University-Aged Millennials' Attitudes and Perceptions Toward Vehicle

University-Aged Millennials’ Attitudes and Perceptions Toward Vehicle Ownership and Car-Sharing

A Thesis Submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the Faculty of Arts and Science

TRENT UNIVERSITY Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT

University-Aged Millennials’ Attitudes and Perceptions Toward Vehicle Ownership and Car-Sharing

Jessica Lucia Correa

Car-sharing may have the potential to contribute to a more sustainable transportation system. The current research sought to answer the question: what are university-aged Millennials' perceptions and attitudes toward the adoption of vehicle sharing and private vehicle ownership? The research consisted of hosting six interactive focus group sessions with Millennial students, who currently do not own vehicles. Using a qualitative approach, I analyzed the discussions through a social practice theory lens. I suggest that skills, meanings, materials, and social interactions have an influence on the way in which a transportation option is perceived by Millennials. The results revealed that social norms surrounding vehicle ownership and car sharing are being developed, shaped, changed, challenged and reconstructed. If car-sharing businesses, universities, and governments wish to progress toward a more sustainable transportation system, they should recognize the importance of marketing.

Keywords:

Millennials; car-sharing; social practice theory; vehicle-ownership; university; sustainable transportation

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Stephen Hill, John Bishop, Thomas Whillans, Asaf Zohar, and Stephanie

Rutherford for their continuous support throughout my thesis. Thank you to An Kosurko;

Gord Halsey; Katie Allen; Kolawole; Christopher Ott; Erin Hamilton, Kristy

MacDermid, Sarah Quibbell, David Dame, Kathy Warner, Mark Muschett, Melissa

Zubrikas, Geoff MacPhee, Alex McLeod, Robyn McLeod, Angie Jongsma and the rest of the Runner’s Life crew. If I could list you all, I would. Special thank you to Jim and Gerri

MacDonald; who were always willing to lend me a helping hand and support when I needed it most. Thanks to Lynn Teatro and Pat Jilesen from my Toastmaster’s Family for being supportive and encouraging throughout the entire process. I would like to thank my parents who stood with me throughout the process and provided me with guidance and patience. I would also like to thank the 29 focus group participants who took the time to attend my focus group sessions. I am also grateful to have received funding from the

Ontario Graduate Scholarship for this thesis.

iii

Table of Contents ABSTRACT ...... ii Acknowledgements ...... iii Table of Contents ...... iv List of Figures ...... viii List of Tables ...... ix Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Research context ...... 1 1.2 Research objectives ...... 4 1.3 Contribution of this research ...... 5 1.4 Research background ...... 5 Chapter 2 Review of the literature ...... 8 2.1 Search terms ...... 8 2.2 Identified themes in the literature ...... 12 2.2.1 Deteriorating status symbol of the car ...... 12 2.2.2 Reduced car travel – Peak car hypothesis ...... 12 2.2.3 Collaborative consumption ...... 13 2.2.4 University students hold positive attitudes toward sustainable transportation 14 2.2.5 Moments of change ...... 14 2.2.6 University institutions and the campus bubble ...... 15 2.2.7 Social pressures to own a vehicle ...... 16 2.2.8 The built environment ...... 17 2.2.9 University aged Millennials and environmental concerns ...... 18 2.3 Knowledge gaps ...... 19 2.4 Chapter conclusion ...... 20 Chapter 3 Conceptual framework- Social practice theory ...... 22 3.1 Introduction ...... 22 3.2 Social practice theory ...... 22 3.3 Car sharing as a practice ...... 24 3.4 My approach ...... 25 3.5 Chapter conclusion ...... 27 iv

Chapter 4 Research approach ...... 29 4.1 Research location ...... 29 4.2 Research participant selection ...... 30 4.3 Research ethics ...... 33 4.4 Study participants ...... 33 4.5 Recruitment process ...... 35 4.6 Focus groups ...... 35 4.7 Focus group design ...... 37 4.7.1 Review of relevant literature ...... 37 4.7.2 Pre-testing the focus group template ...... 39 4.7.3 Sessions ...... 40 4.8 Data analysis ...... 41 4.8.1 Field notes...... 41 4.8.2 NVivo qualitative software package 10Analysis ...... 43 4.8.3 Coding in NVivo 10 ...... 44 4.8.4 Analytical strategies ...... 45 4.9 Validity and reliability ...... 48 4.10 Participant observation ...... 49 4.11 Methodological shortcomings and limitations ...... 51 Chapter 5 Results ...... 54 5.1 Introduction ...... 54 5.2 Car sharing meanings ...... 55 5.2.1 Millennials are unsure of the symbolic meaning of car-sharing ...... 55 5.2.2 Millennials perceive car-sharing as environmentally friendly...... 57 5.2.3 Millennials perceive car-sharing as cool ...... 58 5.2.4 Millennials perceive car-sharing as cost-efficient ...... 59 5.2.5 Millennials perceive car-sharing as low-economic status ...... 61 5.2.6 Millennials perceive car-sharing as weird ...... 61 5.2.7 Millennials perceive car sharing as impersonal ...... 62 5.2.8 Millennials perceive car-sharing as unsanitary ...... 63 5.2.9 Millennials perceive car-sharing as unsexy ...... 64 v

5.2.10 Millennials perceive car-sharing as a temporary travel option ...... 65 5.3 Car-sharing materials ...... 67 5.3.1 Access to the car ...... 67 5.3.2 Geographic situation ...... 68 5.3.3 Lack of demand for car sharing in some locations ...... 68 5.3.4 Demand for car-sharing increased in some locations ...... 69 5.3.5 Type of vehicle ...... 71 5.4 Car-sharing competences/ skills ...... 72 5.4.1 Planning ...... 73 5.4.2 Parenthood ...... 74 5.4.3 Lack of awareness about car sharing ...... 75 5.4.4 Lack of car-sharing definition ...... 76 5.5 Noteworthy interactions during car-sharing discussions ...... 78 5.5.1 Car sharing business models ...... 78 5.5.2 Parental influence ...... 80 5.6 Car meanings ...... 82 5.6.1 Millennials perceive car-ownership as carrying a meaning of success ...... 83 5.6.2 Millennials perceive car-ownership as important to self-identity ...... 84 5.6.3 Millennials perceive car ownership as unlocking independence ...... 85 5.6.4 Millennials perceive car-ownership as important to adulthood ...... 86 5.6.5 Millennials perceive car ownership as providing safety ...... 87 5.6.6 Millennials perceive car ownership as a of providing safety to others ...... 87 5.6.7 Millennials perceive car ownership as maternal ...... 88 5.6.8 Male Millennials perceive car-ownership as masculine ...... 89 5.6.9 Millennials perceive car ownership as “sexy” ...... 89 5.6.10 Female Millennials perceive expensive vehicles as arrogant ...... 90 5.6.11 Millennials are changing the symbolic meaning of car-ownership ...... 91 5.6.12 Millennials perceive car-ownership as professional ...... 92 5.6.13 Millennials perceive car-dependent lifestyles as “unhealthy” ...... 93 5.6.14 Millennials perceive cars as expensive ...... 94 5.6.15 Millennials challenge car-dependent lifestyles ...... 95 vi

5.7 Car materials ...... 97 5.7.1 Millennials prefer “green” cars over car-sharing ...... 97 5.7.2 Parking availability can discourage vehicle ownership ...... 98 5.7.3 Public transportation infrastructure influences perceptions of vehicle ownership ...... 99 5.7.4 Millennials perceive driving as dangerous ...... 101 5.8 Social factors ...... 102 5.8.1 Employer pressure ...... 102 5.8.2 Parental pressure ...... 103 5.8.3 Peer influence ...... 104 5.9 Noteworthy social interactions during car-ownership discussions ...... 106 5.9.1 Reluctance to speak of environmental damage...... 106 5.9.2 Environmental issues raised ...... 107 5.9.3 Millennials perceive environment as unimportant...... 109 Chapter 6 Discussion ...... 111 Chapter 7 Conclusion and recommendations ...... 116 7.1 Introduction ...... 116 7.2 Recommendations for governments ...... 117 7.3 Recommendations for car-sharing companies ...... 122 7.4 Recommendations for universities ...... 128 7.5 Recommendations for Millennials ...... 129 7.6 Theoretical contributions ...... 133 7.7 Overall conclusion ...... 135 Bibliography ...... 137 Appendix A ...... 147 Appendix B ...... 151

vii

List of Figures Figure 1 Focus group set-up ...... 39 Figure 2 Attributes table ...... 46 Figure 3 Initial coding themes ...... 47 Figure 4 Social interaction analysis ...... 50 Figure 5 Summary of results illustrating the four pillars of social practice theory...... 54 Figure 6 A visual representation of the perceptions toward car-sharing with Millennial students...... 57 Figure 7 Frequently mentioned reasons that millennials’ would use car-sharing services...... 70 Figure 8 First words university-aged millennials' think of when they hear "car-sharing"...... 76 Figure 9 Common meanings associated with car-ownership with university-aged Millennials ...... 83 Figure 10 Word-web illustrating desire to own a vehicle...... 84 Figure 11 First words to come to mind when millennials’ hear the word “car”...... 95 Figure 12 Common social pressures expressed by focus group participants to own a car...... 102

viii

List of Tables Table 1: Search terms utilized for the review of literature ...... 9 Table 2 Participant demographic information ...... 31 Table 3 Literature informing the focus group design ...... 37 Table 4 Focus group session overview ...... 40 Table 5 Focus group template ...... 41

ix 1

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Research context There is strong agreement among academics, international leaders, governments and the public that climate change is one of the largest global problems (Hansen et al., 2013;

Shreck & Vedlitz, 2016; Pachauri et al., 2014). Ensuring global temperatures do not rise above the 2-degree Celsius benchmark is considered a requirement to protect natural ecosystems, biodiversity, and ocean resources that sustain human life (Klein, 2014;

Pachauri et al., 2014).

Globally, the private vehicle provides convenience, independence, freedom, and reliability to many people (Urry, 2004). Despite these perceived benefits, individuals who rely on the private automobile for transportation have high carbon footprints and vehicles release large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to climate change

(Sovacool & Brown, 2010; Senbel, McDaniels, & Dowlatabadi, 2003). Vehicle ownership is also associated with traffic congestion, poor air quality, and health issues

(Handy et al., 2005). Daily travel by private vehicles in Canada has said to be increasing

(Anowar, et al., 2014) and the private car is responsible for the second highest amount of global greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector (Chapman, 2007). In Canada, it is reported that 84.4% of households own or lease at least one vehicle (Anowar, et al.,

2014) and the transportation sector is responsible for 24% of the total greenhouse gas emissions released into the atmosphere contributing to climate change (Environment

Canada, 2013). Therefore, from an environmental perspective, it is important to reduce travel by the private car.

Car sharing, a form of car-rental that provides users with hourly access to vehicles fleets, is a more sustainable transportation option compared to vehicle ownership

(Shaheen, Cohen, & Roberts, 2006). For instance, members of car-sharing services drive less then car owners. Users decrease their average kilometers travelled by 30%, leading to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (Martin & Shaheen, 2011). Car sharing is a unique alternative to vehicle ownership compared to other sustainable modes of transportation like cycling, walking and bussing. This is because this transit mode takes into consideration the reality that some trips are simply not possible without a car. For instance, if an individual must occasionally transport heavy items not feasible by cycling, they may prefer to use a car (Mullan, 2013). However, car-sharing can help fill gaps where an automobile is needed, without necessarily owning one, which can help reduce the negative environmental consequences associated with vehicle ownership.

Despite the environmental benefits of car sharing, public acceptance is lacking

(Zhou & Kockelman, 2011). Changing attitudes and perceptions toward vehicle ownership is an important task, though not an easy one, as consumers have consistently chosen the private vehicle over other transportation options (Chapman, 2007). Car ownership has traditionally dominated transportation systems and has been a symbol of status and success for decades (Urry, 2004).

However, smart phone applications and the rise of internet networks, such as

Uber, a peer-to-peer ride-sharing company; ZipCar, a short-term car-rental company; and

Google Self-Driving Cars, are beginning to disrupt traditional vehicle use. These new transportation options may be potentially reshaping attitudes and perceptions toward owning a vehicle, particularly with the Millennial generation (Kuhnimhof, Zumkeller, &

Chlond, 2013; Kuhnimhof, Wirtz, Manz, 2012; McDonald, 2015). The Millennials, an influential group born between 1980-2000, are considered confident, liberal, self- expressive, and technologically savvy, and they are starting to take over as the largest social group (Polzin, Chu, & Godfrey, 2014; Kuhimnof et al., 2013; Kuhnimhof et al.,

2012; Noble, Haytko & Phillips, 2009; Detre, Mark & Clark., 2010). More specifically, university-aged Millennials are experiencing four years of self-discovery; are considered trend setters and early adopters; do not usually own vehicles; are usually not married; usually do not have children, and have little or no income (Schoolman, Shriberg,

Schwimmer, & Tysman, 2014; Detre, Mark & Clark., 2010; Noble, Haytko & Phillips,

2009). These characteristics help explain why university-aged Millennials are more likely to use public and active transportation, when compared to the general population

(Schoolman et al., 2014).

University-aged Millennials may become early adopters of car-sharing services if they consider this type of travel as superior to owning a car. Millennials may experiment with different travel options while they attend university, which may become more long- term habits (Schoolman et al., 2014; Balsas, 2003; Noble, Haytko & Phillips, 2009). If car-sharing is to gain broader acceptance as an alternative to private car ownership, it is

4 thus helpful to try to discover specific ways to attract university-aged Millennials to car sharing by studying their attitudes and perceptions toward the transportation option

(Noble, Haytko & Phillips, 2009).

This thesis will investigate the attitudes and perceptions of university-aged

Millennials toward car ownership and car sharing, and will explore their willingness to forgo purchasing a private vehicle and opt for more sustainable solutions, such as car sharing. This information can be useful for car-sharing companies, municipalities and universities to predict future travel demands of car sharing and to develop marketing campaigns that may encourage more sustainable transportation choices.

1.2 Research objectives The objectives of this thesis are fourfold:

1. To understand university-aged Millennials’ attitudes and perceptions toward private vehicle ownership and car sharing. 2. To understand the circumstances and likelihood that university-aged Millennials would use car-sharing services and forgo purchasing a vehicle in the future. 3. To explore and examine the barriers to car-sharing perceived by university- aged Millennials. 4. To provide municipal governments, university institutions and car-sharing organizations with recommendations about how to encourage university-aged Millennials to adopt more sustainable transportation options, specifically car- sharing, long-term.

1.3 Contribution of this research The findings of this study advance our current understanding of how to encourage university-aged Millennials to join car-sharing services and ways to discourage them from purchasing a vehicle, which can help avoid negative environmental consequences.

The results may provide useful information for municipalities, universities and car- sharing companies to aid in the development of marketing strategies and launch campaigns that can motivate university-aged Millennials to adopt car sharing as a viable sustainable travel option. The results of this study can be tested for further empirical confirmation.

1.4 Research background Car-sharing is not a new phenomenon. In fact, it has existed for nearly 70 years, with its origins in Zurich, Switzerland. In Europe, car sharing became quite popular in the 1970’s

(Jorge & Correia, 2013). Fishman and Wabe (1969) predicted that car sharing would never replace private vehicle ownership in North America because the owner-driver mentality would remain locked in as the dominant form of transportation. Despite this, car sharing has become more popular in North America since the 1990’s. As cited by

Cohen and Shaheen (2013), there were 16 programs in Canada and 26 in the United

States as of 2009. Although car sharing may not be new, car-sharing business models are constantly improving. Many services now rely on smart phone applications and website technologies to operate, which has made them more efficient and has contributed to the growing success of the industry (Cohen & Kietzmann, 2014).

Three separate types of car sharing currently exist. The first type is peer-to-peer car sharing, where individuals share personal vehicles with other individuals. The second type is free-float car sharing systems, where individuals can rent a vehicle and drop it off in any location within a certain radius. The third model is station-based car sharing, where individuals rent vehicles for a short time period and return them to the same location. This research explored the latter two models because they are more prevalent and established in Southern Ontario, where the research took place.

Car sharing has social, environmental, and economic benefits (Meijkamp &

Theunissen, 1996; Litman, 2000; Stasko, Buck, & Gao, 2013). Social benefits include an increase in physical activity, due to the likelihood of increased active transportation, such as biking and walking, that tend to occur with car-sharing memberships (Meijkamp &

Theunissen, 1996). The environmental benefits of car sharing are also important. Having multiple people share one vehicle removes an average of 13 vehicles from the road, thereby reducing traffic congestion (Litman, 2000). Car sharing also appears to postpone private vehicle purchase, and members are often motivated to sell cars they currently own

(Millard-Ball, 2005; Fagnant & Kockelman, 2014). In addition, individuals who share cars are likely to trip-chain or string journeys together, such as grocery shopping and mall visits, which reduces their overall distance travelled by car. The upfront cost of renting a vehicle also encourages people to question if a trip is worth the reservation fee, which helps reduce car travel (Litman, 2000). There are also several economic benefits of car- sharing, which include the money saved by car-sharing users, as members share ownership, maintenance, gas and insurance costs (Millard-Ball, 2005; Rotaris & Danielis,

2014), as well as the money saved by municipalities on parking lot maintenance and construction (Stasko et al., 2013).

Academics have explored car sharing through various disciplinary lenses. Some studies have investigated how and whether car-sharing services will succeed in certain areas (Fellow & Pitfield 2000; Litman, 2000; Shaheen, 2001); the impacts of car-sharing on travel behavior; travel costs and environmental impacts; the opportunities and barriers for car sharing based on geographic locations; the related regulations and policies; and the comparison of car-sharing business models (Cohen & Kietzmann, 2014). It is the purpose of this research to explore car sharing from a sustainable marketing perspective.

Chapter 2 Review of the literature

The review of the literature examines the extant research on the attitudes and perceptions that Millennials hold toward sustainable transportation, vehicle ownership and car sharing. The chapter first presents the search strategy of how the discovery of the literature took place and includes key search terms. The chapter then reviews the literature that informed the study, organized by recurring themes identified by evaluating the literature. To conclude the review, a critical examination of the conceptual frameworks available relevant to encouraging sustainable transportation habits within university institutions is discussed. This chapter has three main objectives:

1. Investigate recent literature surrounding attitudes and perceptions toward car sharing and vehicle ownership with university aged-Millennials using key search terms. 2. Investigate the themes that influence university-aged Millennials’ attitudes and perceptions toward car ownership and car sharing. 3. Critically evaluate conceptual frameworks relevant to encouraging sustainable transportation habits at university institutions.

This chapter discusses factors that may influence Millennials’ attitudes and perceptions toward car sharing and vehicle ownership, including social factors, such as peer and parental influences; the built environment factors, such as downtown areas and related transportation infrastructure; and sustainability concerns.

2.1 Search terms To review the literature, I identified specific search terms to search Google

Scholar. Then, I selected a timeframe (2008-2015) to capture the most relevant, up-to date

9 and timely knowledge about car-sharing and vehicle ownership with university-aged

Millennial students.

As identified in Table 1, a number of key words were used for the literature search. I selected the search terms “cars”, “vehicles”, and “automobiles”, as these words are interchangeable and are commonly used synonyms in the English language. To identify a wider breadth of literature, I used each as key terms.

The words “perceptions”, “attitudes”, “opinions”, “factors”, and “intentions” were searched in conjunction with the terms mentioned above. This is because I deemed the words relevant to explore the current research topic and helpful to identify the literature already available.

Table 1: Search terms utilized for the review of literature

Cars, vehicles, automobiles

Perceptions, attitudes, opinions, factors, motivations

University, post-secondary institution, higher education

Student, young adult, undergraduate student, Generation Y, Millennials

Shared mobility services, vehicle-sharing, car-sharing

Sustainable transportation, travel, transit, mobility

Private vehicle ownership

“University”, “post-secondary institution” and “higher-education institution” were used to capture the type of place being studied to provide a more accurate filter of the database. I combined these terms with the other search words. “Millennials”,

“Generation Y”, “young adults”, “undergraduate students” were also used to locate information about this population segment.

It was also logical to search for “shared mobility services”, “vehicle-sharing, “car- sharing”, and “automobile-sharing” because these terms are commonly used to describe car sharing. It was also useful to search “sustainable transportation”, “transit”, “travel”, and “mobility”, as these words are also used to research transportation. Lastly, I distinguished between the terms “car” and “car-sharing” by searching “private vehicle ownership” to ensure that that the literature that discusses vehicle ownership was also taken into account.

In this thesis, I define university-aged Millennials as individuals who are attending university during the time of study; who are born between 1996-2000; who are living in

Southern Ontario; who live away from home; who do not own a car; who are born between 1980-2000; who are not car-sharing members; and who do not own a vehicle.

Although my literature review focused on the entire Millennial generation, this research studied a specific subset of the population of the Millennial generation, namely

Millennials who are currently attending university. It is important to note that this may limit the generalizability of the results to the entire Millennial generation. The literature

11 view is broad in scope, as it focused on the entire Millennial generation to inform the focus groups on the university cohort.

Though previous research has focused on the entire generation, focusing on university students aged 18-22 is important. University students are known as trend- setters and early adopters (Noble et al., 2009) and are largely unknown in terms of research on consumption patterns and marketplace behaviours (Noble et al., 2009). Noble et al (2009) developed a conceptual framework that identified the purchasing motivations of college-aged individuals, which included: independence from parents, self-discovery, personality development, value-seeking, brand persona, and identity maintenance (Noble et al., 2009).

I focused on the Millennial generation in its entirety in the literature review to inform and shape the research. Individuals born within the same historical and socio- cultural context have similar traits and characteristics implying that generations have personalities (Lyons et al., 2013). Individuals that are part of the Millennial generation experience similar historical contexts as they experience life together (Lyons et al., 2013).

The university-aged cohort is a subset of the Millennial generation, but many of the themes that arose in the literature surrounding this generation may pertain to the university-aged population segment studied here.

This literature view is broad in scope as it focused on the entire Millennial generation to inform my focus on the university cohort. Although the literature did not cover the specific literature surrounding university students, it was useful to review the

Millennial generation as a whole to inform the study, as it is likely that the university- aged cohort shares some of these themes and characteristics (Lyons et al., 2013).

2.2 Identified themes in the literature

2.2.1 Deteriorating status symbol of the car The importance of the private vehicle as a status and success symbol is apparently deteriorating with the Millennial generation (Firnkorn & Muller, 2012; Belgiawan et al.,

2015; Zhou & Kockelman, 2011; Hopkins & Stephenson, 2014; Delbosc & Currie, 2014).

Millennials seem to be less interested in vehicles and more interested in technology

(Kalmbach et al., 2011). Some studies have even found that Millennials perceive vehicle ownership as arrogant, specifically in the Netherlands (Belgiawan et al., 2015).

It is worthwhile to investigate whether or not status and success symbols are meaningful to university students in Southern Ontario, and whether or not vehicle sharing can fulfill new meanings of success and status that may resonate with Millennials.

2.2.2 Reduced car travel – Peak car hypothesis The peak-car hypothesis is an ongoing discussion among academics, which postulates that travel by the private automobile in developed countries is decreasing. Some evidence for this hypothesis derived from a dataset that showed that even when income is high, car travel remains low, especially with young adults (Goodwin, 2012). Goodwin (2012) is a major contributor to this theory, and he lists various intricate factors that may contribute to the downward trend in vehicle travel. He separated the reasons into categories, including economic, policy, social, technological and cultural. In addition to Goodwin

(2012), Kuhnimhof et al., (2013) and Van Der Waard et al., (2013) have cited different lifestyles as possible reasons for the decrease in distance travelled by the private automobile. Millennials tend to live at home longer, work part-time hours, and are having children later in life, which may provide an explanation for the downward trend in private vehicle travel (Goodwin, 2012).

The current work contributes to the peak-car discussion because it collects information from the Millennial generation. Because the peak-car hypothesis specifically discusses travel made by the private automobile, it is useful to consider how vehicle- sharing services may reduce car travel, as well.

2.2.3 Collaborative consumption According to Belk (2014), there is a transition occurring from the ownership of goods to the access of them. The recent rise of the “sharing economy” and “collaborative consumption” may be reshaping the importance of ownership with access to goods and experiences (Botsman & Rogers, 2011). For instance, Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012) found that individuals may feel pride when driving a BMW, even when it is not their own. This suggests that collaborative consumption, such as sharing cars, may allow individuals to fulfill some aspects of their identity without ownership.

Despite recent positive claims and projections that Millennials are more willing to

“share”, not all agree (Botsman & Rogers, 2011). For instance, Hazée, Delcourt and Van

Vaerenbergh (2015) found that Millennials experience disgust when sharing automobiles.

Exploring whether or not Millennials are indeed more willing to share cars, and, perhaps

14 more importantly, if they are willing to forgo owning a vehicle in the future and the related identity that ownership may bring, is therefore important. Millennials may be willing to sacrifice these ownership opportunities to express themselves and construct new status symbols through sharing.

2.2.4 University students hold positive attitudes toward sustainable transportation Zhou (2012) and Lavery, Páez and Kanaroglou (2013) suggest that university students hold positive views toward alternatives to the private car, such as walking; cycling; taking the bus, train or subway. Because students use more than one form of transportation to suit their travel needs and do not have one dominant transportation mode that they rely on, Zhou (2012) considers them “multi-modal”. This makes promoting car sharing during university years important, as it suggests that Millennials will likely use car sharing services if they already use various forms of transportation (Zhou, 2012).

It is therefore important to examine car-sharing and whether or not the these positive perceptions and attitudes toward sustainable transportation can be maintained beyond university years.

2.2.5 Moments of change The transition from home to university is considered a “moment of change”, which presents a window of opportunity to influence university aged Millennials’ perceptions and attitudes toward car ownership, as norms, habits and behaviours are interrupted

(Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2011; Mont, Neuvonen, &

Lähteenoja, 2014; Schäfer, Jaeger-Erben & Bamberg, 2012). Students experience change when they leave their hometown and may begin to question their identity and obtain more independence from their family (Baslington, 2008; Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2011; Mont et al., 2014; Schäfer et al., 2012). When students are introduced to new cities, routines, patterns of daily life, and most important to mention here, new transportation systems, it presents an excellent opportunity to shape their perceptions and attitudes toward alternatives to the private car, such as car-sharing.

2.2.6 University institutions and the campus bubble Institutions, such as schools and workplaces, shape rules, norms, values and routines with individuals that can influence their perceptions and attitudes (Baslington, 2008). In particular, universities have a strong influence on the way in which their students view the world, the choices they make, and the degree to which they maintain their decisions

(Balsas, 2003). On the other hand, one study found that even though university institutions are successful at shaping certain sustainable habits, norms, and values, these disappear after students graduate. Schoolman et al., (2014) referred to post-secondary schools as the “campus bubble”. He suggested that universities have not fully prepared students to carry their environmentally conscious attitudes beyond their years as young scholars (Schoolman et al., 2014). This research will explore the willingness and likelihood that university-aged Millennials will forgo purchasing a vehicle in the future and adopt vehicle-sharing long term.

