ( 31
respondents) report that they drive a company car but do not own an auto. Analysis of
driving frequencies reveals that everyday car use is prevalent among 55% ( 97
respondents) of the study’s driving population. Another quarter of drivers use autos three
to four times a week, while the remaining drive a car at most once a week. The results
suggest that there are individuals that do not need to use a vehicle everyday. A similar
range of behavior exists with respect to driving distances. A majority of drivers travel
less than 50 kilometers per day. Those drivers “ interested in carsharing” expressed a
slight preference toward shorter trips, with 16% ( seven respondents) traveling less than
10 kilometers per day.
Shaheen and Martin 10
Modal Share
Understanding how people travel is essential to operating a carsharing service that meets
customer needs. In the survey, interviewers asked respondents to list the modes they
typically use to conduct daily activities. The activity destinations listed include: work,
friends and family, child’s school, shopping, and leisure travel. Respondents were
allowed to select all modes used to access these destinations. Half of respondents ( 414
individuals) selected at least two modes, and nearly 12% ( 97) indicated at least three.
Figure 2 below illustrates the modal share exhibited by those “ interested” and
“ uninterested in carsharing.” Each percentage indicates the proportion of subgroup
respondents that reported a particular mode.
FIGURE 2 Transportation Modes Used by Respondents.
66%
26%
21% 21%
10% 9%
4%
30%
27%
14% 12%
4%
18%
74%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Public Transit Bicycle Subway Drive Alone Other Walking Trolley Bus
Uninterested in Carsharing
Interested in Carsharing
Not surprisingly, the primary mode is public transit. Higher levels of subway and
bicycle use also indicate that transportation is not auto dominated in Beijing. Although
the distribution across each carsharing interest subgroup is the same, those “ interested in
carsharing” dominate nearly all modes except drive alone. While the modal share of drive
alone is small, this is widely documented as growing in China ( 9, 38). Reliance on transit
and cycling in this survey confirms that carsharing could augment current modes and
perhaps limit vehicle growth.
Next, the authors sought to understand whether participants are actively
considering a vehicle purchase. Those who did not already own cars were asked whether
Shaheen and Martin 11
they planned to purchase or lease a vehicle within the next six months. Among those who
did not own a car, 20% ( 122 respondents) reported that they are planning to acquire a
personal vehicle. Among the “ interested in carsharing” subgroup, this figure is 30% ( 51
respondents). Only 15% ( 71 respondents) of the “ uninterested in carsharing” subgroup is
considering a car acquisition. Thus, while the “ interested in carsharing” subgroup is less
auto- reliant ( 18% vs. 21% drive alone) than those “ uninterested,” a higher proportion of
the former group is seeking to expand their mobility options through a vehicle purchase.
If carsharing were available in Beijing today, some vehicle purchases among this group
might be avoided.
Auto Ownership Perceptions
As part of the survey, respondents were also requested to indicate the advantages and
disadvantages of auto ownership. In addition, respondents who reported that they do not
plan to purchase a vehicle in the next six months were asked why. Results from the total
population are summarized in Table 1 below.
TABLE 1 Positive and Negative Aspects of Auto Ownership
Auto Ownership
Advantages
( n = 840)
%
Auto Ownerships
Disadvantages
( n = 840)
%
Auto Purchase
Deterrents
( n = 490)
%
Travel Convenience 70% Parking problems 46%
Buying a car
is expensive 50%
Increases comfort
of travel 35%
Environmental
pollution 34%
Public transit is
convenient 26%
Increases mobility
and scope of
activity 17% High cost 31% Parking is difficult 25%
Symbol of
social status 11% Financial pressure 16%
Walking or biking
is convenient 13%
Makes travel safer 4% Unsafe 8% Driving is not safe 10%
Other 1% Other 2% Other reasons 5%
Driving stress 5%
The percent listed above indicates the proportion of participants who responded
positively to one or more choices; thus, percentages do not sum to 100. The results
presented above illustrate that “ convenience” and “ comfort” are the dominant auto
benefits among the sample.
