Peer-to-Peer Carsharing

By Ingrid Ballús-Armet, Susan A. Shaheen, Kelly A Clonts, D. Weinzimmer. 2014

141 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

An Overview of Shared Mobility (2018, background): “On the other hand, P2P carsharing offers a greater selection of locations, vehicle types, and daily and hourly re t l prices when compared to the classic arsh ring m d l [60,74,75].”
Empirical analysis of free-floating carsharing usage: The Munich and Berlin case (2015, background): “Up to now, most studies concentrate on the (potential) market, the users’ demography or their motives for joining the system (Hampshire and Gaites, 2011; Ballús-Armet et al., 2014; Clark et al., 2014; Dill et al., 2014).”
The impact of free-floating carsharing on car ownership: Early-stage findings from London (2017, background): “1 Other variations of carsharing exist; readers interested in, for instance, peer-to-peer carsharing (in which ownership of the fleet is decentralized) are referred to Bewick et al. (2013), Ballús-Armet et al. (2014) and Dill et al. (2014).”
To earn is not enough: A means-end analysis to uncover peer-providers' participation motives in peer-to-peer carsharing (2017, unknown): “This is surprising given calls for further investigation of the sharing economy in general (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; Barnes and Mattsson, 2016; Lamberton and Rose, 2012;Martin, 2016), and P2P carsharing in particular (Ballus-Armet et al., 2014; Dill et al., 2014, 2016; Shaheen et al., 2012).”