2.2.7 Social pressures to own a vehicle Studies suggest that parents, relatives, close friends, siblings, peers, neighbors, and the general public influence students to feel that they need to purchase an automobile

(Belgiawan et al., 2015). Belgiawan et al., (2015) developed a model to identify what motivates young adults to own cars in various countries. The model provides insight about the importance of social norms in determining attitudes and perceptions in specific geographic locations. In the Netherlands, for example, it has become the norm not to own a vehicle, whereas in the United States, parents and peer groups continue to pressure students to feel as if they should own a car (Belgiawan et al., 2015). This suggests that

Millennials may only adopt transportation alternatives subject to their parents’ and peers’ approval. The study found that in some locations, it appears easier to resist the expectation to own a vehicle because of developed norms and attitudes. Belgiawan et al.,

(2015) suggest that a combination of strong environmental values and better public transportation systems may increase the likelihood that students will be successful at resisting social pressures and expectations to own a vehicle. In addition, according to

Bamberg (2003; 2013), people fear not fulfilling social obligations, such as owning a car.

Furthermore, travel socialization describes how social norms shape perceptions, such as acquiring a driver’s license to transition into adulthood (Haustein, Klöckner, &

Blöbaum, 2009). Separating students from their parents during their university years may allow them to think more independently about their travel choices. In this research, it is useful to consider the social pressures that may affect university-aged Millennials’ attitudes and perceptions toward vehicle ownership and car-sharing. It is important to

17 identify, what, if any, pressures university-aged students experience because then appropriate strategies to resist social pressures can be developed, which may help establish new attitudes and perceptions toward transportation options.

2.2.8 The built environment According to academic literature, Millennials are “city dwellers” and urbanites. Doherty and Leinberger (2010) conducted a survey, which found that 77% of Millennials expressed a desire to live in dense urban centers. In the United States, many Millennials have moved to large cities such as Chicago. Millennials are possibly attracted to downtown living because of accessible public and active transportation systems.

Gallagher (2013) also expressed suburban living may also be declining.

Will Millennials’ choose to live in downtown cores once they graduate university?

The answer is less certain. According to one survey, Millennials entering their 30’s are likely to choose suburbs as their long-term residential option (Kotkin & Cox, 2013). In addition, downtown housing prices suggest that many Millennials may not be able to afford to live there, as homes in dense urban cores can be particularly expensive. Job locations may also force some Millennials to travel by private cars and commute times may encourage Millennials to rely on travel by the private automobile (Tomer, Kneebone,

Puentes, & Berube, 2011).

This reveals the importance of considering the built environment when addressing the travel perceptions and attitudes of Millennials. Where university-aged individuals decide to live in the future may have a direct influence on their transit attitudes and

18 perceptions. Location may influence Milennials’ attitudes and perceptions toward vehicle ownership and car sharing. The present study explores the influence of geographic location on Millennials’ attitudes and perceptions toward car ownership and vehicle sharing.

2.2.9 University aged Millennials and environmental concerns Over the four years that young scholars spend at university, they may acquire a deeper understanding about environmental sustainability. In general, university students tend to be willing to adopt sustainable consumption practices (Emanuel & Adams, 2011). The

Pew Research Center found that 32% of Millennials are willing to identify themselves as environmentalists (2014 p.14) and The Intelligence Group (2012) found that 44% of survey participants were willing to agree with the statement “I try to practice being green in my daily life”.

According to Barber, Taylor and Dodd (2009) and Smith and Brower (2012), the

Millennial generation is concerned with social and environmental sustainability issues.

However, environmental concerns do not always translate directly into environmental action. Although the Millennial generation is considered upbeat, positive, and open to change, they are also considered “selfish”, “pro-business”, and rely heavily on technology, which may contradict sustainability goals (Zloch, 2015).

These anomalies suggest that there are conflicting findings on whether or not university-aged Millennials are willing to make sustainable lifestyle choices, such as adopting car sharing, over owning a vehicle. If environmental sustainability is indeed

19 important to this generation, they should be relatively more accepting of sustainable transportation options, such as car sharing.

2.3 Knowledge gaps There are key knowledge gaps that this study hopes to fill, including the recommendation by Costain, Ardron and Habib (2012) that “future studies should… specifically investigate the perception of car sharing by non-members” (p.15). The author’s stressed that gathering information from non-users about car-sharing “…is a vital component needed to assess the public’s overall view…” (p. 15). Collecting data from non-members can help reveal some of the barriers to joining car-sharing services. It can also provide insight about what can attract Millennials to become members of car-sharing services

(Costain et al., 2012). Similarly, Schaefers (2013) discussed that “for car sharing providers and policy makers it is … important to identify distinct segments of users to effectively and efficiently win new customers by specifically addressing each segment’s needs and wants” (p.76). Zhou and Kockelman (2011) also called for more research to address the public demand for car-sharing. Because public opinion remains unclear, regions may have difficulty growing car-sharing services. The current work will explore car sharing from the perspective of potential car-sharing members and attempts to fill these gaps.

The below list describes the holes identified in academic literature about

Millennials attitudes and perceptions toward car sharing (please reference Appendix A for more detail).

1. Research does not provide a sound consensus about what influences university student’s transportation choice particularly in Southern Ontario. 2. Very little, if any research, has been conducted on exploring the comparison of car- sharing and vehicle ownership among university-aged Millennials 3. Very little, if any research, has been conducted on exploring the willingness of university-aged Millennials to forgo purchasing a vehicle and opt for car-sharing as an alternative 4. Very little known is known about what may encourage university-aged Millennials to adopt sustainable transportation habits, such as car-sharing, long-term 5. Focus group studies on the demand for car sharing are lacking, and instead focus on traditional transportation modes, such as public transportation and cycling. 6. Many studies addressing demand have been quantitative in nature and have assessed user behavior instead of non-user attitudes and perceptions.

2.4 Chapter conclusion This chapter has identified the key literature surrounding vehicle ownership and car sharing with university-aged Millennials. It looked specifically at the literature about the university-aged cohort to assist the reader in understanding the importance of why this group is an important segment to research and why their forthcoming travel choices matter to progress toward a more sustainable transportation system.

The below themes set the stage for an informative analysis about university-aged

Millennials’ perceptions and attitudes toward car sharing and vehicle ownership:

1. The altering status symbol of the private vehicle; 2. The speculated increase in Millennials’ willingness to share ; 3. The influence of higher education institutions on Millennials; 4. Millennials experiencing a “moment of change” as an opportunity to influence behavior;

5. Positive attitudinal views of alternative transportation modes during university years; 6. The built environment and available transportation infrastructure in specific locations; 7. Social pressures; 8. Environmental concerns; and 9. Millennials’ potential willingness to live in dense urban areas.

Understanding the circumstances and likelihood that university-aged Millennial students will use car-sharing services and forgo vehicle purchase is important to consider for the aforementioned reasons.

The review of the literature has painted a unique landscape and identified, as well as stressed the ambiguity, that exists in the conversation surrounding the perceptions and attitudes of university-aged Millennials toward vehicle ownership and car sharing. There is no consensus about what encourages this generation to adopt more sustainable travel behaviour. There was a recurring mentioning in the literature that social factors, built environment factors, time spent at university, alternative transportation exposure, as well as sustainability concerns may convince Millennials to sacrifice vehicle ownership in favour of more sustainable transportation options, such as car sharing. This research will explore these themes and attempt to further our understanding about Millennials attitudes and perceptions toward car sharing and vehicle ownership. The next section will turn to discuss the conceptual framework approach.

Chapter 3 Conceptual framework- Social practice theory

3.1 Introduction This chapter will discuss the conceptual framework that helped guide the interpretation of the results. This framework was selected as it was deemed the most useful way to understanding car-sharing and vehicle ownership with university-aged Millennials’ and enriched the analysis of the research. This framework helped structure the results in a useful manner and provided a useful way to understand these two transportation options in a broadened and holistic way that went beyond individual decision-making. This chapter will explain the approach taken to interpret the results.

3.2 Social practice theory Social practice theory offers a holistic approach to understanding complex systems, such as transportation, because it ties together a broad scope of social relations, infrastructure, material and context that may influence an individual’s behaviour (Guell, Panter, Jones &

Ogilvie, 2012). Shove (2003;2004) stresses the importance of looking at behaviour, like driving, as a practice that can be influenced by social interactions and encourage scholars to shift focus away from individual behaviour and instead look at the way in which society, geographic locations, and institutions shape the way individuals live, work and play.

Transportation research has traditionally focused on how individual attitudes and beliefs about the built environment influence travel choices (Guell et al., 2012). However, findings have consistently revealed that an individual’s commute choice is heavily

23 influenced by the people who surround them (Spotswood, Chatterton, & Williams, 2015).

In one study, a man stopped cycling because he fell off his bicycle and his wife expressed concern (Spotswood et al., 2015). In another, the fear of sweat and odour contributed to the reduction in cycling because the individual feared employers would consider this unprofessional (Wilhite, 2009). Social practice theory stresses the realization that individual choices are unlikely to lead to systemic changes, and calls for attention to complex systems in which individuals are a part (Shove, 2004).

One popular example that illustrates the usefulness of social-practice theory is the implementation of an eco-champion program, which aims to promote sustainable behaviour in office environments (Haavergaaras et al., 2011). Haavergaaras et al. (2011) studied the role of practices, such as turning off the lights, ensuring paper is printed double-sided, or removing garbage bins to encourage recycling, to reveal the importance of social interactions on the way in which an office operated. The study concluded that there is a close relationship between practices and social relations, specifically how the modification of a practice can occur by the establishment of a new “normal”. Practices do not need to be replaced, but can instead be modified. Haavergaaras et al. (2011)’s research participants changed the way the office operated by re-establishing a new

“normal” and redefined the approach, interpretation and understanding of a practice. For instance, after the launch of the eco-champion program, it was not “normal” any more to leave the lights on when no one was in the room and colleagues reminded each other to turn off the lights to conserve energy (Haavergaaras et al., 2011).

Social practice theory can be applied to various practices, such as showering, shopping, or, in the case relevant to this thesis, driving, to look at how certain behaviours are embedded in everyday lives and are thus reproduced, maintained, and stabilized

(Wilson & Chatteron, 2011; Shove, 2003; Shove, 2004; Shove 2010). Because vehicle ownership is a socially normalized practice that is structured and institutionalized, especially in North America (Urry, 2004), it is difficult to change. Social practice theory offers a useful lens to see how normalized practices, such as owning a vehicle, may be changed and replaced with more sustainable alternatives, such as car sharing.

A social practice theory approach requires “getting multiple stakeholders to continue to do what they are doing, just slightly differently” (Wilson & Chatteron, 2011, p, 22). Although car sharing is a component of travel networks, car sharing demands a completely new set of social practices that exist within an already established transportation system.

3.3 Car sharing as a practice Kent and Dowling (2013) explain car sharing as a practice. For instance, the authors described GPS technologies and the automated reservation system used to unlock the vehicles, as new forms of “skills”. The related infrastructure, such as alternative transportation infrastructure, distance to the car and parking availability, are also important “materials” that help make car sharing possible. In addition, the way in which car sharing is used, such as planning requirements, time management capabilities,

25 scheduling, and the need to sign-up for a membership, are new “competences/skills” associated with car sharing. (Kent & Dowling, 2013).

Exploring car sharing services through a social practice lens may provide an enhanced understanding of whether the service is disrupting traditional vehicle ownership. In this research, a social practice theory helps guide the interpretation of the results. Vehicle sharing changes the way in which a car is used, and therefore its interpretation with peers, family, employers, and the broader public will also need to be established.

3.4 My approach The way in which I choose to use social practice theory in this thesis is to identify the

“materials”, “meanings” (both symbolic and identity), “competencies/skills”, and “social interactions”. I will discuss these four pillars of social practice theory here.

As Shove, et al. (2012) and Watson (2012) suggested, an example of a material is the objects that are needed to participate in a given practice, such as roads, the vehicle itself or gas needed to travel. Materials include the location, the built environment, parking lots and highways, as well as the larger transportation system, such as buses, the bus schedule, and bus shelters (Kent & Dowling, 2013).

The second concept I will use to analyze the results are symbolic and identity meanings. Identity meanings refer to the understandings, beliefs and emotions that are important to formulating one’s identity. For example, cyclists may consider themselves

“brave” and “committed”. Symbolic meanings refer to the understandings, beliefs and

26 emotions attached to a material for social status purposes. For instance, people consider owners of expensive vehicles as “successful” or “professional”, while people consider owners of “beater cars” as “students” (Spotswood et al., 2015). Meanings can be shaped by the media, life stages and events, and are interpreted based on experiences; where an individual grew up; family relations; or the context, situation, and place or institution.

Both symbolic and identity meanings include a broad range of considerations that are relevant to the aforementioned materials. They can include costs, environmental considerations, social status, control, freedom, independence, aspirations, ambitions, and personal goals (Williams, 2014). The meaning of a car may change from high school, to university, to parenthood.

Thirdly, competences/skills, or the ability to do something efficiently and successfully, refers to the knowledge required to perform a given practice. For instance, the knowledge of public transportation routes, such as knowing when and where to get off a bus and the appropriate route schedules, can be considered a “competence”.

Competences include skills, such as the planning, scheduling, and associated time management skills required to reserve a vehicle, and the effort it requires to sign up for a car-sharing membership.

I would also like to add one pillar of social practice analysis that pays particular attention to “social interactions”, such as how peers, parents, and employers (present or future), may deny, accept, challenge, or refute a particular position. Social interactions appear to have an influence on the way in which travel is interpreted, understood, and perceived by individuals.

Using the above-defined social practice theory framework, I will attempt to explore how university-aged Millennials describe their attitudes and perceptions toward car-sharing and vehicle ownership. I will explore how transportation modes are shaped by social factors, and focus on the interactions between people to unveil how travel choices are shaped by meanings (symbols/self-identity), competences (skills), materials

(infrastructure), and social interactions (peers, employers, and family rejecting, refuting, denying or approving a particular position).

Exploring Millennials' attitudes and perceptions toward the practice of driving by private vehicle and vehicle sharing will provide a rich analysis that will add to the understanding of sustainable transportation. It provides the opportunity to examine driving as a complex social practice (Guell et al., 2012) and can be useful in uncovering how car sharing exists is an already well-established socio-technical system of car- dominant travel. Dealing with complex systems requires a widened scope to understand the system itself. The practice of driving continues to reinforce vehicle ownership; and, thus, it is imperative to challenge the status quo. The next chapter of this research will discuss the research methods, including the detailing of the rationale behind the research strategy.

3.5 Chapter conclusion This chapter explained the conceptual framework used to interpret the results. It provided the reader with a detailed understanding of social practice theory and provided a rationale for how the results are structured. This chapter also provided an explanation of the

28 approach I took to organize the information based on the four pillars of skills, materials, meanings and social interactions. This framework was selected to enhance the data and provided a useful way to make sense of the data. I believe this conceptual framework was most suitable, as the social interactions in the conducted focus groups were observed and the viewpoints expressed were directly related to these four categories of interpretation.

The next chapter will discuss the research approach.

Chapter 4 Research approach

This chapter will discuss the methods undertaken to complete this research. This chapter will provide a detailed rationale for why the chosen research strategy was appropriate to fulfill the study objectives.

The chapter is broken into six sections. First, an explanation of the research context provides detail about where and when the research took place. Second, the rationale for the criteria used to select research participants provides the reader with an understanding of the studied population. Third, the recruitment strategy provides the reader with an understanding of how I contacted the study participants. Fourth, the rationale behind the design of the focus groups provides the reader with a thorough understanding of the data collection process. Fifth, an explanation of the data analyzation process with the qualitative software program, NVivo10, provides the reader with information about how I interpreted the results. Last, I provide the reader with an explanation of the methodological limitations to the study.

4.1 Research location The study took place in Peterborough and Toronto during the summer months of 2015.

Peterborough is located north-west of Toronto and has a population of 118,975 people

(Statistics Canada, 2011). The area consists of one predominantly undergraduate university. Toronto has a population of 5,583,064 people and contains various universities. (Statistics Canada, 2011). I selected both areas to compare the differences in attitudes and perceptions based on location. I chose Toronto because it is a dense urban

30 area with a wide variety of transportation options, including the subway and streetcar, whereas Peterborough is an area with lower population density and more limited transportation options. Both locations were selected because they have different transportation systems, which may influence university-aged Millennials’ attitudes and perceptions toward car-sharing and vehicle ownership. When the research took place, both locations had car sharing as an option.

4.2 Research participant selection I selected study participants based on five criteria. I chose a specific filtering process to select the research participants.

In order to participate in the study, individuals had to:

1. Be born between 1980-2000; 2. Live away from home; 3. Be enrolled in a university program or have recently graduated within the last year; 4. Have a valid driver’s license (G1, G2, or G); 5. Not own a vehicle; and 6. Not be users of a car-sharing service.

These criteria were purposefully selected to access a distinct subset of the Millennial generation that corresponded to the research objectives and the identified recurring themes in the literature.

Individuals had to be born between 1980-2000 to ensure they were a part of the

Millennial generation cohort. They also had to live away from home, to account for the

31 moment of change hypothesis. Participants also had to be enrolled in a university program, because I wanted to discover if university students are willing to accept sustainable transportation behaviour at university and explore the likelihood and willingness that Millennials’ would carry these habits once they exit university.

Furthermore, participants also had to have a valid driver’s license. This was an important criteria, because students with licenses would have more use for a car-sharing service compared to those without a license. In addition, it is likely that students who acquire licenses will purchase vehicles (Delbosc & Currie, 2013) so it is important to intervene beforehand. The participants could also not own a vehicle at the time of study because I wanted to see if they would then consider car-sharing as a viable alternative to vehicle ownership.

Table 2 Participant demographic information

Share?

Focus Group Session Pseudonym Age Gender License Type Heard of Car University Program Hometown 1 Eric 28 Male G1 Yes Trent Computer Belleville Science 1 Lucy 20 Female G2 No Trent Psychology St. Thomas

1 John 22 Male G1 Yes Trent History Ottawa 1 Patty 22 Female G No Trent Forensic Dunnville Psychology 2 Judy 21 Female G Yes Trent Business Lakefield Administration 2 Karl 21 Female G1 Yes Trent History Cambridge

2 Renee 20 Female G No Trent Environmental Ajax Studies/Geograph

2 Lori 20 Female G No Trent Biology/ Dundas Environmental Science 2 Jill 19 Female G1 No Trent Nursing Ottawa 3 Nancy 20 Female G Yes Carleton Criminology Peterborough 3 Sue 21 Female G Yes University Biomedical Collingwood of Guelph Science 3 Janet 19 Female G2 No Carleton Criminology Peterborough 3 Derek 22 Male G Yes University Social Science Peterborough of Ottawa 4 Allison 22 Female G Yes Trent Sociology; Kitchener Gender Studies 4 Anthon 21 Male G1 Yes Trent Biochemistry Ottawa y 4 Katrina 21 Female G Yes Trent Psychology Douro

4 Leslie 21 Female G2 Yes Trent Mathematics and Whitby Psychology 4 Anne 21 Female G2 Yes Trent History Barrie 5 Brain 20 Male G1 No Trent Business Hong Kong, Administration China 5 Randy 23 Male G1 Yes University Tourism Timaru, New of Otago Zealand 5 Craig 19 Male G2 Yes Trent Mathematical Cardston, Alberta Physics 5 Fiona 24 Female G1 Yes Trent Archaeology Barrie 5 Jack 19 Male G1 Yes Trent Forensics and Woodbridge Anthropology 6 Karen 20 Female G2 No Ryerson Business Mississauga Management 6 Wanda 20 Female G1 Yes Ryerson Business Toronto Management 6 Tracey 19 Female G1 Yes Ryerson Business Toronto Management 6 Amand 21 Female G1 Yes Ryerson Business North York a Management 6 Stephe 18 Male G2 Yes Ryerson Engineering Toronto n 6 Tom 20 Male G2 No Ryerson Business Toronto Management

Another filtering criterion was that the students could not be users of a car-sharing service at the time of study. Numerous scholars (Costain et al., 2012; Kiuchi, Yeahgi,

Yeahmamoto, & Morikawa, 2004; Schaefers, 2013) have recommended this criteria because it allows the assessment of perceptions of car sharing by non-users. There is a lack of information about perceptions of car sharing from non-members and it has been noted as a vital component to assess the public’s overall view of car sharing (Zhou &

Kockelman, 2011). Non-user perceptions can also provide insight on how to attract university students to the service (Schaefers, 2013; Costain et al., 2012; Kiuchi et al.,

2004; Zhou & Kockelman, 2011).

4.3 Research ethics The focus groups were completed in accordance with the Trent University Research

Ethics Board with the Tri-Council Guidelines. The consent forms were signed by the research participants and all responses were kept in safe-keeping on a password protected computer. In addition, the research respondents also filled out a short-pre-study demographic form, which was entered onto a password protected computer and then the paper copies were destroyed. The names of the focus group participants were given pseudonyms in this thesis. In addition, the focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed using NVivo Qualitative 10 software program. The audio recordings were erased after they were transcribed. The recruitment letter was also accepted by Trent

University Research Ethics board.

4.4 Study participants In this thesis, I use “Millennials” to describe the aforementioned filtered group. It should be clear that there is a difference between the entire Millennial group (born 1980-2000)

34 and the particular group of individuals I targeted, whom are within the university-aged bracket; live away from home; have recently graduated or are attending a university institution at the time the information was collected; are non-users of a car-sharing service, and have a valid driver’s license.

Twenty-nine students participated in this study. For more detail on the recruitment process, please see Section 3.5. This group of individuals is vaguely representative of universities in Ontario. For example, according to Statistics Canada

(2013) data, Ontario Universities are predominantly attended by female students. In

Ontario, 55% of university students are female; 45% are male; and 10% are international students (Statistics Canada, 2013). These percentages vaguely represent the recruited university students in this small sample, as 65% of participants were females; 35% were male; and 6% were international students. One student was also from out of province

Although the participants who attended the focus groups were predominantly attended by female students, this is roughly representative of individuals who attend universities in

Southern Ontario. However, it should be acknowledged that this gender breakdown may have impacted the generalizability of the findings to the Millennial generation as a whole.

The sample also had an even split between individuals from smaller rural areas

(~9), medium sized cities (~9) and larger urban centers (~9). Although I did not intend for this in the recruitment process, it proved beneficial when analyzing the data. Thus, although the sample size is not exactly representative, it still provides a useful picture of university-aged Millennial students in Southern Ontario and their attitudes and perceptions toward car sharing.

4.5 Recruitment process In order to recruit the participants, I made contact with potential participants through word of mouth, postering, snowball sampling, and social media advertisements that were approved by the Trent University Research Ethics Board. I recruited twenty-nine people to participate in the study. Incentives to participate in the research included free pizza and an entry to win a $50.00 Visa Gift card. Because the students were required to attend a

1.5-hour focus group session, both incentives were useful at encouraging individuals to participate and are unlikely to have biased the selection process.

4.6 Focus groups Focus groups were the most suitable data instrument for this study. This is because I wanted to gather attitudes and perceptions from a specific market segment about two transportation options; private vehicle ownership and car sharing. Quantitative research was somewhat unsuitable for these purposes, as qualitative research is generally more effective at collecting themes, opinions, attitudes and emotions regarding a topic (Catulli, et al., 2013). Catulli et al. (2013) described the importance of focus groups when researching product service-systems, such as car-sharing, because it is a new way of consuming goods. Qualitative methods were adopted here to acquire in-depth understanding of opinions and attitudes toward new car-sharing business models.

Although focus groups may not allow for the generalizability of the data, they are useful at collecting opinions and attitudes when there is little known about a particular social context, such as the current state of new car-sharing business models. In addition, Zhou

36 and Kockelman (2011) recommended the use of focus groups to capture perceptions about car sharing.

Furthermore, I wanted to uncover specific social interactions between participants.

I selected focus groups as the most suitable method to witness these interactions. This is because I could then observe and witness social interactions between research participants, such as which particular ideas were accepted or rejected, as well as how themes or thoughts emerged. Focus groups were superior to holding individual interviews because of this. In addition, the focus groups provided a convenient way to recruit

Millennials. Focus groups also provide a way to understand new products and services, such as car-sharing, because focus groups gather a range of information about dislikes, likes and specific opinions. Basic questions can be asked about a pilot product or service and the opinions given by participants can be evaluated to reduce barriers and increase benefits (Krueger & Casey, 2002)

Focus groups were also selected to fill a gap in Simons et al., (2013)’s research.

Simons et al., (2013) recruited students between the ages of 18-25 to participate in focus groups about transportation, such as private vehicles, cycling and public transportation.

The study sought to discover ways to encourage individuals to adopt sustainable transportation behavior. However, Simons et al., (2013) failed to include car sharing.

4.7 Focus group design

4.7.1 Review of relevant literature I identified five initial categories to structure the focus group, based on the literature review. I selected the six themes mentioned in Table 3 because each helped answer the research objectives. Because one of the aims of this Master’s thesis was to gain an understanding of how university-aged Millennial students perceive car sharing as a viable alternative to purchasing a private vehicle, it was critical to incorporate previous research that explored automobile dependence to better understand if car-sharing is disrupting vehicle ownership.

Table 3 Literature informing the focus group design There are negative attitudes toward private vehicle (Zhu et al., 2012) ownership (Belgiawan et al., 2015) There are positive attitudes toward alternative modes (Kuhnimhof et al., of transportation, including car-sharing 2013). Young adults in developed countries do not have a (Goodwin, 2012) desire to purchase cars Instrumental values, such as speed, freedom, and (Zhu et al., 2012) convenience are losing their importance (Belgiawan et al., 2015) Social influences will impact undergraduate students (Belgiawan et al., perceptions 2015) (Baslington, 2008) Students change their opinions toward travel when (Balsas, 2003) they leave home

I divided the focus groups into four activities. In the first activity, I asked the students about the first words that came to mind when they heard the terms “car” and

“car-sharing”, respectively. Students wrote down words that had to do with these terms on a colour-coded sticky note pads. Sticky notes represented each student’s “data” and

38 allowed me to differentiate between which individual said what later in the data analysis phase.

The first activity was a useful exercise, as it allowed both terms (car and car- sharing) to be defined by the participants themselves, rather than having the facilitator explain the terms; this is especially important to better understand what the term “car- sharing” means to university students. Section 5.4.4 provides a more detailed discussion of this.