The authors note the relatively low percentage of respondents who indicated
“ social status” as a vehicle benefit. This aspect of car ownership is often mentioned as a
force that spurs motorization in the developing world ( 39). In a similar attitudinal
question, the majority of the total population also disagreed or indicated indifference to
the suggestion that automobiles largely reveal a person’s social status. This factor may be
underreported among participants, nevertheless, as respondents may feel less comfortable
indicating this.
Shaheen and Martin 12
With respect to auto ownership, participants ranked parking, pollution, and
expense among the highest disadvantages. Respondents also indicated that alternative
mode convenience also obviates the automobile. For individuals who did not already own
nor planned to purchase/ lease a vehicle in the next six months, high costs, transit
convenience, and parking constraints factored the highest among deterrents to a future
auto purchase.
IN- DEPTH INTERVIEW FINDINGS
Results from the in- depth interviews provided valuable insights into how participants
envisioned themselves using carsharing services, if they became available. Nearly all of
the interviewees indicated that they would be more likely to use carsharing for relatively
long trips ( at least 44 kilometers in length on average). They also shared that carsharing
would be useful for long distance leisure trips with friends and family. A majority
thought that carsharing vehicles would be the most useful for: carrying items, linking
trips more efficiently, and traveling faster for daily errands.
Participants were asked their preferred three locations for accessing a carsharing
vehicle. The top ranked site is “ within my neighborhood;” the second choice is “ at my
workplace or school,” followed by “ at a rail transit station.” Interviewees were also asked
how much time they would be willing to spend accessing a shared vehicle. Three
indicated that they would not devote more than 10 minutes to accessing a vehicle.
Another five reported that they would spend 10 to 15 minutes, while the other seven
would be willing to dedicate 15 minutes or more. In addition, participants were asked the
distance that they would be willing to travel to retrieve a vehicle. The majority ( nine)
indicated that they would not travel more than one kilometer. Five of the remaining
respondents said that they would be willing to travel one to two kilometers.
The in- depth interviewers also asked participants to estimate an affordable rate
per hour and mile for carsharing use. The average hourly rate projected by participants is
25 yuan ($ 3.18 US) with responses ranging from 5 to 50 yuan ($. 64 to $ 6.36 US) per
hour, while the average mileage charge is roughly 2 yuan ($. 25 US) per mile with a range
of .5 to 5 yuan ($. 06 to $. 64 US). Additionally, interviewees were asked how frequently
they thought they would use a carsharing vehicle, assuming affordable rates. The most
common answer is once per week. Five respondents, nevertheless, indicated that they
would consider using carsharing four to five times per week.
Participants overwhelmingly chose the sedan as the most popular carsharing
vehicle model. Out of a wide array of vehicles, four participants selected the “ other”
category, indicating a “ cross- country jeep” as their preferred carsharing vehicle.
Interviewees thought that the Internet and telephone would be the most convenient ways
to make a carsharing reservation. Additionally, participants were asked if there was any
information that they would be uncomfortable providing to a carsharing organization.
The top response is income, and the second highest choice ( seven participants) is family
size.
In a series of open- ended questions, interviewees were asked if they had any
carsharing concerns. Responses reflect concerns about responsibility for carsharing
vehicles in the case of a theft or accident. Overall driving safety and carsharing vehicle
safety are even greater concerns among participants. Finally, interviewees were asked to
Shaheen and Martin 13
consider general carsharing challenges in China. One individual noted that entrepreneurs
had tried to implement carsharing previously, but they were unable to secure convenient
access locations. In general, interviewees commented that parking is an enormous
challenge for drivers in China and that guaranteed parking spaces for carsharing vehicles
would be a considerable benefit.