I designed the second part of the focus group discussion to discover the students’ attitudes and perceptions toward owning a vehicle in the future. The main objective of this was to understand the social context of cars and any associated social norms attached to owning a vehicle that the research participants experienced.

I structured the third activity of the focus group around car sharing. I provided a brief description of car sharing so that the students could answer the question by envisioning themselves using a car-sharing service. In the focus group sessions, I stressed that there are various business models available and that the focus group sought to capture a general discussion that included station-based car sharing and free-floating car-sharing models such as ZipCar, Car2Go, Modo, and AutoShare. The questions were asked to determine advantages and disadvantages of car sharing, as well as identify any social norms attached to car-sharing, such as social status.

I structured the fourth and final activity around the “moment of change” hypothesis. I wanted to understand if university-aged Millennial students change their

39 transportation perceptions when they move away from home. In particular, I wanted to discover the likelihood or unlikelihood that students may adopt new habits, norms, and behaviours while they attend university and if they are likely to carry these habits with them into adulthood.

4.7.2 Pre-testing the focus group template After completion, I tested the focus group template (see

Table 5) on a group of individuals at a non-for-profit public speaking group for revision. I presented the focus group as part of the Facilitating Discussion manual that this not-for-profit organization provides to its members.

The non-for-profit public speaking group offered useful advice and four suggestions to incorporate into the focus group design. First, participants suggested that I should

Figure 1 Focus group set-up provide unique sticky note pads where they could write down their own unique answers.

Second, participants suggested I should provide a two-minute thinking period on questions that they considered harder to answer quickly. The individuals wanted more time to think of the question and wanted to write their thoughts down before discussing.

Third, the individuals offered advice on the wording of the questions. Fourth, individuals also offered advice on ways for me to improve the facilitation of the session. I incorporated all four suggestions into the focus group design. This was a very useful exercise to ensure that I tested the focus group template before data collection took place.

Pre-testing the interview guide also provided me with experience facilitating a focus group before beginning the formal data collection.

4.7.3 Sessions Before the focus group started, students were asked to fill out a consent form (see

Appendix B), which was approved by the Trent University Research Ethics Board. Upon completion, the participants were asked to fill out a short “pre-study information” sheet that included a brief description of the individual’s profile, including name, age, license type, hometown, university program, car-sharing awareness, and reasons the individual may use a vehicle. The researcher audio recorded the focus groups and each session lasted approximately one hour each. The room was set up in a round table format to encourage participation (see Figure 1). Each group had between 4 and 6 participants (see

Table 4). Because no new themes, ideas or topics emerged during the sixth group, I decided that this was the point of saturation and chose to stop hosting sessions.

Table 4 Focus group session overview Focus Group Session Date Composition Location Focus Group #1 June 5th 2015 2 females Sadleir House 2 males Peterborough, Ontario Focus Group #2 June 12th 2015 5 females Sadleir House Peterborough, Ontario Focus Group #3 June 19th 2015 1 male Sadleir House 3 females Peterborough, Ontario Focus Group #4 June 26th 2015 1 male Sadleir House 4 females Peterborough, Ontario Focus Group #5 August 7th 2015 4 males Sadleir House 1 female Peterborough, Ontario Focus Group #6 August 14th 2015 3 males Ryerson University 3 females Toronto, Ontario

4.8 Data analysis

4.8.1 Field notes After and during each focus group, I immediately wrote detailed field notes and transcribed the focus groups by replaying the recordings. I followed the recommendation from Hay (2000 pg. 97) to transcribe the focus group interviews immediately after they take place. This allows for an accurate reconstruction and recording of the interaction. In addition, it is less likely that a facilitator will misinterpret the dialogue (Hay, 2000). This also provided an early form of analysis and helped dictate the themes and content that emerged.

The field notes provided me with a narrative of what happened in each focus group, including what topics were discussed; how the individuals responded; what themes and topic came up or were excluded; unexpected findings; and preliminary ideas. These study notes allowed me to recall the witnessed interactions of the participants and their discussions. During each session, I wrote down notes when speakers were talking and their voice tone and reaction. I also highlighted interesting quotes from the focus group discussions and the specific social interactions that took place between participants.

Table 5 Focus group template Purpose Question Time (min) Ice Breaker To get participants Please tell the group your name, study, and a little bit 5 acquainted and about yourself. minutes comfortable with one another Introduction To start the discussion -What immediately comes to mind when I say car? 10 to topic -What immediately comes to mind when I say car- minutes sharing? To understand post- -What are some reasons to buy a car? 15 secondary students’ who -Think back to the last time you drove a car. How did minutes

do not currently own a you feel when you are behind the wheel? car attitudes toward -Think about someone who owns an expensive car. How private vehicle ownership do you feel about them? -What are some advantages and disadvantages to car ownership? -If you won the lottery, would you purchase a car? -Do you feel pressured by your peer group to purchase a car? To understand the -What are some reasons to join a car-sharing service? 15 circumstances and -Think about someone you know who is a member of a minutes likelihood that post- car-sharing organization. How do you feel about them? secondary students who -What are some advantages and disadvantages to car do not currently own a sharing? car would use car-sharing - What do you think your friends, co-workers and family services would think about you if you did not buy a car and became a life-long car-sharer? To obtain insight about -Thinking back over your university career so far, can 5 the potential you think of a time where car-sharing would have been minutes opportunities of car- useful? sharing To obtain insight about - Growing up, what are some ways that your family and 10 the potential friends influenced your thinking about cars? minutes opportunities of car- -Has this ever changed? How so? sharing Has your time at university influenced the way you see cars? Assess their potential Do you envision purchasing a vehicle in the future? 5 willingness to forgo minutes buying a vehicle in the future

Conclusion End discussion Is there anything that you would like to discuss that we 5 haven’t yet? minutes These notes provided a useful variety of information about the participants, because I was able to observe how the students interacted with one another. The discussions provided a useful way to understand group and social processes relevant to cars and vehicle sharing. I also used the field notes to examine what information the research participants left out of the discussion. The field notes allowed me to explore and reflect on the differences between group participants, the conflicts and arguments that arose, and the factors that persuaded individuals to sway their opinions based on other’s comments.

4.8.2 NVivo qualitative software package 10Analysis To analyze the focus group transcripts, I re-read the transcriptions several times and imported them into NVivo Qualitative Analysis Software Package 10. The pre-study information, including age, gender, program of study, hometown, car sharing awareness, and university were imported as attributes. Each participant was given a specific alias, or node, so that I could differentiate between who said what and incorporate data (such as sex, age, hometown, and car-sharing awareness) to add depth to the analysis.

The use of software to analyze qualitative information has been fraught with controversy, as scholars argue that distortion of the data can occur (Atherton & Elsmore,

2007). In addition, utilizing software is scrutinized for the inability of reflective engagement to take place. This is because the researcher may be disconnected with the data (Atherton & Elsmore, 2007).

However, in the current study, I believe that the qualitative software package actually provided a more meaningful analysis that would not have been possible without it. This is because I was able to slice the data in different ways and code the information much more effectively, such as differences between hometown and male and female.

A major aim of the analysis was to identify areas of agreement and controversy to better understand how undergraduate’s perspectives and attitudes about car sharing and vehicle ownership are shaped in a group setting. As warned by (Kidd & Parshall, 2000), the researcher must be careful in identifying disagreements and agreements alike, and make note of topics that were not discussed. It is also important to be aware of the

44 relationships between individuals who may just be agreeing on a subject to participate easily or those that censor their opinions because of fear of social ridicule (Smithson,

2000). I was careful to address these concerns with my field notes.

4.8.3 Coding in NVivo 10 To code the data I used both broad-brush coding and fine-level coding (De Wet, &

Erasmus, 2005). Broad-brush coding was used to capture stories or exchanges between groups of people that interacted with one another, such as arguments, agreements, or interesting responses. Fine-level coding was used to look at the participant responses, line-by-line, to uncover what was said. For example, a phrase could have had multiple themes attached to it that I needed to code separately (Kidd & Parshall, 2000). Each participant was given their own node, allowing their dialogue to be weaved through the various themes (Kidd & Parshall, 2000).

NVivo 10 was particularly useful when it came to sorting individuals and indexing them based on a set of attributes. For example, I ran certain queries to separate attributes, such as gender, hometown, or university program. This helped me organize the data and at a later stage in the analysis, I compared these themes by using a function called matrix coding. Matrix coding was used to compare the data based on a set of attributes.

A weakness to using focus groups is being unable to differentiate a theme from a strong viewpoint. This, however, can be made easier by utilizing NVivo10, as it can be established how many participants commented on a particular subject and which subjects were raised in more than one focus group. I was also able to slice the data by looking at

45 focus group transcripts one-by-one. This revealed which topics were dominant in what sessions and which topics were not discussed. It also provided me with a greater understanding of which topics were discussed by participants most often across the six focus groups.

4.8.4 Analytical strategies Richards (2004) uses the term ‘interrogate interpretations’ to describe the process of establishing a sound and thorough inquiry when exploring data in qualitative software.

Penna (2007) developed a coding strategy, which was adapted for the analysis of the current study. This section will describe how I used both the case and attribute node tools to analyze data.

In NVivo, study participants can be organized into case nodes. The purpose of a case node is to organize all data from one participant in one reference place. There were

29 case nodes in this study, each representing the study participant and their respective data sets. I carefully coded all data to the nodes, including pre-study forms and the sticky notes written on during the focus group.

Next, I created attributes (see Figure 2). Attributes included the demographic information collected from the participants, including their hometown, age, gender, license type, university program, and whether they were aware of car-sharing. I later categorized the attribute of “hometown” into three separate attributes. I looked up population sizes in each reported hometown and created three separate fields: small urban center, medium urban center, and large urban center, based on population sizes consistent

with Statistics Canada. Next, I created “city move” as an attribute because I was

interested to see if students that moved to a city with a bigger population size, maintained

a similar population size, or moved to a smaller city had different perceptions and

attitudes.

Figure 2 Attributes used to organize the focus group participant data

The attributes (Figure 2 above) provided a more in-depth analysis because I was

able to examine the interactions and intersections of the data. Bazeley and Richards

(2000) explain that the use of attributes and case nodes allow a researcher to explore their

data with a more robust lens.

To code, I first developed initial categories (Figure 3) that were consistent with

how the focus group template was designed. These initial themes were broken down into

eight separate notes. These are referred to as tree nodes, which allow for a hierarchical

structure. A general category is created, and then more specific categories called child

47 nodes follow below. This, according to Gibbs (2002), helps develop a conceptual framework and keeps the analysis organized. In addition, matrix searches are easier to conduct when a hierarchical structure is created.

Figure 3 Initial coding themes

Each transcript was coded one-by-one. After the first stage of coding took place, various themes had emerged and therefore I had to go through the transcripts a second, third, fourth and fifth time to ensure that the themes represented the dialogue and data accurately.

After this phase was completed, I scoped the data. This means that I investigated and payed careful attention to themes that came up the most often in all six focus groups.

This helped me focus the findings because I paid more attention to themes that were raised most often. This allowed me to understand nodes that were most important and which needed further exploration and explanation.

I also used two functions in NVivo to analyze the data. The first was text search and the second was matrix search queries. I searched words that I noticed the participants used often. For example, in the first stage of the focus group exercise, participants were

48 requested to write down words that came to mind when “car” and “car-sharing” were mentioned. This provided me with the opportunity to analyze frequently used words associated with each term. This was a worthwhile exercise, as the creation of “in vivo” categories arose, which are “categories well named by words people themselves use”

(Richard, 2005, p.95).

Second, I used matrix-coding queries. QSR International defines matrix coding as a comparison of pairs and items. Gibbs (2002) attests that matrix coding allows the researcher to “identify issues, causal relationships and patterns for investigation in a structured way” (p.190). I used matrix coding queries to find intersections in the data between themes such as the built environment, public transportation systems, environmental factors, and social factors. Matrix queries helped me to investigate how the data intersected and allowed me to analyze the relationship of the data based on attribute information. Attributes were also useful here as the nodes could be filtered based on selected features, such as if males or females were more likely to be concerned with the environment.

4.9 Validity and reliability Analyzing the results using fine-level coding and broad brush coding was useful to explore the dialogue within and between focus groups. The strategies and initial themes in this study can be used as rules that can reproduced in future studies. In addition, the emergence of similar themes and topics arose in multiple groups. Because the groups were held in two geographic locations, this provides validity to the results. I also

49 compared the themes with themes and theories already available in existing literature, which also helps establish validity (Kidd & Parshall, 2000).

4.10 Participant observation Wibeck (2007) emphasized the value of exploring the interactions between participants because mere content analysis of focus group transcriptions does not capture how the participants understand and conceptualize the topic of interest. Wibeck (2007) uses the term collective sense-making to describe the way in which individuals understand a topic and how their prior knowledge about a subject helps inform their opinions (Wibeck,

2007). Focus group participants can construct, express, defend, or sometimes modify opinions in the context of discussions with others.

Wibeck (2012) analyzed how Swedish focus group participant make sense of climate change, by paying particular attention to the role of interactions with other participants in the focus group sessions and the ideas, arguments and how social disagreements or agreements in the conversation produced rich data. Sensitive moments

(Wibeck 2012), such as an argument that takes place between participants, can be useful in exploring how participants interpret a particular transportation mode and how they position their opinions in response to another participant’s dialect. During focus groups, people question each other and share experiences that the researcher can observe.

To analyze the data, my analytical focus not only focused on the content and themes that arose between focus group sessions, but also on the interactions between the participants to gather a broader understanding of how the interplay with others,

50 specifically how a topic is negotiated, elaborated, defended, rejected or dismissed.

(Wibeck 2007; Wibeck 2012).

In order to take advantage of interactions between participants, I closely viewed the data using the questions (Figure 4) suggested by Wibeck (2007;2012).

What interactions took place? Whose interests were represented in the group? Why were the issues brought up? What statements seemed to evoke conflict? What were the contradictions? What common experiences were expressed? Was a particular member or viewpoint silenced? Was a particular view dominant? How did the group resolve disagreements? What topics produced consensus? (Wibeck 2007; 2012)

Figure 4 Social interaction analysis

When analyzing focus group discussions, it was important to take into consideration what was said by participants, but also how it was said and interpreted from the peers in the group. In addition, it was important to account for what wasn’t discussed in the groups to provide a meaningful interpretation of Millennials understanding of car- ownership and car-sharing. These interactions are useful for several reasons. They allowed me to tease out collective sense-making of the views expressed, and how they were constructed, defended, or modified in the context and discussion of others (Wibeck

2007; Wibeck 2012). Using focus groups provided me with the opportunity to understand

51 car-sharing and vehicle ownership from the perspective of the group participants. This peer-to-peer communication allowed for a deepened understanding of how viewpoints were constructed, and how a group shared understandings and thinking of particular processes (Wibeck 2007; Wibeck 2012).

4.11 Methodological shortcomings and limitations There were several shortcomings in the approach that should be acknowledged. I know two participants on a personal level, which could have impacted the results, as their discussion may have been represented with a bias of what the individuals thought I wanted to hear, instead of being truly representative of their own thoughts, attitudes, perceptions, opinions and viewpoints. In most focus groups, the individuals were aware that I am a user of a car-sharing service, and this may have provoked a bias toward being afraid to offer negative views for fear of judgement. The majority (18/29) of the students also attended Trent University, which could result in a bias of how car sharing was interpreted. However, it should be noted that because the students were asked to provide their hometown on the pre-study information form and were not asked to discuss car- sharing in one location and instead were asked to broadly interpret the mode of transportation, this limitation is mitigated.

Focus groups also face criticism for the inability of the moderator to generate discussion or to influence the results based on bias prompts that may steer the discussion in a direction that the conversation may not naturally take. For example, Savin-Baden

(2003) closely examined the role of the facilitator and found that a facilitator can be

52 directive or act as a “voiceless participant” (pg. 50). Although I took steps to balance these two extremes, such as alternating between standing and sitting during the discussions, eating pizza with the participants, and remaining neutral towards the answers to encourage that there were no “rights” or “wrongs”, this is a potential shortcoming and limitation.

It also would have been useful to extend the study to depict whether or not

Millennials’ in their late 20’s or early 30’s hold similar views to student’s attending university; however, this was beyond the time and resources available and opens up an area of future research. One of the limitations of this research is the ability to generalize the findings because the research focused on a specific subset of the Millennial generation, namely Millennials attending university. However, although this may not be generalizable to the entire Millennial generation, the research is useful in addressing the university-aged cohort in Southern Ontario. Within the Millennial generation, there are many other segments that can be explored, such as college students and working professionals, but this is beyond the scope of this research. Because this research was exploratory in nature, it helps open up potential opportunity for future areas of analysis.

Another limitation is that this study accounted only for students’ who already have acquired their licenses. This could have reduced the reliability of the results, as students who do not have licenses, may offer a different interpretation on cars and car-sharing all together, as they may have different perceptions and attitudes toward this transportation mode and may be more open to alternative modes of transit. However, the results do provide an accurate representation of car sharing and vehicle ownership of university

53 students, who do not own vehicles, who are not users of a car-sharing service; and who live in Southern Ontario; and who have an Ontario driver’s license.

Chapter 5 Results

5.1 Introduction This chapter presents the results of the study through the lens of social practice theory that was discussed in Chapter 3. The first half of the chapter discusses the attitudes and perceptions toward car sharing of university-aged Millennials, who live away from home, are not members of car-sharing services, and who have a valid driver’s license. The second half discusses university-aged Millennials attitudes and perceptions toward vehicle ownership with the studied cohort. For a visual summary of the results, refer to

Figure 5 below.

Materials: -Built environment Meanings (symbolic (roads, highways, and self-identity) parking availability) -Symbolic -Location -Self-identity -Alternative -Status and personal infrastructure (cycling desires pathways, bus routes) -Vehicle accessibility

Competences/ Skills -Planning Social Influences -Time management -Peers -Scheduling -Employers (future or -Inflexible / present) inconvenient -Parents - Lack of knowledge/

education/ information -Car seats

Figure 5 Summary of results illustrating the four pillars of social practice theory. This graphic reveals an overview of the findings presented in this chapter regarding university- aged Millennials’ attitudes and perceptions toward car-sharing and vehicle ownership. Each circle represents a pillar of social practice theory. Each circle organizes the results and what common themes were brought up that influence Millennials' attitudes and perceptions toward vehicle ownership and car-sharing. (Adapted from Spotswood et al., 2015; Kent & Dowling. 2012)

5.2 Car sharing meanings Meanings are an integral part of social practice theory. By meanings, I refer to two types: symbolic meanings and self-identity meanings. Symbolic meanings refer to how the research participants interpreted car sharing from the perspective of people around them.

University-aged Millennials felt that there were certain symbolic meanings, such as statuses, attached to users of car-sharing services. On the other hand, self-identity meanings refer to how the student participants saw themselves as users of the service, in their own eyes (Stern, Zinkhan & Jaju 2001). Important self-identity meanings were discussed relating to personal desires and self-esteem. The next section will elaborate on the themes across and between focus groups related to symbolic and self-identity meanings and how they shaped university-aged Millennials’ attitudes and perceptions related to car sharing. For a visual representation of common meanings that arose across and between focus group discussions, see Figure 6.

5.2.1 Millennials are unsure of the symbolic meaning of car-sharing When I asked the research participants to consider what their family and friends would think about them if they decided to become long-term car-sharers, the conversations were unpredictable. One discussion revealed four different symbolic meanings. These unpredictable discussions were consistent across all focus groups, which shows that car sharing is still a relatively new transportation mode and that there is uncertainty surrounding its symbolic meaning.

Jill: I feel like there would definitely be like a negative connotation to be like “Oh like, why don’t you just own your own car” kind of deal. But then on the other hand there would be some friends that would be like “Omg wow that is so awesome”.

(Age: 19, Female, Hometown: Ottawa, ON, Trent University, Program: Nursing, FG2) Judy: Yeah, and like I guess if you are from Toronto, it makes sense instead of parents buying them a car. (Age 21, Program: Business Administration, Trent University, Hometown: Lakefield FG2). Candice: I don’t really know like I guess sort of neutral. I don’t really have an opinion. (Age: 21, Female, Program: History, Trent University, Hometown: Cambridge, FG2) Renee: Yeah, me too, I feel sort of neutral like I don’t know if I would personally invest in it but if you do it and it works for you then that’s great for you. (Age: 20, Female, Program: History, Trent University, Hometown: Ajax, FG2)

Anthony: [Car-sharing] isn’t something I think about, too much. (Age 21, Male, Program: Biochemistry, Hometown: Ottawa, Trent University)

Participants were unsure about the symbolic meaning and related social impacts that becoming a member of a car-sharing service would bring. Students felt “neutral”,

“indifferent” or had “no opinion” toward the service. Car sharing, in some cases, was also simply uninteresting to them. Unlike public and active transportation options, car-sharing lacks an overpowering meaning to most Millennials.

This is an important finding, as Millennials have not constructed a ubiquitous symbolic and identity meaning toward car sharing. It was typical for focus group participants to express uncertainty around what it meant to become a member of a vehicle-sharing service and what others would think about them. This provides an important window of opportunity for car-sharing organizations to attract this cohort by planning interventions and creating new meanings and understandings that are important to individuals and to those around them. Focus group participants revealed that they were unsure about how they would perceive themselves as a car-sharing member and what it meant to those around them.

Figure 6 A visual representation of the perceptions toward car-sharing with university-aged Millennial students. This figure represents an overview of the meanings that took place in all six focus group discussions surrounding vehicle-sharing.

5.2.2 Millennials perceive car-sharing as environmentally friendly Millennials perceive car-sharing as an environmentally friendly transportation option.

When I asked the focus group participants to describe how they would feel about someone who is a car-sharing member, participants used the word “eco-friendly”. Focus group participants seemed to believe that being a member of a car-sharing service carried the specific symbolic meaning that an individual is concerned for the environment and may be willing to sacrifice convenience to take part in sustainable behavior.

John: Well if I hear of someone who is a member of car-sharing, I assume they are environmentally conscious. They would rather only have a car when they actually need it instead of using one full time, contributing to pollution and what not. It is a more environmentally friendly option (Age 22, Male, Program: History, Trent University, Hometown: Ottawa FG1)

Fiona: Well I guess the [car-sharing member] is mindful of the environment and stuff. And like willing to take the time restrictions and the trade-off. (Age 24, Female, Program: Archaeology, Trent University, Hometown: Barrie FG1)

This reveals an important symbolic meaning that car-sharing carries. For future marketing campaigns, car-sharing companies and policy makers should understand that some Millennials perceive car-sharing members as having an “eco-friendly” symbolic status.

If Millennials perceive car sharing this way, the transportation option may only attract people who self-identify as “tree-huggers”, “hippies” or “eco-conscious”. In order to attract a large quantity of car-sharing users, car-sharing companies should be aware of the potential consequence of marketing a service as “environmentally friendly”. A “tree- hugger” symbolic meaning may not help attract a large number of users and may only attract a niche market of people who identify as “tree huggers”. An eco-friendly symbolic meaning may also discourage some Millennials from adopting the service, which Section

5.75 and 5.76 discusses.

5.2.3 Millennials perceive car-sharing as cool Some Millennials felt that being a member of a car-sharing service carried a

“progressive” and “cool” meaning. The desire to self-identify as cool and progressive may attract some Millennials to become car-sharing users. The status of cool and progressive may emerge with this form of transportation.

Jill: Well thinking about that thing, like that footprint thing and the environment, like I guess you might be seen as cool for being progressive. (Age: 19, Female, Hometown: Ottawa, ON, Trent University, Program: Nursing, FG2)

This is important to mention, because encouraging this meaning may help attract users who wish to self-identify as “cool” and “progressive”. In addition, individuals may desire to portray this status to their peers symbolically. Instead of focusing on the “eco- friendly” meaning of vehicle sharing to attract members, it may be worthwhile to emphasize innovation, novelty, and progressiveness to attract university-aged Millennials to use the service. This meaning may resonate with a larger number of Millennials compared to “eco-friendly”.

5.2.4 Millennials perceive car-sharing as cost-efficient Focus group participants believed that car sharing was a cost-efficient way to travel. They believed that becoming a vehicle-sharing member would provide them with cost-savings because they would avoid the expenses of monthly vehicle insurance, which is included with a vehicle sharing membership. Many students felt that car sharing was an economical way to travel and were in disbelief about the cost-savings when compared to owning a vehicle. Focus group participants also held the view that car sharing would incentivize them to drive less, and therefore, they would not spend money on gas, which they considered “smart” in terms of the associated cost-savings. The excerpt below illustrates that focus group participants believed car-sharing was a cost-effective way to travel.

Jack: For example, like if you own a car and you get sick let’s say and you can’t go out like you are terminally ill or you have a broken arm like you are bed ridden and so then you are paying for a car that is sitting in your driveway and you can’t use it. But with car-share like you just bring it back and pay for the service and whenever you do need it like the hypothetical situation you rent it out for one or two hours and it saves money. (Age: 19, Male, Hometown, Woodbridge, Program: Forensics and Anthropology, Trent University, FG5)

Stephen: Yeah, and it’s way cheaper than a cab, like a cab is like 30 bucks! And this is like 7 dollars. (Age: 18, Male, Ryerson University, Hometown: Toronto, Engineering, FG6) Amanda: $7 an hour!?!?! (Age: 21, Female, Hometown: North York, ON, Ryerson University, Program: Business Management, FG6) Stephen: I think it can be $10 but still. (Age: 18, Male, Ryerson University, Hometown: Toronto, Engineering, FG6) Amanda: Wow, ten bucks an hour, still like wow, that is good! Like why do I take cabs? Oh Yeah, I’d totally do [car-sharing], it is so cheap. (Age: 21, Female, Hometown: North York, ON, Ryerson University, Program: Business Management, FG6)

Craig: Yeah and you don’t have to worry about insurance. And [car-sharing] is cheaper than a taxi and like it makes sense if you only have one thing to do for the day and then you just drop it off sort of thing. (Age 19, Program: Mathematical Physics, Trent University, Hometown: Cardston, AB, FG5)

Lori: Yeah I see that as very economical because insurance is like a thousand dollars a year basically. (20, Female, Hometown: Dundas ON, Trent University, Program: Biology/Environmental Science FG2)

Wanda: Yeah I know a member of Zipcar, and now that I know more about car-sharing I am kind of like, Yeah it is pretty smart! (Age: 20, Ryerson University, Hometown: Toronto, Business Administration, FG6)

On various occasions, students were surprised by the cost-savings that were associated with car sharing. The above excerpts represent common interactions that took place with the students about the cost-savings of car sharing. This illustrates that some

Millennials consider car-sharing members as smart and cost-efficient. This symbolic meaning is important, especially considering that, in general, this group of individuals has low incomes; are about to enter an unstable job market; and are faced with high-income inequality (Schoolman et al., 2014; Stiglitz, 2012). Placing an emphasis on cost-savings may be useful to take into consideration when attempting to attract Millennials to car- sharing services. This is because individuals may wish to self-identify as cost-efficient and portray this meaning to others.

5.2.5 Millennials perceive car-sharing as low-economic status In contrast, car-sharing members may also be considered with having a low income status. For instance, it appeared that some focus group participants felt as if car-sharing members would be unable to afford their own vehicle.

Randy: It gives a clue to your economic situation as well. Like, I mean if you are flushed with cash you probably aren’t a member of a car-sharing service. (Age: 23, Male, Program: Tourism, University of Otago, Hometown: Timaru, New Zealand, FG5)

John: [My parents] would just think I didn’t have any money and I just can’t afford a car. (Age 22, Male, Program: History, Trent University, Hometown: Ottawa FG1)

Although Millennials may perceive members of car sharing as smart and cost- efficient, they may also consider car-sharing members as having a lower socio-economic status. This shows that even though some Millennials perceive car sharing as smart, they can also consider the service frugal and thrifty, which may turn them away from the service. Careful consideration to this emerging symbolic meaning is important, to ensure

Millennials adopt a stronger meaning of “smart” and “cost-effective”, instead of “cheap” and “thrifty”. In general, it appeared that Millennials do not want to identify themselves as having lower incomes.

5.2.6 Millennials perceive car-sharing as weird Car sharing also has an emerging symbolic meaning of weird. When asked what their peers would think about them if they became car-sharing members, focus group participants brought up a few examples where social acceptance would not likely occur.

This illustrates that some Millennials fear the status of “weird” because they are unable to have a car for long periods of time. The comments below illustrate this point.

Candice: I think it would be weird because like sometimes if you had a car today, but like you can’t have it tomorrow. Like, “Yeah no, it is booked up tomorrow” so, what’s the point of it? I could see a lot of my friends being like “Okay let’s go do something” but then I am like “Well, the car has to be back by this time” and my friends would be like “Well that is right in the middle of our movie”. Like why does it have to be back? (Age: 21, Female, Program: History, Trent University, Hometown: Cambridge, FG2)

Jack: Well I am sure some friends would be like “Uhm you have to go down here to rent a car, like what? That is so weird”, but like I don’t think it is that big of an issue. (Age 19, Program: Forensics/Anthropology, Trent University Hometown: Woodbridge, FG5)

This arising “weird” meaning attached to vehicle sharing reveal that there are particular social woes and uncertainty that may discourage this cohort from becoming members of a car-sharing service. Similar to shopping at a thrift-store, becoming a car- sharing member may not be something that Millennials would like to share with their peers. Millennials may attach a symbolic meaning of weird or strange to car sharing members, which may discourage its adoption, especially if this symbolic meaning becomes stronger. Millennials may not wish to identify as weird.

5.2.7 Millennials perceive car sharing as impersonal Study participants were concerned that they would not be able to personalize a car-share vehicle, which was important to them. Millennials felt that becoming a car-sharer would threaten their ability to develop their personal identity. They provided various examples where they would not have the opportunity to create a feeling of ownership. Participants cited many cases where they favoured opportunities to personalize a vehicle, such as being able to leave CD’s in the car; decorating the rear-view mirror; or selecting music.

They were concerned that a car-sharing service did not produce the opportunity to make a vehicle their own, which was important to their identity and personal preferences. This

63 included adjusting the seat and knowing the history of the car. Self-identity meanings are important to Millennials, and car-sharing services apparently do not allow this expression to occur.

Patty: I like really like loose steering, but some people like firm steering, so if I get a car that has really firm steering I may not feel comfortable with the driving... (Age: 22, Female, Program: Forensics Psychology, Hometown: Dunnville, ON, Trent University, FG1)

Jack: I don’t really know how to say it but um like you know how everyone like when they get a car and they put that steering wheel thing on top of it and they hang a dangly thing from the mirror, and you don’t get to do that [with car-sharing]. Like that sense of hominess in your own car. (Age: 19, Male, Hometown, Woodbridge, Program: Forensics and Anthropology, Trent University, FG5)

Katrina: I guess one benefit of having your own car is that you can leave things in it. So like you would have to put stuff in and take it out every time. (Age 21, Female, Program: Psychology, Hometown: Douro, Trent University, FG4)

This was a recurring theme and reveals that many Millennials are still concerned with owning a vehicle. The inability to personalize a car-share vehicle is a barrier to the long-term adoption of car-sharing services. Adding personal touches was an important advantage to owning a car, and car sharing lacked these personalization features.

Millennials felt as if car sharing did not allow for an expression of their identity. Most focus group participants perceived car sharing as impersonal, which is consistent with other studies (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012).

5.2.8 Millennials perceive car-sharing as unsanitary Focus group participants discussed several barriers to car-sharing including lack of comfort, hygiene and cleanliness. Students did not perceive sharing a vehicle as hygienic or clean. Focus group participants were concerned with unpleasant smells, second-hand

64 smoke, and exposure to germs or diseases, like lice, that could spread by sharing a vehicle with others. This is consistent with Hazée, Delcourt and Van Vaerenbergh (2015), who conducted a 3-part study on car sharing. The study concluded that individuals experience feelings of distaste and disgust with non-ownership services. Hazée, Delcourt and Van

Vaerenbergh (2015) also found that service providers could reduce this barrier by ensuring that the vehicles are cleaned and sanitized. The below comments illustrate the perception that car sharing is not hygienic.

Wanda: Yeah, like if a person is really smelly and then you don’t feel comfortable in a car so like if it smells bad. (Age: 20, Ryerson University, Hometown: Toronto, Business Administration, FG6)

Renee: I think cleanliness is a factor, like if someone has it in the morning and you are supposed to have it in the afternoon, you are relying on that person to keep it clean. (Age:20, Female, Program: History, Trent University, Hometown: Ajax, FG2)

Focus group participants considered car sharing as an unsanitary way to commute.

They felt that sharing a car would result in unwanted smells, odours, diseases and discomfort. Millennials did not want to use something that made them feel uncomfortable or make them feel personally unclean or dirty. In general, people shy away from activities that make them feel unclean. Car-sharing organizations should monitor the cleanliness of the vehicle fleets on a regular basis to mitigate this discomfort.

5.2.9 Millennials perceive car-sharing as unsexy There was an important meaning attached to car sharing that reflected an unsexy way to commute. One female student expressed that a man who car-shares would not be seen as particularly attractive. For instance:

Judy: [Car-sharing] might have a social stigma around it, like ‘Hey babe, I’m going to come pick you up in my car-share’ probably wouldn’t really go well. (Age 21, Program: Business Administration, Trent University, Hometown: Lakefield ON, FG2)

The above comment illustrates a barrier to car sharing and a general reflection of how female focus group participant’s view males that are car sharers. Car sharing may have a symbolic meaning of “unsexy” attached to users of the service. In addition, courting an individual may be more difficult as a car-sharing member compared to owning a car. Car sharing isn’t perceived by Millennials as a sexy way to commute. This is important because car-sharing organizations may want to create an alternative feature that Millennials consider sexy, such as capturing their attention via social media or smart phones, instead.

5.2.10 Millennials perceive car-sharing as a temporary travel option Most students spoke of car sharing as something that they were likely to use during their university years, when they self-identify as a “student”. Students acknowledged the usefulness of the service throughout their university years, but did not view it as something that they would adopt long-term. Rather, car sharing was viewed as a temporary transportation option that had “student status”. If students only deem car- sharing as an alternative until they can afford their own vehicle, this may actually have the unintended consequence of increasing vehicle usage at a time when car-access has not been traditionally available. The below comments illustrate that car sharing services are

“for students”.

Craig: I mean I think it is a good kind of like alternative to buying a car until you have enough money saved up to buy a car. I think it is a good alternative. (Age 19, Program: Mathematical Physics, Trent University, Hometown: Cardston, AB, FG5)

Amanda: I don’t think I’d do a life-long car-sharing, like maybe for the next 2-3 years but I just want my own car. (Age: 21, Female, Hometown: North York, ON, Ryerson University, Program: Business Management, FG6)

Anthony: Yeah, over the long term I don’t know if [car-sharing] is a long-term solution. (Age 21, Male, Program: Biochemistry, Hometown: Ottawa, Trent University)

Katrina: Yeah it is a good university thing… (Age 21, Female, Program: Psychology, Hometown: Douro, Trent University)

This shows that during the years Millennials spend at university, car-sharing may be an accepted transportation choice. This reveals that car sharing carries a “student” status with it. Car sharing may be accepted while individuals attend university and self- identify as students, but may not be considered beyond years spent as young scholars.

This reveals that during their time as university students, Millennials accept that they cannot afford a vehicle; they use active and public transportation; and they are willing to accept car sharing as a complementary transit choice to these options.

However, when they envision themselves as adults in the future, car sharing as an alternative to the private car does not appear to suit their needs because it is a “university thing”. This illustrates how flexible perceptions toward cars and car sharing are in different stages of life, as well as how quickly they can change depending on differing circumstances and life stages. This also shows that if car-sharing companies wish to attract new members, they must ensure that Millennials accept the services beyond university years. In addition, Millennials do not wish to self-identify as students past university, and likely do not want this status portrayed beyond university.

5.3 Car-sharing materials Materials include location, the built environment, parking lots and highways, as well as the larger transportation system. In the case of car-sharing, as suggested by Kent and

Dowling (2013), materials are also the cell phones required to make a reservation, the parking spots where the vehicles are parked, the spatial proximity to a home, and the accessibility of the automobiles.

The built environment, described here as the “five D’s” (Ewing & Cerevo, 2010) was an important influencer of university-aged Millennials’ perceptions and attitudes toward car sharing. Density, diversity, design, destination accessibility, and distance to transit were all important considerations that Millennials discussed in the focus group discussions (Ewing & Cerevo, 2010). The built environment consists of land use patterns; the existing transportation system; and the associated services, such as bus routes, infrastructure of roads, sidewalks, bicycle pathways and trails; the arrangement and appearance in the community; and accessibility and proximity to necessities. Study participants frequently mentioned the built environment as an important influencer of their attitudes and perceptions toward vehicle sharing. This section will discuss how materials, specifically the built environment and the existing transportation systems in a location, shaped perceptions among the focus group participants toward car sharing.

5.3.1 Access to the car Access to the car was important when participants discussed car-sharing services. If students could not access the car-sharing service or if it was not in a convenient location, they perceived car sharing as an inconvenient travel choice.

Derek: Well I mean hopefully they would place them in convenient-ish locations. They would have to purchase more vehicles and more places to pick them up like not just downtown sort of stuff. (Age 22, Program: Social Science, University of Ottawa, Hometown: Peterborough, ON FG3)

This is a somewhat obvious result, but it reveals the importance of ensuring car- sharing businesses place vehicles in suitable locations where people can easily access them. The car itself is an important material to the practice of car sharing, and if the location is not accessible and convenient, Millennials will likely not become members.

5.3.2 Geographic situation When considering car-sharing, focus group participants were likely to reference particular locations. The participants expressed that their likelihood to use a car-sharing service was largely dependent on which geographic area they saw themselves living in the future.

John: It all depends on where I live. …. If I move somewhere outside Ontario or Canada…Like if I moved out to Vancouver, I can use car-share or bus or something like that instead, but if I stayed in Peterborough or Ottawa, then I’d realistically need a car. (Age 22, Male, Program: History, Trent University, Hometown: Ottawa FG1)

Focus group participants were likely to express where they saw themselves living in the future, such as where they would start a family and whether a city was urban, suburban, or rural. This is important to mention because the built environment can have an impact on Millennials attitudes and perceptions toward car sharing.

5.3.3 Lack of demand for car sharing in some locations Where public transportation is adequate, convenient and available, some participants did not see a need for car sharing services. For instance, if a city has many transportation options to choose from, such as the subway, streetcar, train or bus, there may not be a demand for car-sharing services. The below extracts illustrates this unanticipated finding.

Eric: I just don’t see the need [for car-sharing]. I have a bike and bikes are better than cars – you can drive on sidewalks, bike paths, nature, short cuts, so like bikes are the fastest way to get around in Peterborough. (Age: 28, Program: Computer Science, Hometown: Belleville, Trent University, FG1)

Randy: If I was in a city, I mean I wouldn’t even bother with a car like Toronto or something. So car-sharing is in the same boat as a car for me like if I can take public transit I would choose that every time. (Age: 23, Male, Program: Tourism, University of Otago, Hometown: Timaru, New Zealand, FG5)

The broader transportation infrastructure, such as bicycle and bus routes, were important materials to consider. Some participants believed that it would not be necessary to use car sharing services, if bus routes or bike paths were available, adequate, accessible and convenient in a particular location.

5.3.4 Demand for car-sharing increased in some locations In direct contrast, a common discussion that took place across focus groups was that if participants perceived the public transportation infrastructure as inadequate, they saw a need for car-sharing services. If students perceived a city’s transit system as inconvenient or not meeting their expectations, standards or preferences, they felt as if car sharing would fill these transportation gaps.

Student participants used many examples (see Figure 7) where car sharing may offer them an alternative to bus routes and schedules that were not convenient or did not get them to where they needed to go. When asked to think of reasons they would use car sharing services, participants would often mention examples where bus routes and schedules were inadequate or when they could not use active transportation due to physical or weather constraints (see Figure 7).

Judy: [I would use car-sharing] to reach places you couldn’t get to by public transit, or like places that would be hard to get to by public transit…

(Age 21, Program: Business Administration, Trent University, Hometown: Lakefield).

Leslie: Over the summer. I am taking a course and the bus schedule is shit and I have to take the George North there and I have to wait 40 minutes before class so I would definitely appreciate car-share right now, and sometimes I play a show in downtown Peterborough and they are like when are you going to pick up all this stuff and I’m like I have to find someone with a car. (Age 21, Program: Mathematics/Psychology, Hometown: Whitby, Trent University FG4)

Nancy: Yeah at Carleton University it is kind of located outside of Ottawa, so like it would be easier if there was a car parked there so that you can get anywhere, like get groceries or something, like it is faster than the bus, to take to like get downtown, or get to wherever you need to go. (Age:20, University of Ottawa, Criminology, Female, Hometown: Peterborough, FG3)

This provides a prediction that car-sharing can flourish in cities with lower urban population densities that have a subpar public transportation system that young people perceive as inflexible, inconvenient or inadequate to serve specific needs.

Millennials do not necessarily consider car sharing as an attractive alternative to purchasing a private vehicle; yet they see the service as useful when public and active transportation systems fail (Figure 7). Transportation managers and municipalities will want to consider this when implementing car-sharing services. This is consistent with

Shaheen and Martin (2011), who suggest that car-sharing is a potential link between public and active transportation. This is important because car-sharing organizations or governments that wish to grow their car sharing services must consider the broader materials, such as the transportation infrastructure, already available.

In addition, car sharing may also reduce public and active transportation usage, especially if students decide to become users of a vehicle-sharing service in place of

Figure 7 Frequently mentioned reasons that millennials’ would use car-sharing services. 71 public transportation systems. This is important because Millennials may increase their personal greenhouse gas emissions. For instance, Millennials may use car-sharing services to go grocery shopping where they would have traditionally walked or bussed.

5.3.5 Type of vehicle The type of car was important to Millennials when they considered becoming a member of a car sharing service. Various examples arose where students would mention that the type of vehicle was important to them. The type of vehicle may influence Millennials perceptions and attitudes of car sharing services, particularly if the type of vehicle aligns with personal preferences and correlates with how Millennials’ construct their sense of personal identity. The below excerpts reveal the importance of car-sharing vehicle types to students.

Lori: I feel like you’d get chirped* [for using car-sharing services]. (Age: 20, Female, Hometown: Dundas ON, Trent University, Program: Biology/Environmental Science FG2) Jill: Yeah, I feel like there is a stigma. (Age: 19, Female, Hometown: Ottawa, ON, Trent University, Program: Nursing, FG2) Judy: Yeah, especially like those Kia cars they are just like “ehhhh” [disapproval] and they are small and kind of like smart cars. (Age 21, Program: Business Administration, Trent University, Hometown: Lakefield ON, FG2) *Chirped is a word that means “to be made fun of”

Craig: Yeah, and there are limitations to like the type of vehicle you’re driving like say you buy a bed or something like I don’t know much about it like maybe you can rent a truck or something but like what if it doesn’t fit? (Age 19, Program: Mathematical Physics, Trent University, Hometown: Cardston, AB, FG5)

When discussing vehicle-sharing services, one female participant seemed to believe that there was a negative stigma attached to vehicle sharing, especially if a car- sharing service used a smaller car type. This is interesting because Millennials may be

72 more attracted to using car-sharing services if the type of vehicle suits their personal preferences and self-identities. This helps reveal that the type of car is an important factor to Millennials and to their self-identity. If governments and car-sharing businesses wish to grow their services, they should provide a large range of different vehicles types that may suit the preferences of a wide range of Millennials. Providing a wide variety of vehicles may increase the likelihood that Millennials will become car-sharing members, as this may help fulfill individual self-identity preferences and associated symbolic meanings.

5.4 Car-sharing competences/ skills In order to be able to bike to work, an individual must first know how to ride a bicycle.

They must also have the relevant fitness level required, especially if their work location is a far commute from their home. In addition, the individual must be aware of bicycle paths nearby and how to ride them appropriately (Spotswood et al., 2015). Likewise, car- sharing services also require a particular set of skills and competences.

Competences/skills, or the ability to do something efficiently and successfully, refers to the knowledge required to perform a given practice, such as car sharing (Shove,

2003; Shove, 2010). For instance, car-sharing competences include skills, such as the planning, scheduling, and associated time management skills required to reserve a vehicle, and the information necessary to sign up for a car-sharing membership (Kent &

Dowling, 2013). These skills shape how focus-group participants perceived car sharing.

The following section will elaborate on these competencies.

5.4.1 Planning Millennials perceived car sharing as inconvenient, inflexible and impractical For example, in the case of an emergency, students feared that the vehicle would be unavailable to them when they needed it. In addition, focus group participants perceived car sharing as inadequate to meet the needs of their personal schedules because of uncertain daily activities and time requirements. Car sharing as a long-term transportation choice was approached with uncertainty and sceptism because it was perceived as inflexible and unadaptable to suit everyday needs. Study participants perceived car sharing as unreliable and a transportation service that required too much planning.

Craig: I don’t think I would be a life car-sharer because of the inconvenience of it like sometimes you just want to take it for a ride like with a car you can just hop in and go wherever you want and there isn’t any limitations to where you can go. (Age 19, Program: Mathematical Physics, Trent University, Hometown: Cardston, AB, FG5)

John: Timing, like they may get booked up at more than usual at certain times of the year. Like say, you really need to go do Christmas shopping during December, but everyone has car- sharing booked that month, so you start taking the bus or walking somewhere instead, like scheduling conflicts. (Age 22, Male, Program: History, Trent University, Hometown: Ottawa FG1)

Randy: I feel like you have to plan your supermarket trips if you’re a car-sharer. [laughs] (Age: 23, Male, Program: Tourism, University of Otago, Hometown: Timaru, New Zealand, FG5)

Sue: Yeah, you have to say how long you need it for as well, like you have to really plan out your day or whatever like if something goes longer or if you change your mind you can’t just change your mind and be like “oh I need the car for another hour. (Age: 21, Program: Biomedical Science, Trent University, Hometown: Collingwood, FG3)

Unlike public transportation systems with predetermined routes and time schedules, car-sharing members are expected to take on the responsibility of planning their transportation routes: making a reservation; calculating the estimated time the trip

74 will take; and making sure that the vehicle is returned on time. This is a barrier to car sharing, as Millennials perceived the travel choice as inconvenient.

This represents an added competence/skill that is required with car-sharing that is not required with owning a private vehicle, including the time management skills needed to book a reservation and the added responsibility required to ensure that the vehicle is returned in a timely fashion. This is important to mention because in order to grow car- sharing services, marketers must convince users that the process is easy. In addition, car- sharing organizations will want to ensure that there are advantages to planning trips, such as saving time and ensuring that journeys are purposeful.

5.4.2 Parenthood Study participants perceived car sharing as an illegitimate form of transportation, especially from the perspective of a generation who envisions themselves as parents in the near future. Because car sharing demands additional time management skills,

Millennials did not believe it would be an appropriate mode of transportation if they had children. The added skill and competence required to carry a car-seat to a car that is not owned by an individual represented a barrier to the long-term adoption of car-sharing.

Katrina: I don’t know how feasible [car-sharing] would be beyond the university years like get all your kids over to the car-share… (Age 21, Program: Psychology, Trent University, Hometown: Douro, ON FG4)

Sue: I’ll probably want babies so like I’m not going to drag around a car seat to my car-share. (Age 21, Program: Biomedical Science, Trent University, Hometown: Collingwood, FG3)

These additional skills required to be a car-sharing member, such as carrying a car-seat, may be too strenuous for aspiring parents. Car-sharing companies must ensure

75 that these options for parents are available, are easy to adopt, and are easy to habituate into every-day lives in order to attract Millennials to be long-term users.

5.4.3 Lack of awareness about car sharing If an individual is unaware of a bike path, they cannot use it. This same barrier is also true with car sharing. For instance, 24% of students reported that they were not aware of the service. A lack of awareness appears to be a barrier to adopting the service among this group. For example:

Randy: I think more marketing and education needs to be done about car-sharing before it becomes the norm like there are a lot of perceptions that discourage people from car-sharing that could be solved with a bit more education. (Age: 23, Male, Program: Tourism, University of Otago, Hometown: Timaru, New Zealand, FG5)

It is difficult for Millennials to develop the necessary skills/competences required to reap the benefits of car sharing if the information is not reaching them. Car-sharing organizations are not effectively marketing and their promotional strategies seem to be failing. Study participants were unclear about the benefits of car sharing because they are not well informed about the services. Car-sharing organizations and local governments are not providing Millennials with adequate information about how car sharing may offer them an alternative to car ownership.

Car-sharing companies must spend time marketing to the Millennial cohort because it is essential they are aware of the service and understand its potential benefits.

If students are unaware of car sharing, they may continue to adopt cars as a staple in society, instead of becoming early adopters of transportation alternatives that may suit some of their needs. Students were quick to request more information about car-sharing,

76 and on numerous occasions, admitted that they did not know much about the service in the first place, which reveals that the service may have potential. It is difficult for students to become members of a service they do not know about.

5.4.4 Lack of car-sharing definition Relatedly, 76% of study participants claimed they were aware of car-sharing services, but appeared to have an inaccurate and misinformed representation of what the service actually offers. When focus group participants were asked to write-down the first words that came to their mind about car-sharing, it was evident that there was confusion across and between focus groups about the definition of car-sharing. The below diagram illustrates the confusion that Millennials have about car sharing.

Figure 8 First words university-aged millennials' think of when they hear "car-sharing". This data represents all six focus groups.

I did not define “car-sharing” until halfway into the focus group to ensure that the students generated their own definition. Figure 8 illustrates the main words that first came to student’s minds when they heard “car-sharing” across all six focus groups. On various occasions, students asked me to define car sharing. Even if focus group participants were aware of car sharing, Millennials were confused about the service. For instance:

Tom: I am actually not sure what car-sharing is so I wasn’t sure if it was the same as carpooling. (Age: 20, Program: Business Management, Ryerson University, Hometown: Toronto)

Jack: I didn’t know car-sharing referred to like a business like a rental sort of thing I thought it was more like carpooling or sharing a car amongst a family or something so it opened my eyes to something I had no idea about and yeah it is very interesting. (Age 19, Program: Forensics/Anthropology, Trent University Hometown: Woodbridge, FG5)

There are a number of car-sharing companies available in Toronto, such as

ZipCar, AutoShare, Student CarShare and Car2Go. Participants frequently requested more information about what car sharing and there appeared to be an obvious misunderstanding and confusion about the term. The most common misinterpretation of car sharing was its confusion with carpooling. It is apparent that car-sharing organizations have not properly distinguished car sharing from carpooling or sharing a car with a family.

This is important to mention, as Millennials are not receiving adequate information to formulate proper perceptions about car sharing and there exists a mixed- definition. Millennials are unable to identify and develop the skills necessary to become members of the service, since they are not clear how it differs from carpooling.

This is consistent with Bardhi and Eckhardt (2012)’s comment that “access-based consumption is ultimately a unique form of consumption, and that there is a lack of understanding about its features and complexities” (pg. 8). This misinformation and miscommunication about car-sharing services may be a reason why Millennials do not become members. In addition, it shows that Millennials are unlikely to develop the necessary skills to join car-sharing services because the information they receive is currently inadequate.

5.5 Noteworthy interactions during car-sharing discussions Shove (2003) emphasizes the role of materials, skills/competencies, and meanings

(symbolic/self-identity), which I have elaborated on in the previous sections and how each influence the perceptions and attitudes of millennial students toward car-sharing.

However, I also want to hone in on the social interactions that took place between study participants. The social interactions that I wish to discuss here are how peers, parents, and employers influence the attitudes and perceptions of Millennials by denying, accepting, challenging, or refuting particular positions surrounding car-sharing. I found that social interactions shape practices, and have an influence on the way which car sharing is perceived by Millennials.

5.5.1 Car sharing business models In one focus group, a small debate took place about whether car sharing was practical.

Two students had opposing views about car-sharing business models. The main disagreement was whether it was inconvenient to return the car to the same location

79 where it was picked-up. The two individuals felt very differently about Car2Go, a free- floating car-sharing service where one can drive the car to any location and leave the vehicle parked, than they did about Student CarShare, a point-to-point car-sharing service that requires members to return the vehicle to a designated parking location.

The disagreement settled when the two students agreed that Car2Go’s point-to- point model is superior to Student CarShare’s start-and-finish system. This is important because car-sharing companies should be aware that some Millennials find returning a vehicle to the same place as a barrier to joining the service. This also reveals the need for car-sharing businesses to define their model specifically and to distinguish their brands from their competitors as clearly as possible. Millennial students have different perceptions and attitudes toward different business strategies.