CONCLUSION
China’s economy, urban centers, and vehicle ownership are growing at an impressive
rate. While there are many benefits associated with rapid industrialization, there are also
negative energy and environmental impacts. China’s central government is aware of these
consequences and is particularly concerned about the energy security and urban air
quality impacts of widespread auto use. In response to these concerns, the government is
encouraging public transportation and alternative fuel development, along with
investigating innovative mobility strategies, such as carsharing, which has demonstrated
social and environmental benefits. At present, carsharing offers an alternative to private
vehicle ownership to approximately 348,000 individuals worldwide.
To investigate carsharing’s potential in China, the authors implemented an 840-
person intercept survey to better understand the familiarity and response of Chinese
citizens living in Beijing to this concept. The survey results illustrate that there is a
potential for carsharing to play an important role in China’s evolving transportation
system. Interestingly, only 40% of respondents were familiar with the concept at the time
of the survey. “ Familiarity with carsharing,” nevertheless, is not a key market indicator
alone. “ Interest in carsharing” is a more distinguishing feature among respondents.
While those “ interested in carsharing” are slightly wealthier and more educated
than those “ uninterested in carsharing,” the differential is small. In general, those
“ interested in carsharing” are skewed towards younger age categories ( 20 to 35), and this
is more pronounced among individuals both “ familiar” with and “ interested in
carsharing.” Nevertheless, carsharing appears to have appeal across the socio-demographic
groups in this study.
Since understanding how people travel is essential to carsharing operations, the
authors also examined mode use. Not surprisingly, transit, cycling, and walking each play
an important travel role in urban Beijing. And, those “ interested in carsharing” dominate
nearly all modes except drive alone in this study. These results are promising for
carsharing in China, as users in developed nations traditionally use carsharing to
supplement alternative transportation in urban areas.
While private vehicles do not currently dominate travel in Beijing, 20% of total
respondents claimed that they are able to drive. Of those, a majority travel less than 50
kilometers per day. Although this appears promising, limited driving knowledge and
experience might present a barrier to carsharing adoption in the future. Finally, the
authors explored the vehicle purchase/ lease plans of respondents. Among those who did
not own a car, 20% reported that they are planning to acquire a personal vehicle. Thirty
percent of those “ interested in carsharing” ( in contrast to 15% among those “ uninterested
in carsharing”) indicated that they are planning a purchase. Interestingly, those
“ interested in carsharing” are less auto- reliant than “ uninterested” respondents ( 18% vs.
21% drive alone).
Shaheen and Martin 14
In the future, carsharing could help to shape China’s future urban mobility
strategy by helping to satisfy the growing demand for private vehicles, without
sacrificing transit and other alternative modes. The study’s results suggest that citizens
may be receptive to carsharing. Over 25% of the total sample expressed a high level of
interest in carsharing, and only 11% viewed the automobile as a status symbol. While
Beijing respondents indicate that convenience and comfort are primary auto benefits, they
also note high cost, transit convenience, and parking constraints as deterrents to vehicle
ownership. In conclusion, the results of this study suggest that carsharing has the
potential to gain acceptance in urban areas in China, while preventing some of the
negative impacts of widespread motorization.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Honda Endowment for New Mobility Studies at the
University of California ( UC), Davis for generously funding this research. In particular,
we would like to acknowledge Gerald Xia, Vice Mayor of the Jiayuguan Municipal
Government of the Gansu Province in Northwest China, who co- funded a portion of this
study with his doctoral dissertation funding from the Harbin Institute of Technology.
Thanks also go to Gerald for his tireless collaboration on the survey ( translating
instruments and coordinating with the China Reform Foundation ( CRF) on data
collection). We would also like to extend our sincere appreciation to CRF, a non-governmental
research institute, for administering the intercept survey and in- depth
interviews. Our deep appreciation also goes to Kamill Wipyewski and Yuwei Li of
California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways for their assistance with survey
design and translation, as well as Chris Cherry of UC Berkeley who provided expertise
on China to the authors. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who
are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein.
REFERENCES
( 1) Cherry, C., J. Day, Y. Qiu. Suburbanization and Travel in China- A Look at a
Beijing Suburb. Submitted to Transportation Research Board. August 2006.
( 2) Gan, L. Globalization of the Automobile Industry in China: Dynamics and
Barriers in Greening of the Road Transportation. Energy Policy, Vol. 31, 2003,
pp. 537- 551.
( 3) He, K., H. Huo, Q. Zhang, D. He, F. An, M. Wang, M. Walsh. Oil Consumption
and CO2 Emissions in China’s Road Transport: Current Status, Future Trends,
and Policy Implications. Energy Policy, Vol. 33, 2005 pp. 1499- 1507.
( 4) Shaheen, S., A. Cohen, and J. D. Roberts. Carsharing in North America: Market
Growth, Current Developments and Future Potential. Submitted to the
Transportation Research Record, 2005. Forthcoming.
Shaheen and Martin 15
( 5) Beijing Statistical Yearbook. Table 3- 1: Household and Population Statistics.
Table 3- 1: Land Area. Beijing Land and Resources Bureau. Beijing Municipal
Public Security Bureau. 2004.
( 6) Cherry, C. China’s Urban Transportation System: Issues and Policies Facing
Cities. UC Berkeley Volvo Center for Future Urban Transport, Working Paper
2005- 4.
( 7) Liu, R. and C. Guan. Mode Biases of Urban Transportation Policies in China and
Their Implications. Journal of Urban Planning and Development. Vol. 131, No.
2, June 2005. pp. 58- 70.
( 8) Chang, T. D. A New Era for Public Transport Development in China. China
Environment Series. Issue 3, 1999/ 2000, pp. 22- 26.
( 9) Committee on the Future of Personal Transport Vehicles in China. Personal Cars
and China. Chinese Academy of Engineering. The National Academies Press.
2003.
( 10) Walsh, M. Transportation and the Environment in China. China Environment
Series. Issue 3, 1999/ 2000, pp. 28- 50.
( 11) Churchill, A., C. Thum. The World Bank’s Assistance to China’s Transport
Sector. OED Working Paper. The World Bank, 2005.
( 12) Central Intelligence Agency. CIA World Factbook ( China, United States).
https:// www. cia. gov/ cia/ publications/ factbook/ index. html. Accessed June, July
2006.
( 13) Litman, T. Evaluating Carsharing Beneifts. In Transportation Research Record:
No. 1702, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., 2000, pp. 31- 35.
( 14) Reynolds, E. and K. McLaughlin Autoshare. The Smart Alternative to Owning a
Car, 2001.
( 15) Calgary Alternative Transportation Cooperative. Carsharing. http:// www. catco-op.
org/ carsharing. html.
( 16) Barth, M., S. Shaheen, T. Fukuda, and A. Fukuda. Carsharing and Station Cars in
Asia: An Overview of Japan and Singapore. Transportation Research Record,
2005. Forthcoming.
( 17) Shaheen, S. and A. Cohen. Worldwide Carsharing Growth: An International
Comparison. Submitted to Transportation Research Board. August 2006.
Shaheen and Martin 16
( 18) Olsen, M., and M. Retting. Car Sharing Reduces Traffic Volume in Denmark.
Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Project No. 572. 2005.
http:// www. mst. dk/ publica/ projects/ 2001/ 87- 7944- 312- 5. htm. Accessed July 26,
2006.
( 19) Loose, W., M. Mohr, and C. Nobis. Assessment of the Future Development of
Car Sharing in Germany and Related Opportunities. Transport Reviews. Vol. 26,
No. 3, May 2006. pp. 365- 382
( 20) Sperling, D., S. Shaheen, Carsharing: Niche Market or New Pathway? ECMT
Workshop on Managing Car Use for Sustainable Urban Travel. Dublin, Ireland.
December 1999.