Sue: I don’t know I actually looked into it and it was stupid. Like it is not practical, like other than groceries, like grocery shopping takes half an hour but like when you need a car, you are going somewhere for a while. Like if you are going to work, you are going for 7 and a half hours, you are paying however long it takes you to get to work, and then however long it takes you to get back like you are paying 75 bucks like that is your entire pay cheque, for the day. (Age: 21, University of Guelph, Biomedical Science, Female, Hometown: Collingwood, FG3) Derek: I know in Vancouver you can just like, do it like it is almost by the minute I think so you would just like get it and then drop it off in a close and nearby place, and then you would go to your work and then you are not paying for it, and then you come back to it and just leave it there. (Age 22, Program: Social Science, University of Ottawa, Hometown: Peterborough, ON FG3)

Sue: The way Student CarShare works is like that’s the sitting location, at your university, you can’t like visit friends and family you have to return it to that same spot, within that designated amount of time that you rented it out for, and I think it is dumb. (Age: 21, University of Guelph, Biomedical Science, Female, Hometown: Collingwood, FG3)

Derek: Well a disadvantage to Autoshare and Zipcar, I know Car2Go is different but wherever you pick it up you have to drop it off at the same spot so like if you were to walk five minutes to pick it up to the stop spot from your house you have to get your groceries back to the same spot where you go the car and then walk your groceries from that spot back to your house with the groceries. (Age 22, Program: Social Science, University of Ottawa, Hometown: Peterborough, ON FG3)

This is important for several reasons. As car-sharing business models emerge, companies need to develop strategies that market their brand as unique. Otherwise, car- sharing brands face the danger of assimilation into one definition of car-sharing, even though they may have unique service offerings and value propositions that may provide them with a competitive advantage.

As Kopp, Gerike and Axhausen (2015) mention, free-floating car-sharing services are a “new piece of urban transport systems” (pg. 467). Thus, they should be clearly distinguished from station-based car sharing services to ensure that they have the opportunity for recognition as a unique type of car-sharing model. In order to avoid a one- size-fits all definition of car sharing, organizations must carefully consider their marketing strategies and unique value propositions. Governments must also know the differences between business models and their advantages and disadvantages if they wish to provide subsidies for car sharing in particular locations because different models may be more accepted than others.

5.5.2 Parental influence Some Millennials expressed that their parents would find it inappropriate to become a member of a car-sharing service as a long-term transportation option. Focus group participants felt that their parents may not be overly supportive of car sharing or may not have an opinion. Millennials also felt that if they wished to become car-sharing member, they would need to provide their parents with a detailed explanation and rationale behind their reasoning for using the service. The below excerpts help illustrate

81 the reality that parental influence has an impact on study participants perceptions toward car sharing.

Leslie: I think [my parents] would be mad at me [if I joined a car-sharing service] because then they have to continue to drive me places. (Age: 21, Female, Program: Mathematics and Psychology, Trent University, Hometown: Whitby, ON, FG4)

Karen: I think my parents would prefer I have my own car. (Age: 20, Female, Program: Business Management, Ryerson University, Hometown: Mississauga, ON FG6)

Craig: I think my parents would be worried about the insurance, like what would happen if I got into an accident or something. (Age: 19, Male, Program: Mathematical Physics, Trent University, Hometown: Cardston, AB, FG5)

Katrina: Like my parents would look at me like are you silly, because they know how badly I want a car and they would be like you want to [car-share] instead? (Age 21, Female, Program: Psychology, Hometown: Douro, Trent University, FG4)

Wanda: I think my parents would be happy if I joined that because they wouldn’t have to pay for that. (Age: 20, Ryerson University, Hometown: Toronto, Business Administration, FG6)

Jack: Well first I would have to explain it to my family because they don’t know what [car- sharing] means probably so I’d have to be like “Look, I’m saving money like this” and it’s good on gas… (Age: 19, Program: Forensics and Anthropology, Trent University, Hometown: Woodbridge, ON, FG5)

This suggests that car sharing is not only a novel mode of transportation to

Millennials, but it is also an unknown, uncertain, and misunderstood travel choice to their parents, as well. This shows that study participant’s parents must approve of car sharing as a legitimate transportation option for their children to use.

Millennials’ parents can influence their perceptions toward car sharing. This reveals that encouraging car sharing isn’t just about shifting individual behavior, but also about garnering acceptance from the people around them. Parental acceptance or

82 rejection may affect the likelihood that Millennials accept car sharing and the practice and lifestyle that it requires. This also reveals that parental influence is still important, even while students attend university.

5.6 Car meanings The meanings, both symbolic and self-identity, associated with car ownership shaped

Millennials attitudes and perceptions. The below section will elaborate on the themes across and between focus groups and how the aforementioned meanings shaped attitudes and perceptions related to vehicle ownership. Figure 9 below illustrates the common meanings associated with car-ownership to university-aged Millennial students.

Figure 9 Common meanings associated with car-ownership with university-aged Millennials

5.6.1 Millennials perceive car-ownership as carrying a meaning of success Many Millennials attached a meaning of admiration, jealousy, and respect for individuals who owned a vehicle. Desire to own a vehicle was strong within and across focus group sessions and exposes the reality that vehicles are a desirable material good with

Millennials.

John: Well the way I see it, if you own a nice expensive car, you most likely worked hard in order to be able to afford it. Well, for the most part. I can see how people may completely disagree with me on this, but, for the most part, it means you’ve worked hard to actually earn that. Right, so if you put some hard work in somewhere else in order to have the luxury of being able to afford that. (Age: 22, Male, Program: History, Trent University, Hometown: Ottawa FG1)

Sue: I want a nice car so I am kind of like “no problem” because I want that. (Age: 21, University of Guelph, Biomedical Science, Female, Hometown: Collingwood, FG3)

Figure 10 Word-web illustrating desire to own a vehicle. This figure describes that university-aged Millennials’ are jealous of others who own cars and aspire to own a vehicle. The focus group participants brought up jealousy several times across and between focus groups when asked to think of how they feel about someone who owns an expensive car. To the research participants, individuals who own vehicles are successful and this symbolic meaning appears to create a feeling of jealousy and desire. The study participants felt that in order for the people around them to consider them successful, they must own a vehicle and they were jealous of others who have a vehicle (See Figure 10).

They envisioned themselves in the future with a car. Millennials often referenced several examples where vehicles were a symbol of success that was important to their self- identity and to the people around them.

5.6.2 Millennials perceive car-ownership as important to self-identity The desire to purchase a vehicle was strong among and between focus groups. Millennials aspired to own a vehicle in the future and expressed a strong desire to do so. To many

Millennials, car-ownership was important to fulfill an aspect of their personal identity.

The below excerpts convey the message that focus group participants desire a vehicle for personal reasons.

Judy: Having a nice car would make me feel good about myself. (Age 21, Program: Business Administration, Trent University, Hometown: Lakefield)

Jack: I had a vehicle before and I got used to it and I enjoy it so if I had to buy it cause of my own reasons and it would be for my own reasons not because I felt pressured. (Age 19, Program: Forensics/Anthropology, Trent University Hometown: Woodbridge, FG5)

Owning a vehicle was a personal goal that many had set out for themselves and was something that they deemed important to achieve. This is important to mention because it reveals the link between car-ownership and self-identity. It exposes the purchasing power of Millennials and shows that the desire to purchase vehicles is still strong. Of the 29 study participants, only 2 expressed that they did not desire to purchase a vehicle in the future. Many Millennials simply cannot afford a vehicle, but have intentions to purchase one when they can.

5.6.3 Millennials perceive car ownership as unlocking independence Millennials did not want to rely on other people for transportation. Focus group participants did not like to depend on others for transportation. Students considered chauffeuring people from place to place as inconvenient. Instead, this cohort would rather be independent. The below excerpts illustrate the views that Millennials are concerned with freedom, independence, and autonomy.

Patty: I love being in control of my own future. I didn’t have to depend on someone transporting me or a bus that takes six hours for a three hour trip, um, I also felt in control of my own destiny. Like, if I am driving, I know how I can control my driving on the road, instead of some other drivers around me, like, I know what’s best, meanwhile if I am a passenger in the back I can’t handle what everyone else is driving I don’t know how they are going to react.

(Age: 22, Female, Program: Forensics Psychology, Hometown: Dunnville, ON, Trent University, FG1)

Craig: A sense of like, self-reliance sort of thing like you don’t need to rely on other people to take you places like whatever you want to do you just do it sort of thing. So you can just go drive yourself. (Age 19, Program: Mathematical Physics, Trent University, Hometown: Cardston, AB, FG5)

Stephen: Yeah, I feel bad whenever I call my mom to pick me up from somewhere. Like “Hey Yeah, it’s only 30 minutes away!” But yeah I feel like a burn out but I don’t want to feel like that no more. (Age: 18, Male, Ryerson University, Hometown: Toronto, Engineering, FG6)

Focus group participants expressed that frequently depending on others for transportation was tiresome. This is an important factor, as it forecasts the likelihood that

Millennials will own vehicles in the future. It shows that there is a lack of willingness to carpool, which is indicative of a culture of desired independence. This suggests that

Millennials seek individual pursuits over shared mobility. Carpooling is often associated with a feeling of dependency, which makes it undesirable; thus, this longing for independence reinforces vehicle ownership. This is an important meaning, as it forecasts the likelihood that Millennials will purchase vehicles to fulfill their self-identity as independent individuals and to fulfill the symbolic meaning to others that they are independent.

5.6.4 Millennials perceive car-ownership as important to adulthood To university-aged Millennials, a vehicle was an essential requirement to enter adulthood.

The below quote is representative of the view that was expressed by several participants across and between focus groups.

John: Yeah, well you know, I was always told that a car stood for being an adult like based on maturity like once you’re older you know you have a right to a car. (Age 22, Male, Program: History, Trent University, Hometown: Ottawa, FG1)

To many focus group participants, cars carry a symbolic meaning of maturity that they wished to portray to others. Without a vehicle, Millennials also felt as if they could not be considered an adult.

5.6.5 Millennials perceive car ownership as providing safety Focus group participants felt that vehicles offered them safety and security. The below excerpt helps illustrates this:

Nancy: We asked for like a [taxi] van because like they don’t have a lot of vans in Quebec and there were 5 of us, and they were telling us we had to pay 5 bucks extra because he had to bring a wheel chair van, and so like when we got back it was like my apartment and like he got out of his van and like chased us, and we were hiding from him. (Age:20, University of Ottawa, Criminology, Female, Hometown: Peterborough, FG3) Janet: Yea, it was scary. So it would have been good to have a car! (19, Age:19, University of Ottawa, Criminology, Female, Hometown: Peterborough FG3)

This excerpt suggests that Millennials are concerned with their personal safety and perceive vehicle ownership as a way to protect themselves from threats, crime, or unwanted attention. Study participants expressed that vehicles provide personal safety, which they considered important to avoid unpleasant or unwanted encounters with people they perceived as frightening, intimidating, or would provoke worry. This suggests that cars provide a meaning of personal safety to Millennials.

5.6.6 Millennials perceive car ownership as a of providing safety to others Focus group participants felt that it was important to own a car to have the option to be a designated driver to protect family and friends from driving under the influence of alcohol. This suggests that Millennials perceive owning a vehicle as a duty to protect

88 family or friends from car-accidents. Participants suggested that vehicle ownership was a social obligation in order to provide loved ones with safety.

Leslie: I don’t drink so from my friends really pressure me to get a car so that I can drive them home all the time like extreme pressure because especially my one friend who had a car she wanted to drink but she couldn’t so she told me like I am driving you and you don’t even drink like you should be driving me. (Age 21, Program: Mathematics/Psychology, Hometown: Whitby, Trent University FG4)

Eric: I don’t drink so I could be the DD[designated driver] in a situation. (Age: 28, Program: Computer Science, Hometown: Belleville, Trent University, FG1)

Campaigns like Mothers Against Drunk Driving have been successful at shaping perceptions toward drunk driving as negative and may have unintentionally increased the social obligation young people feel that they should drive and own a car to ensure that the people around them are safe. The campaign has constructed a potentially new meaning that young adults feel they should own a car and drive to fulfill a necessary duty to society to ensure people close to them are safe from unwanted harm.

5.6.7 Millennials perceive car ownership as maternal A main difference between female and male study participants was that females were more concerned with how they would transport their children later in life. They brought up many examples, including a child who may get sick during the night, or driving their children to sports activities. They did not think it was possible to use a car seat with a car- sharing service, and looked down upon the idea of taking their children on the bus. This was prevalent among female students and was important to how they envisioned themselves as mothers.

Amanda: Yeah I mean for me it’s like pets and kids and things can come up really fast, like if they get sick suddenly, like kids are really complicated, like if they get sick or if the school calls

and you have to come get them, like 40 minutes on a bus, like give me 20 minutes so I can get the car share or like oh it’s not available for 2 hours, like I think I wouldn’t want that worry and that stress on top of whatever was happening with the kid that made me need a car. (Age 21, Program: Business Management, Ryerson University, Hometown: North York, ON)

This is an important factor, as it conveys the idea that female Millennials believe that in order to self-identify as a mother in the future, a vehicle is a prerequisite. This self- identity meaning was prevalent with female Millennials. Any attempt to discourage female Millennials from purchasing a vehicle should carefully consider alternative transportation option in the context of being a mother.

5.6.8 Male Millennials perceive car-ownership as masculine Having a car was important to male focus group participants. They felt as if they would not be considered by others as masculine without a car.

Anthony: I think there is a certain amount of social status that you can’t have unless you have a vehicle like as a male, like I feel like I need to have a nice car…I don’t know like if it is like that for females, but it is a key part of being a man to have a vehicle. (Age 21, Program: Biochemistry, Hometown: Ottawa, Trent University FG4)

This reveals that car-ownership is important to males. Governments that wish to persuade male Millennials to adopt sustainable transportation options should acknowledge this meaning and seek to develop new meanings of masculinity that resonate with this cohort.

5.6.9 Millennials perceive car ownership as “sexy” In addition, the conventional perception of cars as a sex symbol still exists, as the below excerpt illustrates.

Sue: You yell at people AND you have road rage?! I really don’t like you [laughing]

(Age 21, Program: Biomedical Science, University of Guelph, Hometown: Collingwood ON, FG 3) Derek: Reasons I don’t have a car!! (Age 22, Program: Social Science, University of Ottawa, Hometown: Peterborough, ON FG3) Janet: Or a girlfriend... (Age 19, Program: Criminology, Carleton University, Hometown: Peterborough, ON, FG3 Derek: That too… (Age 22, Program: Social Science, University of Ottawa, Hometown: Peterborough, ON, FG3)

In order for a woman to consider a man attractive, vehicles are still considered important to females. To curb car-dependent lifestyles, changing this symbolic meaning is an important endeavor. It was clear that men wanted to own a vehicle in order to court women and that women still thought that men should own a vehicle in order to be considered attractive. On the contrary, it was not evident that a vehicle was necessary for a woman to attract a man. In addition, the discussions did not reveal what gays, lesbians, or transsexuals may think of vehicles as a sex symbol.

5.6.10 Female Millennials perceive expensive vehicles as arrogant Even though females appear to consider males who own cars as attractive (Section 5.6.9), they did not seem to believe that a “flashy” or “expensive” car was necessary, despite what their male counterparts believed women might find impressive (Section 5.5.6 and

5.5.7). Just owning a car may be enough to impress a woman, regardless of whether it is expensive. This shows that car norms are beginning to change.

Female Millennials seemed to correlate expensive vehicles with arrogance. There was a particularly negative and neutral attitude toward expensive vehicles. In the focus group with all five females, it was evident that expensive vehicles made a man appear arrogant. One female even went so far to say that an expensive car made a man seem as if

91 he was compensating for something and therefore she considered a man with an expensive vehicle to have a “small penis”. In this sense, the student was not concerned with expensive automobiles and manhood.

Moderator: What is the first thing you think about, someone you know who owns an expensive car? Jill: Small penis (Age: 19, Female, Hometown: Ottawa, ON, Trent University, Program: Nursing, FG2) [laughter] Moderator: I’m going to have to ask you to elaborate on that. Jill: Well, compensating for something. Like, why do you need an expensive car, like, stop showing off . (19, Female, Hometown: Ottawa, ON, Trent University, Program: Nursing, FG2)

Amanda: So I went to school in Aurora and it was kind of like a richer area and one of my friends dad’s it was like his life goal to buy a Ferrari and he actually ended up recently just buying one so like I don’t know I kind of feel and I feel really indifferent about it. (Age: 21, Female, Hometown: North York, ON, Ryerson University, Program: Business Management, FG6)

This indifferent and neutral attitude toward expensive vehicles illustrates that expensive vehicles are losing their importance as a status symbol. This provides evidence that even though males may think expensive vehicles are attractive and masculine, females may not render this as important. Females believe a man should own a vehicle, but are not particularly concerned about whether it is expensive. This suggests that expensive vehicles are losing their importance, but that vehicle ownership is considered attractive.

5.6.11 Millennials are changing the symbolic meaning of car-ownership An interesting discussion that took place in all six focus groups surrounded the question of winning the lottery. The purpose of this question was to uncover the desire for a vehicle, when money was not a primary concern. Only three students said they would not

92 purchase a car, even after winning the lottery. The remaining 26 students said they would and in most cases, claimed it was an immediate decision that they wouldn’t even think twice about.

However, the type of car that Millennials would likely purchase was debated, and in many cases, criticism toward expensive vehicles was expressed which relates to

Section 5.6.10. The below comments illustrate many of the views held by participants in the focus groups about vehicles losing their status as prestigious.

Jill: Yeah but like, I think of people who have really expensive cars just have like, different priorities, because like, personally, if I had enough money to buy myself a Porshe, I don’t think I would buy myself a Porshe…I think it is a little like …“showey offey” kind of. Like, ‘Look at me and all the money I have’ but what does it really bring you? (Age: 19, Female, Hometown: Ottawa, ON, Trent University, Program: Nursing, FG2)

Candice: Yeah, I agree like I have a couple friends who like post about their cars on Facebook all the time… I think of it like “What else might you have done with that money?! (Age: 21, Female, Program: History, Trent University, Hometown: Cambridge, FG2)

On numerous occasions, students expressed the desire to spend money on travel instead of a flashy or expensive car. This excerpt provides a summary of how most participants viewed expensive vehicles. This shows that expensive cars are not particularly desirable and that practicality is becoming a more dominant factor. Expensive vehicles appear to be losing their importance as a status symbol with some Millennials.

5.6.12 Millennials perceive car-ownership as professional University-aged Millennials held the common perception that in order to secure employment, a car was essential. Study participants also claimed that they needed a vehicle in order to travel to and from work. The below comment reveals this theme:

Amanda: I am going to graduate one day!! Hopefully. So I will be driving someday, like driving to work, like I guess I don’t know, like when you get a job you get money and then it can be more convenient for you [to own a car]. (Age: 21, Female, Hometown: North York, ON, Ryerson University, Program: Business Management, FG6)

Millennials perceived car ownership as important when considering traveling to future careers. Focus group participants felt that owning a vehicle was important to establishing an identity as a professional. This meaning was important to the students when they envisioned themselves in the working world. Study participants believed that they could not fulfill an identity as a career-oriented individual without a car.

Governments may want to place emphasis on the reality that many professionals travel to work via bus, train, and bike, in order to reshape this perception.

5.6.13 Millennials perceive car-dependent lifestyles as “unhealthy” Focus group participants held negative attitudes toward individuals who drove cars when the same trip could occur by walking or cycling. They were critical of people who drove needlessly. This is important, as Millennials may not be ready to give up car ownership, but may be willing to drive less.

Anthony: My roommate I mentioned before, like she drives all the time like she drives too often, she drives to the convenient store like you can walk it or bike it but she depends on the car quite a bit and I never want to be like that. (Age 21, Program: Biochemistry, Hometown: Ottawa, Trent University FG4)

Nancy: Like if you are going to go out just to go out to drive around, like just to do nothing, I don’t know like, go play outside with a football or something. (Age: 20, University of Ottawa, Criminology, Female, Hometown: Peterborough, FG3)

This reveals an associated negative attitude associated with driving needlessly and car-dependent lifestyles. This is an important finding, as it shows that even though

Millennials are likely to purchase vehicles in the future, they may be willing to drive less and may not drive needlessly, especially if they can walk or cycle. This reveals that

Millennials may own cars, but may be willing to leave them parked.

5.6.14 Millennials perceive cars as expensive Study participants perceived cars as a financial burden and an unwanted stress while attending university. Because most university students have low incomes, they expressed a strong willingness to take public transportation. The majority of students studied did not desire to purchase a car until after they have graduated and secure a steady income.

Most universities include a bus pass with tuition and, as a result, students are encouraged to use this mode of transportation. The focus group participants also considered parking costs on campus an unnecessary expense. In addition, students expressed concern for individuals who owned a vehicle in university because they feared they would have trouble affording tuition.

Sue: Like at our age, like [university] students, you’re not supposed to have money; you’re supposed to be broke. (Age 21, Program: Biomedical Science, Trent University, Hometown: Collingwood, FG3)

Patty: Cars are no longer privileges to me, now they are more so of like a chore, like what you see a pet as, because of the maintenance and the cost, and the constant need to go out and assess making sure of parking and it being in the same place and it seems almost like having an animal, and it is too much to handle in university. (Age: 22, Female, Program: Forensics Psychology, Hometown: Dunnville, ON, Trent University, FG1)

Nancy: When I can afford [a car] I will want one. (Age:20, University of Ottawa, Criminology, Female, Hometown: Peterborough, FG3)

Figure 11 illustrates the words that first came to mind when Millennials heard the word “car”. The most frequently mentioned word was “expensive”. If governments wish to discourage vehicle ownership with Millennials, they may wish to reframe vehicles as expensive and encourage cost-effective alternatives, such as car-sharing. In addition, governments may consider ensuring that the meaning of expensive sticks with

Millennials, even after they earn disposable income that allows them to afford a car. One way that may help discourage automobile ownership is ensuring parking costs remains high.

Figure 11 First words to come to mind when millennials’ hear the word “car”. This diagram represents the data across all six focus groups. The most common word expressed was expensive.

5.6.15 Millennials challenge car-dependent lifestyles On various occasions, focus group participants appeared to challenge car-dominant lifestyles. In one case, a participant challenged the popular opinion that grocery shopping

96 requires a car. She suggested that a walking cart was a viable solution to carrying groceries. This is important because it reveals that some Millennials are challenging car- dependent lifestyles and suggest alternative modes of transportation.

The below excerpt is representative of many of the conversations that took place.

The excerpt reveals that focus group participants challenged the private car as the only way to travel.

Anthony: Yeah, I mean as a last point, I think there is a certain amount of social status that you can’t have unless you have a vehicle. Like as a male, like I feel like I need to have a nice car, like once I am 20-30 something like, career, house, family, like where is the car, you know? I don’t know like if it is for females, but it is a key part of being a man to have a vehicle. (Age 21, Male, Program: Biochemistry, Hometown: Ottawa, Trent University) Katrina: Like when you start like it is the first big purchase like you get a car than a house than move from there. (Age 21, Female, Program: Psychology, Hometown: Douro, Trent University, FG4) Allison: I think the people who are like in their forties who bike to work and don’t have a car like I think that is actually like way cooler than hitting all those milestones that are set out like those people who get by without it. (Age 22, Program: Sociology/ Gender Studies, Hometown: Kitchener, Trent University FG4) Katrina: My boss has a car and stuff but she has a 3 year old son who has a 3 peddle bike like she is raising her kid to bike places like even day care and they bike all the way, like it is an admiration like you expect and there is admiration for people to have a nice car but it is cool as well to do it the other way. (Age 21, Female, Program: Psychology, Hometown: Douro, Trent University, FG4)

This is a critical finding as it illustrates that new meanings and negative perceptions toward car-dependent lifestyles are arising. Perhaps car-dependent lifestyles are beginning to be considered negative. Even though Millennials’ may own vehicles, they may be willing to drive less. In addition, Millennials may be more accepting of alternatives to car-dependent lifestyles, such as active transit. This illustrates that some Millennials recognize the need to adopt alternative modes of transportation. This negative meaning attached to driving needlessly is important to mention, as it should be emphasized if marketers are attempting to discourage individuals from driving. Although some Millennials challenge car-dependent lifestyles, they still intend to purchase a vehicle in the future. Even though they are seemingly concerned, the study participants may not make changes to their own lifestyles.

5.7 Car materials Materials, such as the built environment; the vehicle type; the objects; tools; gas; and the place/location, highways and roads and all of the physical aspects that encompass vehicle ownership and driving. As Shove (2003) suggests, an example of a material is what objects or materials are needed to participate in a given practice, such as the roads, or the vehicle itself and/or the gas. Materials include the location, the built environment, parking lots and the highways, as well as the larger transportation system,

This section will discuss how materials, such as the type of vehicle and the quality of transportation infrastructure, shaped perceptions among the focus group participants toward car-ownership.

5.7.1 Millennials prefer “green” cars over car-sharing A recurring theme in the research was that participants preferred fuel-efficient vehicles, electric cars, or, in their words, “green cars” over car sharing. Often they would bring up the idea of owning a “green” car as something they would be willing to purchase compared to the idea of not owning a vehicle at all or becoming users of car-sharing services long-term.

Allison: I think I am jealous of people with nice fuel efficient cars. (Age 22, Program: Sociology/ Gender Studies, Hometown: Kitchener, Trent University, FG4) Moderator: So why are you jealous of people with fuel efficient cars? Allison: Because it is so cheap so it makes it more worth it because if you have a gas guzzler that is just too much money. (Age 22, Program: Sociology/ Gender Studies, Hometown: Kitchener, Trent University FG4)

Across focus group sessions, it was evident that fuel-efficient or electric vehicles were preferred over car sharing. Students hoped that electric vehicles replace conventional vehicles and that they become more affordable.

Most students were not concerned with making lifestyle changes that may benefit the environment and carry strong views as to what are problems and what are solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is an important finding, as this cohort seems to accept electric vehicles over car sharing. Governments that wish to plan sustainable interventions should take note of the fact that some Millennials would rather purchase

“green vehicles” over car sharing and likely will not forgo buying a vehicle in the future to become car-sharing members.

5.7.2 Parking availability can discourage vehicle ownership The infrastructure required to own a car, such as parking spot availability, is an important component of the built environment that Millennials considered when questioned about vehicle ownership. Parking is limited in big cities, and the research participants perceived this as a barrier to owning a car.

Stephen: Yeah my parents are always telling me like if you go downtown, where are you going to pay to park? And they are always telling me it all adds up and to just not drive downtown. (Age: 18, Male, Ryerson University, Hometown: Toronto, Engineering, FG6)

Derek: You can’t find streets that you can park on that are conveniently located to anything that you can park for extended periods of time for free. And because it is Ottawa it is a bigger city like most places are more expensive to park. (Age 22, Program: Social Science, University of Ottawa, Hometown: Peterborough, ON, FG3)

Lack of parking availability may discourage Millennials from purchasing vehicles.

This reveals that parking spaces intimately shape perceptions of Millennials. The built

99 environment, such as the availability of parking lots and the cost required to use them, can discourage Millennials from purchasing a vehicle.

5.7.3 Public transportation infrastructure influences perceptions of vehicle ownership I used the matrix coding function in NVivo to compare students based on their hometown. I created a query in NVivo10 entitled “city move”, which compared focus group participants who had moved from their hometown that had a bigger population to a city with a smaller population and vice versa. It was apparent that focus group participants’ perceptions were influenced by the public transportation infrastructure itself.

It did not seem to matter if an individual moved from a small to large city. Students commonly mentioned that they were concerned with the available transportation infrastructure in the area where they relocated for university. For example,

Craig: My view completely changed like when I came to Peterborough because I had never had public transportation I didn’t even know how it worked or anything and so like I came here and I realize that public transportation is like the way to go because you get it like free with your tuition and stuff so you don’t have to pay for it and it just goes anywhere and I mean I definitely don’t need a car like I don’t need to buy one like it is way too expensive for insurance and everything… (Age 19, Program: Mathematical Physics, Trent University, Hometown: Cardston, AB, FG5)

Leslie: When I moved to Peterborough, it was my second time ever being on a bus and now I am pretty good at it I know all the routes and times and then I know if I get off here and walk a bit I can catch the other one like the bus system here is amazing like when I lived back home I never used it and it was crappy. (Age 21, Program: Mathematics/Psychology, Hometown: Whitby, Trent University FG4)

Fiona: I kind of saw cars as a staple and a social norm kind of before because that is what you do kind of thing but I saw that less at university like I mean in Barrie you don’t really take the bus because the bus system is kind of crappy but like we have a reliable public transportation system here [in Peterborough] so it has probably changed my view like not seeing it as much as a necessity. (Age: 24, Female, Program: Archaeology, Trent University, Hometown: Barrie FG1)

100

Wanda: I felt there was more of a need to have a car back in Mississauga, because the transit sucks and you have to wait 20 to 30 minutes for the bus and I don’t want to have to deal with that, whereas over there, like when I am taking the Toronto bus, it comes every ten minutes and I feel like if I worked downtown I wouldn’t want to drive to work I would just go bus and everything so I wouldn’t have to pay for gas or parking so Yeah university made me feel less of the need to buy a car. (Age: 24, Female, Program: Archaeology, Trent University, Hometown: Barrie FG1)

Millennials’ perceptions toward cars depended largely on the public transit system available. When students moved cities, their perceptions did change and moments of change appeared to have occurred. When students relocated from their hometown to their university town, the introduction of new transportation systems available in the cities influenced their perceptions toward vehicle ownership. However, this window of opportunity and moment of change did not seem to change millennial’s desire to own a vehicle in the future, even if accessible transportation was available.

For example:

John: Well it’s like I don’t own one right now and I find it inconvenient to get around busing everywhere all the time or walking. I just find it easier in general to have a car. (Age 22, Male, Program: History, Trent University, Hometown: Ottawa FG1)

Stephen: I think I am going to buy a car for sure, like I live in Scarborough like [the transit] is pretty good. Like it comes every fifteen minutes but it still is not as good as [Toronto], and like yea like it is much more convenient like if you take the bus it takes like 30 minutes but if you take the car it would take like 10 minutes, like Yeah, like after a while it is just like tiring. Like definitely I am going to buy a car maybe not in the next while, but the next five or six years. (Age: 18, Male, Ryerson University, Hometown: Toronto, Engineering, FG6)

Amanda: I’d [buy a a car] for the groceries. I feel like I always need something at home, like food, like if I had a car I can just go and get it whenever like if I had to take the TTC which is what I do now I have to wait for the bus to come and it takes so long, like it could take 5 minutes to go to the grocery store, but it takes me like half an hour because of the TTC. (Age: 21, Female, Hometown: North York, ON, Ryerson University, Program: Business Management, FG6)

Moving cities may help expose individuals to new alternative modes of transportation and may influence their perceptions and attitudes in the short-term, but

101 perhaps may not be strong enough to change long-term habits, behaviours and attitudes, and, most importantly, the social norms associated with vehicle ownership; social pressures; and personal desires. These excerpts show that even if public transportation is accessible, Millennials get tired of using it after long periods of time.

This is especially relevant to mention as it provides the value of looking at transportation systems through social practice theory. For instance, moments of change, such as moving cities, provides a windows of opportunity to influence travel habits, but these moments of change may not actually change broader social practices. In this particular case, university students were exposed to accessible transit alternatives, such as the bus or cycling and even developed norms that made it socially acceptable (Section

5.7.8), but these modes of transit were quickly dismissed when considered over the long- term.

5.7.4 Millennials perceive driving as dangerous Millennials were concerned with the danger associated with driving a vehicle. Focus group participants frequently mentioned that cars were dangerous.

Patty: Um also I don’t think that cars are um as people make them out to be, so like since I’ve been here I have heard of countless friends being in dangerous accidents because of recklessness or because of lack of respect of the vehicle or in control of it, so like they are not toys, they are tools, and finally I said cars are their own bosses, we can’t tell a car when to brake or when to keep driving, we have to be cognisant of our surroundings. (Age: 22, Female, Program: Forensics Psychology, Hometown: Dunnville, ON, Trent University, FG1)

If governments wish to discourage Millennials from purchasing vehicles, they might consider placing an emphasis on the dangers of driving and associated recklessness.

102

5.8 Social factors This section will discuss the social pressures and influences that focus group participants’ expressed across and between focus groups associated with vehicle ownership. The social interactions that I wish to discuss here are the pressures that peers, parents, and employers place on Millennials regarding vehicle ownership. I found that social interactions shape perceptions and attitudes, and have an influence on the way which vehicle ownership is perceived by Millennials. Figure 12 provides a visual representation of the common social factors expressed by university-aged Millennials to own a car.

Figure 12 Common social pressures expressed by focus group participants to own a car.

5.8.1 Employer pressure It was clear that employers might pressure Millennials to own vehicles. For instance, focus group participants mentioned various examples where employers had expressed concern about getting to work without a car. The below excerpts from the focus group illustrate the point that focus groups participants felt pressured by future or current employers to own a vehicle.

103

Stephen: Yeah sort of like it was like I was going for a job and [the interviewer] was asking me if I had a car and I was like no and he was like well how are you going to get there and I was like well ill just take the bus and he was like oh ok – like that was one of the questions like it would be easier to get to work. (Age: 18, Male, Ryerson University, Hometown: Toronto, Engineering, FG6)

Tracey: My boss tells me I need to drive every single day. I work at an office, like it makes no sense! Like he thinks he’s my father and he just thinks I need to be driving. It isn’t like I need a car for anything, he is just like “You should be driving. Be more independent.” Like ok. (Age: 19, Female, Program: Business Management, Ryerson University, Hometown: Toronto, FG6)

Anthony: Applying for jobs this year sucked because half of the good applications required a G2 and maybe even a vehicle so yeah for sure that. (Age: 21, Male, Program: Biochemistry, Hometown: Ottawa, Trent University)

These excerpts reveal an overlooked component of car-culture: employers can reinforce vehicle ownership and may unintentionally create the perception that vehicles are a requirement to acquire a job. Millennials feared that without a car, employers would not consider them worthy candidates for job opportunities. Current or potential employers pressure Millennials to purchase vehicles and play an important part in the development of the meaning of car ownership as professional (Section 5.9.10).

5.8.2 Parental pressure There was a relatively common position expressed by undergraduate students that they were pressured by their parents to drive and to own a vehicle. Relatedly, young people felt as if their parents were prompting them to adopt car-dependent lifestyles. The following excerpts portray the reality that parents may pressure Millennials to own cars.

Allison: Pressure from my dad and even my mom really… they always say ‘You may not need a car now, but you are going to need one’ and I say well ‘I don’t need one!’ and they say ‘but you will, you are going to need one and you are going to get one’… (Age 22, Program: Sociology/ Gender Studies, Hometown: Kitchener, Trent University FG4)

Jack: My mom is like “I’m too old to be driving you and blah blah blah” like stupid and small things like that.

104

(Age: 19, Male, Hometown, Woodbridge, Program: Forensics and Anthropology, Trent University, FG5)

Leslie: When my parents come to town to go for dinner, I am like: ‘Let’s just walk. We live downtown’ and they are like ‘No. We should drive’. (Age 21, Program: Mathematics/Psychology, Hometown: Whitby, Trent University FG4)

Students were encouraged by their parents to use or purchase vehicles, even when the students expressed that a vehicle may be unnecessary. This is an important consideration, as it reveals that parental influence is still strong, even when students are studying at university. This shows that parents must be accepting of Millennials lifestyle choices. Otherwise, this cohort may not accept sustainable transportation options.

5.8.3 Peer influence As previously discussed in Chapter 2, travel socialization describes how people understand transportation behaviour in social contexts. Baslington (2008)’s theory posits that family, school, and peer groups influence the way children learn about travel, is evident in university and high school settings, as well. This research found elements of travel socialization at university institutions and revealed that it plays a prominent role in shaping Millennial’s attitudes and perceptions. The below comments from focus group participants reveal the importance of social interactions and how they shape transportation practices.

Randy: In university and everything like everyone is kind of in the same boat, no one has cars and it is quite refreshing actually because everyone is in the same situation um like in groups you are walking places and making trips downtown to get things but once you leave school people start getting cars and definitely that social pressure gets back into it and you don’t want to be the odd one out. (Age: 23, Male, Program: Tourism, University of Otaho, Hometown: Timorrou, New Zealand, FG5)

Lori: Everybody just bikes everywhere right now… very few of my friends have cars.

105

(Age: 20, Female, Program: Biology/Environmental Science, Trent University, Hometown: Dundas ON, FG 2)

Amanda: You know how to take the TTC like everyone else so like right now [not owning a car] doesn’t bother me. (Age: 21, Female, Hometown: North York, ON, Ryerson University, Program: Business Management, FG6)

Sue: Growing up, having a car was like the norm I didn’t know a single family that like didn’t have a car like I can’t think of a single friend like even my extended family all own vehicles, like I guess now a different perspective, none of my friends have cars, like the lifestyle I got brought up with like activities like I was saying before, like it requires a car, like I don’t know like I guess it is the way you get raised you want the same thing, well sometimes you want the same thing. (Age 21, Program: Biomedical Science, Trent University, Hometown: Collingwood, FG3)

This is an important finding, as it suggests that peer groups influence perceptions toward travel. In high school, cars appear to mean something completely different to students.

Millennial students expressed that vehicles were much more important to them as adolescents in high school. Social functions, such as prom, were important reasons

Millennials felt they needed to own a car, as well as being able to drive places for lunch in the middle of the day with groups of friends. The below quote reveals a representation of the views expressed within and across focus group sessions.

Allison: Another thing ever since high school finished [having a car] is not really a status thing anymore …now, nobody cares. You are not cooler. People will not like you more because you have a car which I feel like was a thing in high school. (Age 22, Program: Sociology/ Gender Studies, Hometown: Kitchener, Trent University FG4)

Anthony: When I was in grade 11 and 12 I felt really like pressured to get a vehicle because of prom. (Age 21, Male, Program: Biochemistry, Hometown: Ottawa, Trent University)

Tom: So back in high school we thought the kid who drove to lunch was the coolest. Like we would go down the street, like we would go to McDonalds and we’d be like oh my god guys we are so cool, this is the peak of our coolness right here, and um now that I think about it, we were lame! That is all we did like what were we doing?!

106

This shows that Millennials’ perception of vehicle ownership is heavily influenced by peer groups and related social norms. It also shows that what others are doing is important to Millennials. If car-sharing organizations and governments wish to grow vehicle sharing, new norms must be developed.

5.9 Noteworthy social interactions during car-ownership discussions The below section explains three examples where the environment was simply disregarded, ignored completely, or considered a worthless comment and dismissed.

These social interactions conveyed an important conclusion: environmental messages may not be successful at reaching this population segment when planning sustainable transportation interventions.

5.9.1 Reluctance to speak of environmental damage Across and between focus group sessions, university aged Millennials were reluctant to bring up the topic of environmental degradation, especially amongst their peers. If they did mention the environment, they did so quickly and were not willing to elaborate when prompted. This occurred on more than one occasion in different focus group sessions.

For example:

Moderator: What are some negative consequences to owning a car? Wanda: [Spoken quietly] Pollution (Age: 20, Ryerson University, Hometown: Toronto, Business Administration, FG6)

[Silence]

Moderator: So, what do you mean by that? Wanda: Just when people drive a lot. (Age: 20, Ryerson University, Hometown: Toronto, Business Administration, FG6) Moderator: Does anyone have anything to add to that?

[Silence]

107

This interaction reveals that Millennials are somewhat unsure and reluctant to discuss environmental issues in depth, and even more reluctant to provide a strong position in a group with their peers. In individual interviews, some participants may have been more willing to discuss environmental issues but the fact that in a group setting they were neglected, submissive, and quiet, is indicative of a larger social problem related to environmental action.

This is a noteworthy social interaction because it portrays the uncertainty and unwanted stigma attached with environmental action in relation to transportation and specifically vehicle ownership. Millennials acknowledge that cars cause pollution and that it is a disadvantage to owning a car, but they were unlikely to take a strong position on the issue. This shows that Millennials will probably continue to drive and purchase cars. Millennials do not appear to want to make lifestyle changes that can benefit the environment for fear of social ridicule with their peers.

5.9.2 Environmental issues raised In direct contrast, there was one interaction where one male individual felt it was important to discuss the environment in greater detail. However, a female immediately challenged him by arguing that transportation habits were too difficult to change. Like students in other groups, she brought up electric cars as a more feasible and attractive solution to fight climate change over sacrificing vehicle ownership for car sharing.

Moderator: So that was my last question, and this is my official last question, is there anything else that need to be discussed?

108

Stephen: The environmental pollution aspect of car-sharing I think like that was one of the points that we haven’t really discussed in depth but Yeah like if you see like every single car, like take in the U.S. there is more greenhouse gas emissions like 4x the greenhouse gas emissions than countries that have like India and Asia and the US has more greenhouse gas emissions and they have less people, like I don’t know why but we probably shouldn’t do that like shouldn’t it be fair to everyone like, greenhouse gas emissions don’t just affect the U.S. they affect everybody else as well, so how is it that people elsewhere in the world aren’t doing anything bad to the earth but they are still going to have to suffer when North America is doing most of the damage? So Yeah. (Age: 18, Male, Ryerson University, Hometown: Toronto, Engineering, FG6) Moderator: So you perceive car sharing as... Stephen: Being a bit more fair to the rest of the world. (Age: 18, Male, Ryerson University, Hometown: Toronto, Engineering, FG6) Moderator: Does anyone else have anything else to add about car-sharing and owning a car and perhaps the environmental damage that either causes? Amanda: I feel like as much as we want to help the environment and that stuff like the big picture and stuff like how long is it going to take for us and all these emissions to solve or go away or to lessen and like they are just making more and more cars and like I want it basically I think everyone does but it’s hard and I don’t know how long it is going to get there and I’m not that hopeful for it but like those cars that plug in and they become cheaper but because I probably won’t make enough money in the future to actually invest in a car like that then I don’t know I will have to get a normal car. (Age: 21, Female, Hometown: North York, ON, Ryerson University, Program: Business Management, FG6) Stephen: Yeah, like the lifestyle in North America is that most people and regular people like they need a car, like families and stuff like everyone needs a car to have it as an assurance kind of thing like the middle of the night you need something like the distances or something is different than places in Asia so like I hope in the next 50 years they make cheaper Teslas they will and I think in the next 70 years the electric cars will start putting pressure on the gas cars so Yeah I think over time that is what we will be driving hopefully. (Age: 18, Male, Ryerson University, Hometown: Toronto, Engineering, FG6)

This student raised a strong viewpoint about the need to help the environment, but after another student challenged him, he quickly replaced his view and agreed that electric cars were a more realistic solution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than car sharing.

This is an important interaction to address, because it reveals that Millennials are dismissive toward environmental problems and that their peers strongly influence their perceptions.

Millennials are aware of environmental problems, but are unwilling to make significant lifestyle changes, such as car sharing. Their peers also strongly dictate their

109 perceptions and attitudes. Millennials appear to be more comfortable with choosing electric cars. In other words, Millennials would rather choose the path of least resistance for the environment. This suggests that Millennials are not overly concerned with reducing greenhouse gas emissions by changing their lifestyle habits and are subject to do what their friends deem is acceptable.

5.9.3 Millennials perceive environment as unimportant In one particular instance, participants laughed at an individual when she stated that pollution was a disadvantage to owning a vehicle. Her peers claimed that the pollution cars emit was not a concern.

Nancy: We can go with the pollution argument. (Age:20, University of Ottawa, Criminology, Female, Hometown: Peterborough, FG3)

[laughter]

Nancy: Yeah like the environment. (Age:20, University of Ottawa, Criminology, Female, Hometown: Peterborough, FG3) Janet: That’s not really an argument. (19, Age:19, University of Ottawa, Criminology, Female, Hometown: Peterborough FG3 Sue: You can just buy a green car if that will make you feel better. (Age: 21, University of Guelph, Biomedical Science, Female, Hometown: Collingwood) Derek: Spend the extra ten grand. (Age 22, Program: Social Science, University of Ottawa, Hometown: Peterborough, ON, FG3) Nancy: But all the pollution of cars… (Age:20, University of Ottawa, Criminology, Female, Hometown: Peterborough, FG3) Janet: Yeah but cars produce pollution, like that’s not an argument. (19, Age:19, University of Ottawa, Criminology, Female, Hometown: Peterborough FG3 Derek: Yeah, well you do feel bad about it. (Age 22, Program: Social Science, University of Ottawa, Hometown: Peterborough, ON, FG3) Nancy: Yeah it is a disadvantage. (Age:20, University of Ottawa, Criminology, Female, Hometown: Peterborough, FG3) Derek: Yeah it is. (Age 22, Program: Social Science, University of Ottawa, Hometown: Peterborough, ON, FG3) Nancy: Yeah. (Age:20, University of Ottawa, Criminology, Female, Hometown: Peterborough, FG3)

110

This is a noteworthy interaction because it further reveals the reality that environmental issues are not important to Millennials, especially in social settings. If individuals are fearful of being satirized, they are unlikely to participate in car-sharing services, especially if it carries a meaning of environmentally friendly (Section 5.2.2).

More importantly, Millennials are unlikely to take measures to resist the status quo if their peers do not support them. This interaction also revealed that Millennials feel guilty about driving, but do not seem to be willing to forgo vehicle purchase.

111

Chapter 6 Discussion

Social practice theory is a useful way to explore Millennials’ perceptions and attitudes toward sustainable transportation options, such as car-sharing, because it encompasses the broader transit system that has traditionally reinforced vehicle ownership. This study has identified four key observations from the results. First, meanings are important influencers of Millennials’ perceptions and attitudes toward car sharing and vehicle ownership. In particular, environmental motivations seem unimportant to Millennials. In order to persuade Millennials to consider car-sharing as a viable transportation option, the symbolic and self-identity meanings of sexy, professional, family-focused, adult-like, professional, masculine and feminine should be emphasized. Second, the materials, including parking availability, the built environment and available active and public transportation infrastructure, appear to briefly postpone vehicle purchase with this cohort.

However, improved access to alternative transportation options does not appear to change the underlying desire to own a vehicle in the future. Study participants expressed that they were tired of using alternative transportation options and barely considered not owning a vehicle in the future. Third, the skills required to adopt car-sharing demand a shift in lifestyles, not just a shift transportation habits alone, such as the planning requirements associated with carrying a car-seat to a vehicle and also planning errands. In order to encourage Millennials to adopt sustainable transportation options, such as car-sharing, services must be accessible, convenient, flexible, and adaptable to suit everyday life.

Fourth, social pressures from parents, employers, and peers limit the potential opportunity

112 of car-sharing and other sustainable transportation alternatives to be accepted by

Millennials.

Contrary to the findings of other studies (Kuhminof et al., 2013; Goodwin 2012),

Millennials are not necessarily ready to give up the chance to have their own car. A reason for this difference could be the geographic region in which the studies were conducted and that the research looked at a bigger segment of the Millennial generation. I found in my research that many university-aged Millennials living in Southern Ontario just cannot afford a vehicle yet, but reported full intentions to purchase cars in the future.

In fact, 26/29 students studied here said they would purchase a vehicle when they could afford it.

I found that meanings, both symbolic and self-identity, played an important role in what Millennials thought was normal. Traditional symbolic meanings of vehicle ownership, such as success and independence, are still important to university aged-

Millennial students in Southern Ontario. As one research participant attested, success itself meant owning a car, and another was convinced that in order to be considered a mature adult by society, a car was essential. Some research participants suggested that employers would not hire them if they did not own a car, while others were strongly against accepting the inconvenience of having to make a reservation for a car-sharing vehicle on a regular basis. In addition, the inability to personalize a car-sharing vehicle discouraged the adoption of the transportation option long-term. Furthermore, one female student mentioned if a male date were to pick her up in a car-share, it would not be

113 considered attractive. These examples reveal that symbolic and identity meanings are reinforcing private vehicle ownership over car-sharing.

I found that materials, such as the location, parking space availability, and accessible public and active transportation in an area may help decrease the perceived need to own a vehicle with Millennials in the short term. However, access to public and active transportation infrastructure does not change Millennials desire to own a vehicle in the future. Sustainable transportation options, such as car-sharing, were not considered by

Millennials as a long-term transportation option. Rather, car-sharing was considered something acceptable during university years, and no further.

I found that the skills required to become a member of car-sharing services demand a full reorientation of how individuals travel. Car-sharing services demand new practices, such as making reservations and planning trips. At present, these new skills are not accepted and car sharing is not a well-known transportation option, which provides a pivotal opportunity to create new meanings and ways of understanding.

I also found that Millennials were concerned with what their peers, family, and potential employers would think about them if they did not have a car and opted for car- sharing as an alternative. They seemed to believe that owning a car was a prerequisite to start a family or land a job. Study participants also felt that in order for their peers, potential employers, and their parents to accept them as mature and normal adults, they must own a car. Social pressures encourage university-aged Millennials’ to own vehicles over transportation alternatives, such as car-sharing.

114

In addition, social interactions, such as when four students laughed at another for her comment about the environmental consequences of owning a car, uncover complex cases where individuals are afraid to stand-up to the status quo and create a new transportation paradigm. To the Millennials studied here, once they graduate, they feel they need to leave their student life behind and enter adulthood by purchasing a car.

My results show that the broader public must be cognizant about social pressures that steer young adults to adopt car-oriented lifestyles. Instead of requiring licenses and cars for jobs, incentives and rewards should be provided for people who car-share.

Instead of viewing people who car-share as individuals with low economic status, they should be viewed as leaders. Instead of being annoyed with someone who asks for a ride somewhere because they don’t have a car, they should be thanked by governments, car- sharing businesses and universities for contributing to a healthier environment. Instead of orienting masculinity with owning a vehicle or owning a car to be considered a mother, governments, universities, and car-sharing businesses should praise those who recognize vehicle ownership as a barrier to achieving a sustainable future.

What my research has shown is that car-norms are changing, being challenged, and being reconstructed; but Millennials still desire to own a car. Subtle challenges to car- dominant lifestyles are surfacing, but are not yet strong enough to reorient how vehicles are used, such as by adopting car-sharing. The common perception is that once

Millennials’ graduate university, they get a job, then they buy a car.

115

The majority of millennials I spoke to cannot afford vehicles, but fully intend to purchase a car when they can. In fact, they expressed that purchasing a car was a hands- down decision. They barely even considered alternatives to car ownership. However, vehicles do appear to be losing their status importance, such as being flashy and expensive.

I found that Millennials feared as if they cannot be considered “independent”,

“successful”, or “professional” by their families, employers, peers or society without a car. Millennial also desire a car for personal reasons. On the other hand, I found that

Millennials can be motivated to take part in car-sharing if they can afford it and if it is convenient, sexy, accessible and if everyone else is car-sharing too.

I discovered in my research that Millennials need to desire a more sustainable transportation system, where car-sharing is cool and sexy and where owning a car is not necessarily needed. Millennials, with the help of universities, local governments, and car- sharing business, must craft new norms and work to recognize and resist social pressures, or in the words of my research participants, the feeling that once they leave university, they must “grow up, get a car”.

116

Chapter 7 Conclusion and recommendations

7.1 Introduction The objective of this thesis was to explore the attitudes and perceptions of car-sharing and vehicle ownership held by Millennials in Southern Ontario. The findings of the study have been used to develop a set of recommendations for increasing the uptake of car sharing through actions by governments, car-sharing companies, universities, the

Millennial generation, and presents opportunities for further research. Not only did the study target a specific market segment, it revealed often overlooked and misunderstood assumptions about the attitudes and perceptions of Millennials toward car-ownership and car-sharing by using focus groups. For instance, the results indicated some conflicting findings when compared with the literature identified in Chapter 2. which suggest that the

Millennial generation is not as concerned with vehicle ownership as previous generations

(Kuhnimof et al., 2010). However, according to the current study, in Southern Ontario, university students still intend to purchase a vehicle in the future. One possible explanation for this difference in findings may be the difference in population samples and geographic regions. In other words, the social and cultural context matters.

Because provincial, federal and municipal governments in Canada are becoming increasingly concerned with encouraging sustainable transportation behaviors

(Hatzopoulou & Miller, 2008), this study offers useful knowledge to assist policy-makers in progressing toward a more sustainable future. The findings also give direction for further empirical research.

117

Before discussing the recommendations and conclusions, I would like to remind the reader of the limitations of the study. One of the limitations to this research is the ability to generalize the findings because the research focused on a specific subset of the

Millennial generation, which were university students who live in Southern Ontario. The conclusions and recommendations discussed are based on the six focus groups conducted and may be useful for governments, universities, Millennial students, and car-sharing businesses specifically located in Southern Ontario. It is important to distinguish between the entire Millennial generation and the specific segment of the population studied here, who were students attending university. This may pose a potential barrier to the generalizability of the results to the full Millennial generation. In this section, when I refer to Millennials, I am speaking of the specific participants that I studied and the conclusions and recommendations that emerged from the results of this study.

7.2 Recommendations for governments For governments looking to encourage car sharing among university-aged students, they should proceed with caution. Before providing subsidies to car-sharing organizations, allocating designated parking spots for car-sharing vehicles, and educating the public about the service, they should take into consideration the current active and public transportation options available in the particular location. Car sharing may flourish in cities that have inconvenient bus routes and schedules because the services can fill the gaps of inconvenient public transportation service (Section 5.3.3 and Section 5.3.4). For instance, if the time required to make a trip to go grocery shopping by bus is particularly long, individuals may use car sharing as an alternative. Shaheen and Rodier (2005) also

118 found that car-sharing provides a useful link to other transportation modes. However, it should be noted that car sharing may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions, as car- sharing services may substitute public and active transportation instead of compliment them. This can occur when individuals start using car-sharing services when they would have otherwise cycled or bussed. Now that vehicles are more accessible, this may encourage people to drive (Schor, 2014).