( 21) Autodate. Autodate in Policy- Perspective: The Use of the Date Car. Final
Report. Netherlands, Autodate. 1998.
( 22) Robert, B. Potentiel de L’Auto- Partage Dans Le Cadre d’Une Politique de
Gestion de Le Demande en Transport. Forum de L’AQTR, Gas à Effet de Serre:
Transport ed Développment, Kyoto: Une Opportunité d’Affaires? Montréal,
2000.
( 23) Jensen, N. The Co- operative Auto Network Social and Environmental Report
2000- 2001. http:// www. cooperativeauto. net/ benefits/ report. pdf. Accessed July
26, 2006.
( 24) Lane, C. Philly Carshare: First- Year Social and Mobility Impacts of Carsharing
in Philadelphia. Transportation Research Record 1927: TRB, National Research
Council, Washington, D. C., 2005, pp. 158- 166.
( 25) Katzev, R. Carsharing Portland: Review and Analysis of Its First Year.
Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, OR, 1999.
http:// www. publicpolicyresearch. net/ documents/ CSP_ first_ year_ eval. PDF.
( 26) Zipcar. Zipcar Customer Survey Shows Car- Sharing Leads to Car Shedding.
http:// www. zipcar. com/ press/ releases/ press- 21. Accessed July 26, 2006.
( 27) Flexcar. Green Points.
http:// www. flexcar. com/ Portals/ 0/ 10About/ greenpoints. pdf. Accessed July 26,
2006.
( 28) Rydén, C., E. Morin. Mobility Services for Urban Sustainability. Environmental
Assessment. Report WP 6. Trivector Traffic AB. Stockholm, Sweden, January
2005.
Shaheen and Martin 17
( 29) Koch, H. User needs report. Moses ( Mobility Services for Urban Sustainability)
Project. European Commission, DG TREN. University of Bremen. 2001. pp. 22-
24.
( 30) Baum and Pesch, Untersuchung der Eignung von Car- Sharing im Hinblick auf
die Reduzierung von Stadverkerhsproblemen. Bonn. Germany,
Bundesministerium fur Verkehr. 1994.
( 31) Cooper, G., D. Howes, and P. Mye. The Missing Link: An Evaluation of
Carsharing Portland, Inc. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,
Portland, 2000.
( 32) Kirkbride, A., L, Sloman, C. Newsom, S. Cairns, P. Goodwin. Smarter Choices.
Volume 2: Case Study Reports. Department of Transport, London. 2004.
( 33) City of Vancouver. Parking By- Laws ( No. 6059). Sections 2- 4. June 14, 2005.
Accessed July 26, 2005.
( 34) Millard- Ball, A., G. Murray, J. Burkhardt, J. ter Schure. Car- sharing: Where and
How it Succeeds Final Report. TCRP Project B- 26. TRB National Research
Council, Washington D. C.
( 35) Enoch, M. Supporting Car Share Clubs: A Worldwide Review. 3rd Mobility
Services for Urban Sustainability ( MOSES) Meeting. London, U. K., February
2002.
( 36) Shaheen, S., M. Meyn, and K. Wipyewski. U. S. Shared- Use Vehicle Findings on
Carsharing and Station Car Growth, Transportation Research Record, No. 1841,
TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., 2003, pp. 90- 98.
( 37) Shaheen, S., A. Schwartz, and K. Wipyewski. Policy Considerations for
Carsharing and Station Cars: Monitoring Growth, Trends and Overall Impacts.
Transportation Research Record, No. 1887, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D. C., 2004, pp. 128- 136.
( 38) Zhang, X., X. Hu, Enabling Sustainable Urban Road Transport in China: A
Policy and Institutional Perspective. CICERO Working Paper 2003: 02.
February, 2003.
( 39) Sperling, D., E., Clausen, The Developing World’s Motorization Challenge.
Issues of Science and Technology. Vol 19, Issue 1, 2002, pp. 59- 66.