In addition, cities should carefully consider the car sharing business models themselves and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of point-to-point car sharing and free-floating car sharing (Section 5.5.1). Governments should also consider the type of vehicles that car-sharing organizations offer, as this may influence the willingness of

Millennials to participate. As revealed, Millennials have very different attitudes and perceptions toward specific business models and vehicle types (Section 5.5.1).

Furthermore, governments may wish to consider providing the service as a public good, or as a common-pool resource, as suggested by Ostrom (1994) in her work.

Governments may be able to provide car-sharing services like public transportation routes, which provide the opportunity for enhanced community consultation and transparent citizen participation. Municipal transportation demand planners are advised to engage with the public before implementing these models to ensure there is a need for them in the first place, and also to assess whether a co-operative; non-profit; or for-profit is most suitable for their region and respective populations.

119

For governments wishing to encourage users to become members of already existing car-sharing organizations, they will want to be cognizant of the broader transportation system. As suggested, transportation systems are complex and composed of four pillars: materials, skills, meanings, and social interactions, which I have suggested have a strong influence on the way in which Millennials perceive transportation options.

Without adequate focus on each simultaneously, transportation interventions will likely not be successful. Governments who wish to grow car-sharing services with Millennials must consider the way in which peers, social groups, family, and employers, interpret the transportation option simultaneously (Section 5.5.2). For example, at present, Millennials are unsure of the particular meaning of car sharing, or it is weak, at best (Section 5.2.1).

This is illustrated by the polar opposite and relatively inconsistent meanings that were attached to the service, such as “weird” and “cool” and “smart” and “thrifty”. Therefore, if it is the goal of government bodies, whether municipal, provincial or federal, to reduce automobile dependency and encourage car-sharing services, they might also want to create new meanings that align with “progressive”, “innovative”, and “cool” that may appeal to Millennials. Examples include providing incentives for Millennials who choose a sustainable transportation option, such as car-sharing, or reduced taxes, discounts, or incentive programs for individuals that use these options. They may also wish to provide praise and recognize car-sharing members as leaders in their communities.

In addition, if governments wish to encourage sustainable transportation, the university-aged cohort are an ideal group to target, as their perceptions and attitudes toward vehicle ownership and car sharing can be altered by considering the four pillars of

120 social-practices intimately. University-aged Millennials have not settled in careers, marriages, or locations. They are at a life-stage where they can strategically choose a location to settle down, and more importantly, how they choose to travel. Properly marketing key success stories of adults, professionals, families, and successful individuals who do not own vehicles or who currently use car-sharing or public and active transportation may help Millennials change the way in which they envision themselves in later stages of life, and may help them resist pressures from employers, family, and peers more prominently.

From an environmental perspective, governments should provide their citizens with sustainable transportation options that reduce car-dependent lifestyles and vehicle ownership. Achieving a successful sustainable multi-modal system is indeed an uphill struggle, especially in Southern Ontario, where automobile-dependency is normal, accepted, and even encouraged, as shown (Section 5.8). However, this focus group study revealed that there are ways for governments to influence the desires that Millennials have to own vehicles. Governments must provide strong incentives for younger generations where they are rewarded for forgoing purchasing a vehicle, and are recognized as leaders by employers, parents, and peers. Governments should take heed on understanding that investing in sustainable transportation infrastructure will not necessarily change perceptions or the desires of Millennials to own vehicles in the future

(Section 5.6.1 and Section 5.6.2). Initiatives to make car sharing more convenient, affordable, available, and accessible are unlikely to change perceptions of the service simultaneously. If car sharing is considered “unsexy” or “weird”, as this research

121 suggests, then Millennials’ will shy away from using it, even if it is convenient (Section

5.2.6 and Section 5.2.9).

When planning interventions, governments must also recognize that other marketing campaigns have influenced transportation perceptions. For example, the

Mothers Against Drunk Driving campaign has been successful at discouraging drunk driving, but has also potentially reinforced the perceived need to own a vehicle to reduce accidents caused by driving under the influence of alcohol (Section 5.6.6). This reveals the need for an inter-disciplinary approach to marketing interventions, and the acknowledgement that campaigns aimed at reducing drunk driving may actually pressure

Millennials to own vehicles. This social obligation provides more insight at the need to look at commuting as a social practice. Governments should ensure there are other transportation options available to provide rides home for people who consume alcohol.

Ensuring that cities have safe transportation options, other than driving, is important to consider.

Last, if governments wish to reduce vehicle ownership with Millennials, they should ensure that parking costs are high (Section 5.6.14). Because university-aged

Millennials generally have lower incomes, financial considerations may convince this cohort to adopt cheaper modes of transportation, such as car sharing, long term. In addition, governments should place an emphasis on the cost savings that are associated with car-sharing memberships when compared to vehicle ownership.

122

7.3 Recommendations for car-sharing companies To move toward a sustainable future, the ultimate goal of car-sharing companies should be to reduce automobile dependency. However, as shown by Cohen and Kietzmann

(2014), profit-making schemes generally overpower and manipulate sustainable objectives. In the case of some car-sharing companies, they encourage driving by encouraging members to make reservations as often as possible. Some car-sharing companies profit from hourly reservations, so they may encourage their members to drive. However, from a sustainability perspective, driving should not be encouraged.

This research has found that car sharing companies should be wary of the fact that

Millennials may join a car-sharing service, and then opt to purchase a vehicle as soon as they are financially stable (Section 5.2.10). If car-sharing companies wish to maintain their membership base, they should consider marketing car-sharing memberships as a lifestyle change instead of just a new transportation option. This is because car-sharing demands a completely different set of practices than vehicle ownership. At present,

Millennials and the broader public may consider car sharing as a temporary choice or in the words of the research participants, a “student thing”. This might mean that if

Millennials choose to join car-sharing services, they may quit their memberships and purchase vehicles as time passes. This is a disadvantage for car-sharing companies, because they must then continuously attract new members to make revenue. For car- sharing companies, the retention of long-term users is essential to ensure a constant revenue stream. Generating brand loyalty and ensuring customers are satisfied with the

123 service, by guaranteeing cleanliness, personalization options, convenience, and improving the current perceptions surrounding car sharing are good places to start.

In addition, I suggest that car-sharing companies market their brand as specific and unique to Millennials. At present, this transit mode is being misinterpreted, misunderstood, and overlooked, simply due to a lack of awareness, understanding, knowledge, and education (Section 5.4.3 and Section 5.4.4). Because of the rise in business models, such as Student CarShare, AutoShare, ZipCar, and Autoshare,

Millennials lack understanding and instead use the terms “carpooling” and “ride-sharing” to describe short-term rental car-sharing services. Thus, Millennials have underestimated the potential of car sharing services to suit their preferences and related desires.

Focus group participants brought up many examples where they would use car- sharing services that were the exact same reasons they described they would drive a vehicle. Examples included visiting family, friends, participating in recreational hobbies, and doing chores. This reveals that car-sharing organizations must look at the root reasons that individuals drive, and own a car, when marketing these services. Car-sharing organizations could trigger new interpretations of the practice of driving itself by emphasizing that Millennials do not need to own a vehicle in order to drive, participate in recreation; visit family; and perform chores. Car-sharing companies should communicate the benefits of accessing a vehicle over owning one.

In addition, car-sharing organizations should be careful if they consider marketing their services as “green” or “eco-friendly”, as this may actually discourage some

124

Millennials from becoming members (Section 5.2.2). Millennials may not wish to self- identify as “eco-conscious”. In fact, they may even avoid these meanings because of the fear of social ridicule, as illustrated in this research. Instead, car-sharing organizations should communicate and grow the “progressive” and “cool” meanings that may resonate more effectively with the Millennial generation (Section 5.2.3). Car-sharing companies should not assume that Millennials are environmentally conscious and are willing to make lifestyle changes. These assumptions may not be as accurate as widely believed.

Environmental attitudes may not be prominent among this generation, especially in social settings among peers, as indicated by the laughter toward one individual who brought up cars as having a negative environmental consequence (Section 5.9.3).

Car-sharing companies should also not fall victim to offering their services in locations that already have established, socially accepted, and highly used public transportation systems. This is because some Millennials will deem car sharing as not needed, as they can get where they need to go perfectly well without a vehicle (Section

5.3.3 and Section 5.3.4).

It is also important for car-sharing companies to recognize why Millennials decide to purchase vehicles in the first place. According to this study, it is possible that employers, parents and peers are responsible for pressuring Millennials to adopt car- dependent lifestyles. In the event that individuals actually recognize the negative consequences of vehicle ownership, such as how expensive it is, Millennials quickly disregard the consequences when they consider broader social understandings, such as

125 their parents’ influence. Car-sharing organizations must make their services more desired by Millennials’ than owning a vehicle.

Thus, car-sharing companies must consider their services within the broader transportation system and the related social interactions that shape perceptions and attitudes alike. Car sharing companies are urged to provide their services with car-seat options; different vehicle types, such as vans, electric cars, and sports cars; convenient reservation and flexible trip options, especially at peak times (such as Christmas shopping, as mentioned in Section 5.4.1); and flexible drop off locations. Car-sharing companies must strike an important balance between creating a feeling of “mine”, where

Millennials can express their self-identity, while simultaneously allow them to recognize that a shared vehicle belongs to “many”.

If car-sharing companies wish to grow their services and achieve a sustainable transportation system, their objectives must properly support sustainability goals. If car- sharing companies are successful in encouraging Millennials to join, they should understand that this may raise greenhouse gas emissions over the long-term, especially if they do not maintain membership services over long periods. If university-aged

Millennials decide to use car-sharing services during university and then opt for purchasing a vehicle, as this research suggests, this will likely not achieve a sustainable transportation system.

Car-sharing companies must also work intimately with cycling initiatives, public transportation agencies, and city planners. Failure to comply with this recommendation

126 will undoubtedly produce a scenario in which many actors with the same end goal of moving toward a more sustainable transportation system attempt to achieve it with different methods, resulting in a scenario where nobody wins, but everybody loses.

In addition, car-sharing companies must pay close attention to how they market their services, so that a stronger meaning of “progressive” and “cool” emerges among university-aged Millennials, instead of the previously warned “weird”, “embarrassing”,

“cheap” or “unsexy” perception that currently exists.

A pivotal opportunity exists for car-sharing companies to market their services in ways that attract Millennials. As it stands, Millennials feel they need to adopt car- ownership because they believe it is the only way to raise a family, have a job, and fit in.

Thus, this study urges car-sharing companies to uncover their potential, and masterfully market car sharing to help end the love affair with owning a car and instead provide a desirable alternative to young adults that access is more important than ownership.

In addition, car-sharing companies must also understand that encouraging individuals to become members is not only marketing a transportation choice, but also a lifestyle, in which new practices are developed, maintained, and sustained over long- periods of time that may compete and replace those of car-ownership. The current research has revealed that although vehicle sharing is an emerging transportation mode,

Millennials will understand and interpret the services in relation to more established transit modes, such as the train, bus, bicycling, walking, and owning a car. This is important, because it is critical that car-sharing organizations recognize their place within

127 the broader transportation system, and take into consideration life stages. They must provide a service that is adaptable and accessible over long periods of time.

Providing car sharing services that are only considered a temporary choice by

Millennials will not render much success, as car-sharing organizations will constantly be fighting to attract and keep new members. Thus, encouraging long-term membership through an in-depth consideration of social practices, including materials, skills, meanings, and social interactions, will be important determinants to an organization’s success.

To encourage Millennials to participate in car-sharing, marketers should consider seven recommendations. First, they should provide clarification about the misconceptions of the services, including providing a distinction of the difference between “ride-sharing”,

“carpooling”, “family car-sharing” and “car-sharing”. Second, car-sharing businesses should carefully market their unique value proposition and ensure their brand stands out from their competitors, as Millennials consider “car-sharing” as a unanimous term for free-floating systems and point-to-point systems. This misconception does not provide this cohort with a firm understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of different business models. Third, car-sharing organizations should emphasize cost-savings, convenience, cleanliness, personalization options, and grow the progressive attitudes currently dwindling. Fourth, they should generate a stronger meaning attached to car sharing that goes beyond “student” and infiltrates into other life-stages, such as adulthood, motherhood, and professionalism to compete with owning a vehicle. Fifth, they should work intimately with other transportation services, such as bus and train

128 services, and understand their role within the broader transportation system. Sixth, they should generate a broader range of social practices and lifestyles that are unique to car- sharing, such as car-seat accessibility, that suit various life-stages, so Millennials can envision themselves in the future living a life without a car. Seventh, they should pay particular attention to the social interactions, such as employer and parental influences, that shape Millennials perceptions and likelihood to consider themselves as “car-sharers”.

Car-sharing organizations should seek acceptance from the larger public within regions that they operate. Market segmentation may undermine and ignore important social considerations, such as parental or employer encouragement to purchase a car, as discussed. Car-sharing is unlikely to attract members, if, in the words of focus group participants, they are pressured to “grow up, get a car”.

7.4 Recommendations for universities The “campus bubble” appears to be a real thing with undergraduate students. For example, Millennials self-identity as students and develop habits, norms and behaviours; but, contrary to Balsas (2003)’s findings, these do not seem to carry over past university years, as many students stated that once they graduate, they would likely purchase a vehicle. This leads me to the conclusion that Schoolman et al., (2014)’s results are accurate: university institutions are doing a poor job at encouraging sustainable transportation beyond university years. Educators and university campuses should not only encourage students to participate in sustainable transportation while they attend university. This will not offer much benefit, as 4 years of an individual’s life is hardly influential. Professors and campus initiatives should look to extend sustainability goals to

129 exist in the broader cities where they are located. Professors should seek to ensure students are aware of social pressures and create strategies to resist pressures and provide opportunities for students to seek identities as environmental leaders beyond university.

Universities should also develop student led groups to identify ways for Millennials to resist the status quo successfully and forcefully.

University institutions play an important role in shaping undergraduate student’s identities and beliefs. Given the close relations that many institutions maintain with their alumni, they should seek to develop marketing campaigns that highlight stories of alumni that continue to live sustainable lifestyles beyond their years at university. Then, they should continuously emphasize alumni success stories and show undergraduates students that it is possible to live sustainably as adults and professionals. Universities should help

Millennials see car sharing as a feasible alternative and attractive to vehicle ownership through all life stages, not just as students. Professors and university staff should also lead by example and also utilize sustainable transportation options.

7.5 Recommendations for Millennials Even when Millennials develop strong transportation habits, such as biking, walking and not having a car, they disregard these habits quickly when they consider the thought of not owning a vehicle later in life. For many Millennials, owning a car is a

“hands-down” decision, as indicated by one of the focus group participants. Investing in public transportation infrastructure, car-sharing systems, carpooling and active transportation may help reduce the need for a car while Millennials attend university, but

130 as time passes, they will get “tired” of these options, as one research participant discussed. This suggests that Millennials desire individual pursuits over shared mobility.

Alternative transportation systems will not eliminate the desire that Millennials have to own a vehicle in the future. Therefore, Millennials are encouraged to develop a new normal, where vehicle ownership is not a prerequisite to starting a family, securing employment, or fitting in.

Millennials must forcefully resist pressures and desire to create a new transportation paradigm shift that does not represent car-dependent lifestyles. How they choose to do this is not clear, as electric cars seem to be an answer that many Millennials are more willing to accept over car sharing (Section 5.7.1).

There is still time to convince Millennials that car ownership does not have to be the king of travel. Persuading Millennials to forgo purchasing a vehicle is a tall order, perhaps; but not one without potential, as car-dependent lifestyles are being challenged

(Section 5.6.15) and it is clear that vehicles are a harder commodity to acquire, given the reality that many young adults consider car ownership as expensive (Section 5.6.14).

Being “green” is important to Millennials, but only if it does not require large lifestyle changes. Millennials seem to like the idea of “green” or “electric cars” because they can still own vehicles. Car-sharing demands too much of a change in practice, and may carry a possible meaning of environmentally conscious. Millennials may want to be

“green”, but the question is: how “green”? Some Millennials do not want to identify as life-long “eco-friendly” car-sharers. Instead, Millennials want to be “green” in more

131 subtle ways that do not cause them to stick out in society (Section 5.9.1 and Section

5.9.2). This is a possible reason for why electric vehicles were more popular with this cohort, as their peers were more likely to accept it.

Millennials want to be “green”, but they do not want others to see them being

“green”, and they want to care about the “environment” but do not want to self-identify as eco-conscious. They also appear to be more willing to take part in environmental action if their friends are also taking action, which is an element of socialization (Section 5.5.8). In addition, Millennials challenge car-dependent lifestyles and appear to be willing to drive less, which provides a hopeful prediction that even though they likely will own cars, they do not wish to be car-dependent and may leave them parked (Section 5.6.13). Millennials are also reconfiguring the status symbol of vehicles and seem to be less concerned with flashy and expensive vehicles (Section 5.6.11). This, however, does not change their desire to own a vehicle. In addition, although expensive vehicles may be losing their importance, vehicles are still desired for utility and practicality purposes, and females still believe a man should own a vehicle to be considered “sexy”, even though many females could care less if that vehicle is expensive (Section 5.6.9 and Section 5.6.10). Millennials have the ability to generate a new meaning of status to replace conventional views of expensive vehicles, which hopefully represent more sustainable options, such as car- sharing. They are challenging cars as the dominant transportation mode, but need to do so far more forcefully and must be more willing to incorporate lifestyle changes into their own personal lives.

132

When considering climate change action, Millennials seem to acknowledge its existence, but scoff at making lifestyle changes (Section 5.9.2). Instead, it seems that if they must search for solutions, they would much rather rely on the market to fix climate change, such as electric cars.

It was, however, suggested by this cohort that they are easily influenced by both parents, employers, and peers about transportation choices (Section 5.8.3). Then, parents, employers, and peers are urged to adopt sustainable transportation options, such as car- sharing, to make it more acceptable to this cohort. Millennials seem to care far too much about fitting in with the society that already exists, instead of creating an alternative society they want to live in.

Millennials may be motivated to take part in car-sharing if: it is cheap, convenient, and accessible; their friends approve; their parents approve; potential employers approve; the maintenance of their personal identity is possible; and their desired lifestyles are not under threat or significantly affected. Millennials are not likely to take the plunge to lead the environmental movement, because they would rather blend in with the pack then stick out. Peer groups strongly influence the perceptions of Millennials. Thus, it is imperative that the adoption of sustainable transportation occurs with many Millennials, as it seems that this group is willing to follow the herd and participate in what others are doing. I suggest that other generations become more aware of the pressures they place on

Millennials to adopt unsustainable transportation habits and perhaps be more accepting of alternatives.

133

Millennials are far too concerned with what others will think of them if they take bold steps forward, as illustrated by the reluctance to speak of environmental consequences of vehicle ownership. Even though they have power to make changes, as many of them currently do not own vehicles, shifting the desires that Millennials have to own a vehicle is challenging. Strong leadership, from a bottom up perspective, such as key influencers who are proud and positive about using sustainable transportation is needed. Employers, community groups and government support for individuals who have made car-free choices need to speak louder.

As shown, many Millennials have not developed the needed desire to construct a new transportation practices where they can survive, and thrive, without a car. This study has found that the associated meanings, skills, materials, and social interactions have forecasted a future where vehicle dependency may still be dominant, unless Millennials actually desire a more sustainable future and are willing to take matters into their own hands, by taking action, making sacrifices, and challenging the status quo.

7.6 Theoretical contributions This study filled some gaps identified in the literature and furthered the understanding of perceptions and attitudes toward vehicle ownership and car sharing with university-aged

Millennials. It also utilized social practice theory, which was useful at interpreting how car sharing services are emerging within an existing complex transportation system. This study revealed a deeper understanding about why university-aged Millennials desire to purchase a vehicle. It also highlighted the importance of social interactions when

134 considering planning interventions with this cohort. In addition, this study provided useful insight into this generation’s perceptions and attitudes toward climate change and the lifestyle choices that they are willing to make. This research calls for empirical confirmation of the results and for the testing of marketing interventions with this generation. It also revealed further uncertainties about car sharing businesses. Academics may build on the current study by empirically confirming the results with a survey. In addition, the study could be extended by conducting interviews with car-sharing businesses about their marketing strategies and sustainability goals. Furthermore, this study revealed that social practice theory is a useful way to interpret qualitative results about sustainable transportation. The theory may also be useful when looking at other consumption clusters, such as energy, water, and clothing.

This research has contributed to the ongoing discussion about new car-sharing models and has provided a deeper understanding about how symbolic and self-identity meanings play a strong role in shaping perceptions with Millennials. This research has also provided a comprehensive understanding of what compels Millennials to intend to buy private automobiles. This research is useful to academics, as it utilized social practice theory to consider the often-overlooked social interactions that encourage younger generations to adopt automobile-dependent lifestyles. Further, it provides a deeper understanding of car-sharing and its relatively new and emerging role as a transportation option in cities. This adds a new line of inquiry to the discussions surrounding sustainable transportation discussions and university-aged Millennials, as it explored car-sharing as a potential alternative to vehicle ownership. This study intersects and overlaps many

135 scholarly conversations surrounding social practice theory and sustainable transportation

(Spotswood et al., 2015; Kent, 2013; Shove 2004), but is unique in focus, as it looked at vehicle ownership and car-sharing side-by-side through a social practice theory lens.

7.7 Overall conclusion Many discussions around Millennials, car-ownership, and vehicle-sharing are reporting findings that contrast with the current study. According to several studies, Millennials are driving less; are not concerned with owning vehicles; and are willing to share (Goodwin,

2012; Kuhminof; Botsman & Rogers 2010). Some studies account for lack of affordability of vehicles as a reason students are not driving (Goodwin, 2012). However, according to this study, Millennials still desire vehicles, and have the intention to own a vehicle when they can afford one. Millennials expressed that they were tired of depending on others for rides or taking the bus, which reveals an often-missed point about transportation: Millennials still desire vehicles long-term. The perceptions of the millennial echo those of previous generations.

Potentially, Millennials may be willing to drive-less; purchase electric-cars; and to use other options, such as bicycling and public transit, but they will likely still own vehicles. Even though Millennials realize, express, acknowledge and admit the health benefits of walking and cycling places, and the ease of the public transportation system in university, Millennials perceive car ownership as central to entering adulthood.

Even though Millennials expressed that sustainable transportation options, such as car-sharing, work well in university, this is simply not feasible long-term. It is essential to

136 recognize that Millennials are postponing vehicle ownership out of economic necessity.

This does not mean that their desire to own a vehicle in the future has disappeared.

Investing in public and active transportation infrastructure is unlikely to change this.

Millennials still feel pressured by the broader society to purchase cars. Employers, university institutions, governments, and families play a strong role in nudging

Millennials toward purchasing a vehicle. The meanings, skills, materials and social pressures need to change in order to reduce automobile dependency. Providing accessibility, more convenience, or lower costs of transportation alternatives is unlikely to change desires. The private vehicle will continuously trump transportation, unless the four pillars of social practice theory are considered simultaneously.

137

Bibliography

Allen, M. W., & Ng, S. H. (1999). The direct and indirect influences of human values on product ownership. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20, 5-39. Anable, J. (2005). ‘Complacent car addicts’ or ‘aspiring environmentalists’? Identifying travel behaviour segments using attitude theory. Transport Policy,12, 65-78. Anable, J., Brand, C., Tran, M., & Eyre, N. (2012). Modelling transport energy demand: A socio-technical approach. Energy policy, 41, 125-138. Anowar, S., Yasmin, S., Eluru, N., & Miranda-Moreno, L. F. (2014). Analyzing car ownership in Quebec City: a comparison of traditional and latent class ordered and unordered models.Transportation, 41, 1013-1039. Anttonen, M., Halme, M., Houtbeckers, E., & Nurkka, J. (2013). The other side of sustainable innovation: is there a demand for innovative services? Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 89-103. Atherton, A., & Elsmore, P. (2007). Structuring qualitative enquiry in management and organization research: A dialogue on the merits of using software for qualitative data analysis.Qualitative research in organizations and management: An International Journal, 2, 62-77. Balsas, C. J. (2003). Sustainable transportation planning on college campuses. Transport Policy, 10, 35-49. Bamberg, S., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Incentives, morality, or habit? Predicting students’ car use for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis. Environment and behavior, 35, 264-285. Bamberg, S. (2013). Changing environmentally harmful behaviors: A stage model of self- regulated behavioral change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 151-159. Barber, N., Taylor, D. C., & Dodd, T. (2009). The importance of wine bottle closures in retail purchase decisions of consumers. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18, 597-614. Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: the case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 881-898. Baslington, H. (2008). Travel socialization: A social theory of travel mode behavior. International journal of sustainable transportation, 2, 91-114. Bazeley, P., & Richards, L. (2000). The NVivo qualitative project book. Sage. Beene, R. (2007). Car sharing: key to tapping youth market? Automotive News, 82, 6281. Belgiawan, P. F., Schmöcker, J. D., Abou-Zeid, M., Walker, J., Lee, T. C., Ettema, D. F., & Fujii, S. (2014). Car ownership motivations among undergraduate students in

138

China, Indonesia, Japan, Lebanon, Netherlands, Taiwan, and USA. Transportation,41, 1227-1244. Belgiawan, P. F., Schmöcker, J. D., Abou-Zeid, M., Walker, J., & Fujii, S. (2015). The Role of Expectation of Others on Students’ Likelihood to Buy a Car.Management, 18, 19. Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online.Journal of Business Research, 67, 1595-1600. Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2011).What's mine is yours: how collaborative consumption is changing the way we live. London. Cassidy, C., & Trew, K. (2001). Assessing identity change: A longitudinal study of the transition from school to college.Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4(1), 49-60. Catulli, M., Lindley, J. K., Reed, N. B., Green, A., Hyseni, H., & Kiri, S. (2013). What is Mine is NOT Yours: Further insight on what access-based consumption says about consumers. Research in Consumer Behaviour,15. Chapman, L. (2007). Transport and climate change: a review. Journal of transport geography,15, 354-367. Chow, K., & Healey, M. (2008). Place attachment and place identity: First-year undergraduates making the transition from home to university.Journal of Environmental Psychology,28, 362-372. Cohen, B., & Kietzmann, J. (2014). Ride On! Mobility Business Models for the Sharing Economy.Organization & Environment, 27, 279-296. Collins. Burkhardt, J., & Millard-Ball, A. (2006). Who is attracted to carsharing? Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 98-105. Costain, C., Ardron, C., & Habib, K. N. (2012). Synopsis of users’ behaviour of a carsharing program: a case study in Toronto.Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,46, 421-434. Delbosc, A., & Currie, G. (2014). Changing demographics and young adult driver license decline in Melbourne, Australia (1994–2009).Transportation,41, 529-542. Detre, J. D., Mark, T. B., & Clark, B. M. (2010). Understanding why college-educated millennials shop at farmers’ markets: An analysis of students at Louisiana State University. Journal of Food Distribution Research,41, 14-24. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2011). ‘Moments of change’ as opportunities for influencing behavior. Accessed May 13th 2015 from: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=MomentsofChangeEV0506 FinalReportNov2011.pdf

139

De Wet, J., & Erasmus, Z. (2005). Towards rigour in qualitative analysis. Qualitative Research Journal,5, 27. Doherty, P., & Leinberger, C. (2010). The next real estate boom.Washington Monthly,42, 22-25. Earl, C., Lawrence, A., Harris, N., & Stiller, S. (2003). The campus community and the concept of sustainability: an assessment of college of Charleston student perceptions.Chrestomathy: Annual Review of Undergraduate Research at the College of Charleston,2, 85-102 Emanuel, R., & Adams, J. N. (2011). College students' perceptions of campus sustainability.International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,12, 79- 92. Environment Canada. (2013). Canada’s Emissions Trends. Environment Canada. Retrieved January 2016 from: https://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg/985F05FB-4744- 4269-8C1A-D443F8A86814/1001- Canada's%20Emissions%20Trends%202013_e.pdf Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment. Journal of the American planning association, 76, 265-294.. Fagnant, D. J., & Kockelman, K. M. (2014). The travel and environmental implications of shared autonomous vehicles, using agent-based model scenarios. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 40, 1-13. Fellows, N. T., & Pitfield, D. E. (2000). An economic and operational evaluation of urban car-sharing. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 5(1), 1- 10. Firnkorn, J., & Müller, M. (2012). Selling mobility instead of cars: new business strategies of automakers and the impact on private vehicle holding. Business Strategy and the environment, 21, 264-280. Fishman, L., & Wabe, J. S. (1969). Restructuring the form of car ownership: A proposed solution to the problem of the motor car in the United Kingdom. Transportation Research,3, 429-442. Gallagher, L. (2013).The end of the suburbs: Where the American Dream is moving. Penguin. Gibbs, G. (2002). Qualitative data analysis: Explorations with NVivo (Understanding social research). Buckingham: Open University Press. Goodwin, P. (2012). Three views on peak car. World Transport, Policy and Practice, 17. Guell, C., Panter, J., Jones, N. R., & Ogilvie, D. (2012). Towards a differentiated understanding of active travel behaviour: using social theory to explore everyday commuting. Social Science & Medicine,75, 233-239.

140

Handy, S. (1996). Methodologies for exploring the link between urban form and travel behavior.Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment,1, 151- 165. Hansen, J., Kharecha, P., Sato, M., Masson-Delmotte, V., Ackerman, F., Beerling, D. J., & Rockstrom, J. (2013). Assessing “dangerous climate change”: required reduction of carbon emissions to protect young people, future generations and nature. PloS one, 8 12. Haustein, S., Klöckner, C. A., & Blöbaum, A. (2009). Car use of young adults: The role of travel socialization. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour,12, 168-178. Hargreaves, T. (2011). Practice-ing behaviour change: Applying social practice theory to pro-environmental behaviour change. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11, 79-99. Hay, I. (2000). Qualitative research methods in human geography. Oxford University Press. Hazée, S., Delcourt, C., & Van Vaerenbergh, Y. (2015, July). Sharing a Car? Yuck, No! An Investigation of Consumer Contamination in Non-Ownership Services. Frontiers in Service Conference Edition, San José, California. Heinen, E., van Wee, B., & Maat, K. (2010). Commuting by bicycle: an overview of the literature.Transport reviews, 30, 59-96. Hiscock, R., Macintyre, S., Kearns, A., & Ellaway, A. (2002). Means of transport and ontological security: Do cars provide psycho-social benefits to their users? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment,7, 119-135. Hopkins, D., & Stephenson, J. (2014). Generation Y mobilities through the lens of energy cultures: a preliminary exploration of mobility cultures. Journal of Transport Geography, 38, 88-91. Intelligence Group, The. 2012. “Generation Y: Slacktivists or Socially Conscious?” Accessed May 18, 2015. http://www.cassandra.co/wp- ontent/themes/trendcentral/pdfs/MediaMemo.pdf. Jorge, D., & Correia, G. (2013). Car sharing systems demand estimation and defined operations: a literature review. EJTIR, 13, 201-220. Kagawa, F. (2007). Dissonance in students' perceptions of sustainable development and sustainability: Implications for curriculum change. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8), 317-338. Kalmbach, Ralf, Wolfgang Bernhart, P. G. Kleimann, and Marcus Hoffmann. "Automotive landscape 2025: Opportunities and challenges ahead." Roland Berger Strategy Consultants (2011).

141

Kato, H., Inagi, A., & Igo, T. (2013). Potential Choices of Travel Mode including Carsharing and Carsharing Membership: Evidences from Four Japanese Cities.Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies,10, 630-646. Keeter, S., & Taylor, P. (2009). The Millennials.Pew Research Center Publications, December,11. Kent, J. (2013). Secured by automobility: why does the private car continue to dominate transport practices?. PhD dissertation., University of New South Wales. Kent, J. L., & Dowling, R. (2013). Puncturing automobility? Carsharing practices.Journal of Transport Geography, 32, 86-92. Kent, J. L. (2014). Driving to save time or saving time to drive? The enduring appeal of the private car. Transportation research part A: policy and practice, 65, 103-115. Kidd, P. S., & Parshall, M. B. (2000). Getting the focus and the group: enhancing analytical rigor in focus group research. Qualitative health research, 10, 293-308. Kiuchi, D., Yeahgi, M., Yeahmamoto, T., & Morikawa, T. (2004, October). Preliminary analysis on how trip schedule and household attributes affect effectiveness of car- sharing systems. In Proceedings of the 11th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems. Klein, N. (2015). This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate. Simon and Schuster. Kopp, J., Gerike, R., & Axhausen, K. W. (2015). Do sharing people behave differently? An empirical evaluation of the distinctive mobility patterns of free-floating car- sharing members. Transportation,42, 449-469 Kotkin, J., & Cox, W. (2013). The Future of the Affluent American City.A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 15, 203. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2002). Designing and conducting focus group interviews. Social Analysis, Selected Tools and Techniques, 4-23. Kuhnimof, T., Buehler, R., & Dargay, J. (2010). A new generation: Travel Trends among Young Germans and Britons. In 90th TRB Annual Meeting. Kuhnimhof, T., Zumkeller, D., & Chlond, B. (2013). Who Are the Drivers of Peak Car Use? A Decomposition of Recent Car Travel Trends for Six Industrialized Countries. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2383, 53-61. Kuhnimhof, T., Wirtz, M., & Manz, W. (2012). Decomposing Young Germans' Altered Car Use Patterns: Lower Incomes, More Students, Decrease in Car Travel by Men, and More Multimodality.Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2320, 64-71.

142

Lavery, T. A., Páez, A., & Kanaroglou, P. S. (2013). Driving out of choices: An investigation of transport modality in a university sample.Transportation research part A: policy and practice, 57, 37-46. Lindholm, J. A. (2004). The role of faculty in college students’ spirituality. Journal of College and Character, 5. Litman, T. (2000). Evaluating carsharing benefits. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for future research.Journal of Organizational Behavior,35(S1), S139-S157. Martin, E. W., & Shaheen, S. (2011). Greenhouse gas emission impacts of carsharing in North America.Intelligent Transportation Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 12, 1074-1086. McDonald, N. C. (2015). Are Millennials Really the “Go-Nowhere” Generation?.Journal of the American Planning Association, 81, 90-103. Meijkamp, R., & Theunissen, R. (1996). Car sharing: Consumer acceptance and changes on mobility behaviour. In: Transport policy and its implementation: Proceedings of Seminar B. Held at the 24th European Transport Forum, Brunel University, England, 2-6 September 1996. Volume 402. Millard-Ball, A. (2005).Car-Sharing: Where and how it succeeds (Vol. 108). Transportation Research Board. Mont, O., Neuvonen, A., & Lähteenoja, S. (2014). Sustainable lifestyles 2050: stakeholder visions, emerging practices and future research. Journal of Cleaner Production,63, 24-32. Mullan, E. (2013). Exercise, Weather, Safety, and Public Attitudes. Sage Open, 3 (3) Noble, S. M., Haytko, D. L., & Phillips, J. (2009). What drives college-age Generation Y consumers?.Journal of Business Research, 62, 617-628. O'Shaughnessy, J., & Jackson O'Shaughnessy, N. (2002). Marketing, the consumer society and hedonism. European Journal of Marketing,36, 524-547. Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games, and common-pool resources. University of Michigan Press. Pachauri, R. K., Allen, M. R., Barros, V. R., Broome, J., Cramer, W., Christ, R., & Dubash, N. K. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

143

Pew Research Center. 2014. “Milennials in Adulthood.” Accessed May 18, 2015. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2014/03/2014-03-07_generations-report- version-forweb.pdf. Polzin, S. E., Chu, X., & Godfrey, J. (2014). The impact of Millennials' travel behavior on future personal vehicle travel. Energy Strategy Reviews, 5, 59-65. Puhe, M., & Schippl, J. (2014). User perceptions and attitudes on sustainable urban transport among young adults: Findings from Copenhagen, Budapest and Karlsruhe. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning,16, 337-357. Richards, L. (2004, September). Validity and reliability? Yes! Doing it in software. In Strategies Conference, University of Durham. Rotaris, L., & Danielis, R. (2014). The impact of transportation demand management policies on commuting to college facilities: A case study at the University of Trieste, Italy. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,67, 127-140. Savin-Baden, M. (2003). Facilitating problem-based learning. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). Siccama, C. J., & Penna, S. (2008). Enhancing validity of a qualitative dissertation research study by using NVivo. Qualitative research journal,8(2), 91-103. Schäfer, M., Jaeger-Erben, M., & Bamberg, S. (2012). Life events as windows of opportunity for changing towards sustainable consumption patterns?. Journal of Consumer Policy, 35(1), 65-84. Schaefers, T. (2013). Exploring carsharing usage motives: A hierarchical means-end chain analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 47, 69-77. Schoolman, E. D., Shriberg, M., Schwimmer, S., & Tysman, M. (2014). Green cities and ivory towers: how do higher education sustainability initiatives shape Millennials’ consumption practices?. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 1-13. Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological science, 18(5), 429-434. Senbel, M., McDaniels, T., & Dowlatabadi, H. (2003). The ecological footprint: a non- monetary metric of human consumption applied to North America. Global Environmental Change, 13(2), 83-100. Shaheen, S. (2001). Commuter-based carsharing: Market niche potential.Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (1760), 178- 183. Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., & Roberts, J. (2006). Carsharing in North America: Market growth, current developments, and future potential. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (1986), 116-124.

144

Shaheen, S. A., & Cohen, A. P. (2013). Carsharing and personal vehicle services: worldwide market developments and emerging trends. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 7(1), 5-34. Shreck, B., & Vedlitz, A. (2016). The Public and Its Climate: Exploring the Relationship Between Public Discourse and Opinion on Global Warming.Society & Natural Resources, 1-16. Shove E (2003) Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience: The Social Organization of Normality. Oxford: Berg. Shove E (2004) Changing human behaviour and lifestyle: A challenge for sustainable consumption. In: Reisch L and Røpke I (eds) The Ecological Economics of Consumption. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 111–31. Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and planning. A, 42(6), 1273. Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012).The dynamics of social practice: everyday life and how it changes. Sage Publications. Sigurdardottir, S. B., Kaplan, S., & Møller, M. (2013). ‘Now or later?’ Understanding adolescents’ time-frame for their intentions to obtain a driving license and own a car. Drivers of sustainable future mobility: Understanding young people’s travel trends and the, 105. Simons, D., Clarys, P., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., de Geus, B., Vandelanotte, C., & Deforche, B. (2013). Factors influencing mode of transport in older adolescents: a qualitative study. BMC public health,13(1), 323. Smith, K. T., & Brower, T. R. (2012). Longitudinal study of green marketing strategies that influence Millennials. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 20, 535-551. Smithson, J. (2000). Using and analysing focus groups: limitations and possibilities. International journal of social research methodology, 3, 103-119. Sovacool, B. K., & Brown, M. A. (2010). Twelve metropolitan carbon footprints: A preliminary comparative global assessment. Energy policy,38, 4856-4869. Spotswood, F., Chatterton, T., Tapp, A., & Williams, D. (2015). Analysing cycling as a social practice: An empirical grounding for behaviour change. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour,29, 22-33. Stasko, T. H., Buck, A. B., & Gao, H. O. (2013). Carsharing in a university setting: Impacts on vehicle ownership, parking demand, and mobility in Ithaca, NY. Transport Policy, 30, 262-268. Statistics Canada (2011). Population and Dwelling Count Highlight Tables. 2011 Census. Retrieved January 2016 from: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census- recensement/2011/dp-pd/hlt-fst/pd-pl/Table-Tableau.cfm?T=205&S=3&RPP=50

145

Steg, L. (2005). Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,39, 147-162. Stern, B., Zinkhan, G. M., & Jaju, A. (2001). Marketing images construct definition, measurement issues, and theory development. Marketing Theory,1, 201-224. Stiglitz, J. (2012).The price of inequality. Penguin UK. Sukor, N. S. A., binti Basri, N. K., binti Hassan, S. A., & Belgiawan, P. F. (2014, November). Pro-environmental Awareness among Adolescents towards Sustainable Transportation: Extended Theory of Planned Behavior. In International Conference on Sustainable Future for Human Security (SUSTAIN 2014) (pp. 19-21). Tognoli, J. (2003). Leaving home: Homesickness, place attachment, and transition among residential college students. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy,18, 35-48. Tomer, A., Kneebone, E., Puentes, R., & Berube, A. (2011). Missed opportunity: Transit and jobs in metropolitan America. Toor, W., & Havlick, S. (2004). Transportation and sustainable campus communities: Issues, examples, solutions. Island Press. Urry, J. (2004). The ‘system’of automobility.Theory, Culture & Society,21, 25-39. Van der Waard, J., Jorritsma, P., & Immers, B. (2013). New drivers in mobility; what moves the Dutch in 2012?. Transport Reviews,33, 343-359. Watson, M. (2012). How theories of practice can inform transition to a decarbonised transport system.Journal of Transport Geography,24, 488-496. Whalen, K. E., Páez, A., & Carrasco, J. A. (2013). Mode choice of university students commuting to school and the role of active travel. Journal of Transport Geography, 31, 132-142. Williams, D. (2014). Social practice theory and sustainable mobility: An analysis of the English local transport planning as a system of provision. Doctoral dissertation, University of the West of England . Wilhite, H. (2009). The conditioning of comfort. Taylor and Francis. Wilson, C., & Chatterton, T. (2011). Multiple models to inform climate change policy: a pragmatic response to the ‘beyond the ABC’debate. Environment and Planning A, 43(12), 2781-2787. Wibeck, V., Dahlgren, M. A., & Öberg, G. (2007). Learning in focus groups an analytical dimension for enhancing focus group research. Qualitative research, 7, 249-267. Wibeck, V. (2012). Images of environmental management: Competing metaphors in focus group discussions of Swedish environmental quality objectives.Environmental management,49(4), 776-787.

146

Wolburg, J., & Pokrywczynski, J. (2001). A psychographic analysis of Generation Y college students.Journal of Advertising Research. Zhou, B., & Kockelman, K. M. (2011). Opportunities for and impacts of carsharing: A survey of the Austin, Texas market. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation,5(3), 135-152 Zhou, J. (2012). Sustainable commute in a car-dominant city: Factors affecting alternative mode choices among university students. Transportation research part A: policy and practice,46(7), 1013-1029. Zloch, D. (2015). The Perception of the Millennial Generation and their Engagement in Climate Change Activism. Lund University.

147

Appendix A

Table 1: A comprehensive summary of the recent literature on the attitudes and perceptions toward car-sharing and vehicle ownership among the Millennial Generation using the aforementioned search terms Themes Authour Title Year Overview

Social pressures Haustein, S., Klöckner, Car use of young adults: 2009 C. A., & Blöbaum, A. The role of travel socialization. . Alternative Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, Access-based 2012 Consumption G. M. . consumption: the case of car sharing. University Institutions Schoolman, E. D., Green cities and ivory 2014 influence Millennials Shriberg, M., towers: how do higher Schwimmer, S., & education sustainability Tysman, M.. initiatives shape Millennials’ consumption practices? Built Environment Polzin, S. E., Chu, X., & The impact of 2014 -Survey based study Godfrey, J. Millennials' travel - Main finding: travel in the United behavior on future States of Millennials is shaped by personal vehicle travel place of residence, race/ethnicity, labor force participation, education level, income, living arrangements, lifecycle status, licensure status, vehicle ownership/availability, values, and propensity to substitute technology for travel; - - Called for supporting information regarding new travel trends, such as short-term car-rental. Social factors Kim, D., Ko, J., & Park, Y Factors affecting 2015 -Survey based study electric vehicle sharing -Main finding: participants’ social program participants’ and economic perspectives were the attitudes about car most important factors affecting the ownership and program participants’ attitudes. Attitudes participation varied depending on personal characteristics such as gender, age and income Built Environment Whalen, K. E., Páez, A., Mode choice of 2013 -Case Study –Hamilton, ON. & Carrasco, J. A. university students McMaster University commuting to school -Main finding: modal choices are and the role of active influenced by a combination of cost, travel individual attitudes, and environmental factors such as street and sidewalk density. -A key finding is that travel time by car and bicycle positively affect the utilities of these modes, although at a decreasing rate as travel time increase. Economic Factors Efthymiou, D., Factors affecting the 2013 -Online survey in Greece with age Antoniou, C., & adoption of vehicle group 18-35 years old Waddell, P. sharing systems by - Factor analysis of the advantages young drivers. and disadvantages of car and bike- ownership is performed -Main finding: individuals with a lower income are more likely to join carsharing or bikesharing; age has an influence on their willingness to join

148

both services, and environmental concerns may attract some members Social factors Sigurdardottir, S. B., The motivation 2014 -Semi-structured interviews with 50 Danish adolescents – thematic ׳Kaplan, S., & Møller, M underlying adolescents intended time-frame for analysis –Main finding: car driving licensure and enthusiasts who associate cars with car ownership: A socio- high instrumental, affective, ecological approach symbolic, and relational values, have car-oriented social networks, and imagine a car-oriented lifestyle. The second group are car pragmatists, who associate cars with high instrumental and relational values, perceive car expenses as a barrier, and imagine a car-oriented lifestyle only in the long-term. The third group are car skeptics, who have low interest in cars and imagine a cycling-oriented future. Sustainability Factors Sigurdardottir, S. B., ‘Now or later? 2013 -Interviews, surveys, and national Kaplan, S., & Møller, M. ’Understanding study survey in Netherlands - adolescents’ time-frame -Main findings: three types of for their intentions to attitudes toward the car; obtain a driving license environmental concern has no and own a car. impact on intentions but mediates willingness to reduce car use in future Built Environment Zhou, J. Sustainable commute in 2012 -Los Angeles survey-based study a car-dominant city: - Students are multimodal; gender, Factors affecting status, and age are correlated to alternative mode biking, walking and transit choices among university students Personal factors Simons, D., Clarys, P., Why do young adults 2013 -Focus groups study in Belgium De Bourdeaudhuij, I., choose different - Explore factors influencing de Geus, B., transport modes? transport choice of studying and Vandelanotte, C., & working young adults, for short Deforche, B. distance travel to various destinations. -Main findings: autonomy, travel time, financial cost and vehicle ownership are most important, while the built environment and perceived safety and some as not important at all, such as ecology and health. Social factors Puhe, M., & Schippl, J. User perceptions and 2014 -Interview –based study in attitudes on sustainable Copenhagen, Budapest, and urban transport among Karlsruhe young adults: Findings - Young people living in urban areas from Copenhagen, seem to be less interested in cars Budapest and Karlsruhe than the generation before -Positive attitudes toward policies supporting alternatives to car-based transport Social factors Belgiawan, P. F., Car ownership 2014 Survey-based study Schmöcker, J. D., Abou- motivations among - undergraduate students surveyed Zeid, M., Walker, J., Lee, undergraduate students about their current travel attitudes T. C., Ettema, D. F., & in China, Indonesia, and habits and anticipated travel Fujii, S. Japan, Lebanon, behaviour after they graduate and Netherlands, Taiwan, obtain a job and USA -Attitudes towards car and public transportation, social norms, their socio-demographic situations, current mobility patterns and the

149

intention to own a car after graduation are explored - Significant difference between developing and developed countries; students in developed countries have less desire to purchase cars. -Expectations of others appears an important determinant of purchase intentions whereas income and the symbolic affective meaning of the car are less influential Social factors Zhu, C., Zhu, Y., Lu, R., Perceptions and 2012 Survey based study He, R., & Xia, Z. aspirations for car -Attitudes measured as status ownership among symbol or instrumental value Chinese students (speed) attending two - Chinese students express desire for universities in the a vehicle in the future – analyzed Yeahngtze Delta, China student attitudes, social norms, and aspiration for car ownership. A strong desire for car ownership among the participants supports the assertion that rapid car growth is likely to continue, but most likely in smaller cities and rural areas. -Immediate social environment has an impact on aspiration for car Understanding and changing consumers’ psychosocial valuation of cars is increasingly critical in curbing future growth in car ownership and use Social factors Belgiawan, P. F., The Role of Expectation 2015 -Survey-based study and model Schmöcker, J. D., Abou- of Others on Students’ development Zeid, M., Walker, Likelihood to Buy a Car -Focus on understanding the influence of expectation of others to own a vehicle - Found that parental influence is strong followed closely by peer influence Alternative Kato, H., Inagi, A., Igo, T Awareness and 2011 Survey-based study in Japan consumption Potential Choices of -Main finding: car owners are more Carsharing: aware of carsharing than non- Comparative Analysis of owners, non-owners consider using Data from 7 Four carsharing more often than car Japanese Cities, owners, 30-40 percent of the presented at the 2012 surveyed individuals would choose to forego car ownership if they were a member of a carsharing service, individuals seem to make rational decisions regarding membership under different hypothetical cases, and the availability of carsharing services and public transportation, trip distance, and household income influence whether one participates in carsharing Social factors Hopkins, D., & Generation Y mobilities 2014 -Qualitative interviews with 51 Stephenson, J through the lens of members of Generation Y in energy cultures: a Netherlands preliminary exploration Main findings: difference between of mobility older and younger Generation Y. cultures. Journal of -For younger generation Y, parental Transport encouragement and financial Geography, 38, 88-91. support, social norms and a

150

perceived need associated with social and sporting activities, all encouraged learning to drive as early as possible. -For older generation Y, access to a vehicle, needing a licence for employment or emploYeahbility, and social expectations were all dominant motivations.

151

Appendix B

Focus Group Consent Form

Title: Post-secondary student’s perceptions and attitudes toward the adoption of vehicle-sharing systems

INFORMATION AND CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

You are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by Jessica Correa, a Masters Student in the Sustainability Studies Program at Trent University.

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Jessica Correa at [email protected].

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY This study is designed to examine the perceptions and attitudes of second and fourth year students at various post-secondary institutions about car-sharing and determine how to better identify potential demand for this type of service

PROCEDURES If you volunteer to participate in this study, the time requirement is approximately 1.5 hours. During this time you will be asked to:

 Participate in a small focus group of up to 7 other students and discuss your attitudes, opinions, and perceptions about car-sharing services  You will be asked to offer your comments and suggestions for how car- sharing organizations can improve their services

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS

152

 Discussing your attitudes and experiences could make you feel uncomfortable or upset. If any part of your participation in this research makes you feel uncomfortable and you would like to talk about this with someone, please visit your local counselling services located on campus.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS By participating in this study:  You are offered the opportunity to talk about your perceptions and attitudes about car-sharing. This may improve your awareness and understanding about alternative transportation options  You will increase the knowledge held by researchers about undergraduate student perceptions toward car-sharing  Your comments may also help improve current car-share services  You will be entered into a draw to win $50.00  You will receive refreshments for participating  You might just have fun!! 

CONFIDENTIALITY Every effort will be made to ensure confidentiality of any identifying information collected in this study:  Your identity will be known to other focus group participants and it cannot be guaranteed that others in these groups will respect the confidentiality of the group  You will be asked to sign below to indicate that you will keep all comments made during the focus group confidential and will not discuss what happened during the focus group outside the meeting.  Focus groups will be audio recorded and transcribed. At this point, all identifying information will be coded and all identifying information will be removed  Audio recorded focus groups will be downloaded onto a password-protected computer and the original recordings will be deleted.  All transcriptions will be stored on a password-protected computer  Only the researcher, Jessica Correa, an M.A. student at Trent University will have access to focus group data

HANDLING AND SECURITY OF DATA

153

Data collection can never be guaranteed to be completely secure. However, every effort will be made to ensure that your privacy and confidentiality is protected throughout the study. Data will be kept until the January 2017, after Jessica Correa has defended and submitted her thesis. She will then destroy the data.

ANONYMITY  Your data will be coded so that only Jessica Correa can link your comments or data to your name  All data presented in reports or other final summaries will be summarized format so that no one will be able to identify you from your comments or data  Because the study will be audio recorded, you will not be an anonymous participant.  The lead researcher, Jessica Correa, will need to use your personal email to contact you for follow up phases of the study and notify you if you have won compensation

PARTICIPATION, WITHDRAWAL and RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS You can choose whether to be in this study or not.  You may withdraw consent at any time without academic or other consequences of any kind.  You may exercise the option of removing your data from the study. However, once all identifying information has been removed, all focus group responses will become anonymous and it will not be possible for participants to ask for their data to be removed from the study.  You may refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study.  The investigator may withdraw you from this research if they are able to do so  You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research study.

COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION  If you are interested, your name will be entered to win a $50.00 gift card to a venue of your choice.  Once the winner of the draw is selected and contacted, all names and identifying information will be destroyed.  If you wish to participate in the draw, you will be asked to provide your e- mail address.

154

RESULTS OF THE STUDY The results of the study will be published and shared in reports, conferences, presentations and published journals. The results of the study will be available to you by e-mail by May of 2016. This study has been reviewed and received ethics clearance through the

Trent University Research Ethics Board Suite 344- Gzowski College - Symons Campus Telephone: 705.748.1011 x7050 Email: [email protected] Hours: 9am - 4:30pm

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

. I have read and understood the information provided . I understand the potential risks and discomforts involved. . My questions have been answered to my satisfaction. . I have been given a copy of this form. . I agree to maintain confidentiality of information shared in this focus group. . I understand that the information I provide will be used for the completion of Jessica Correa’s graduate thesis work . I understand that this focus group interview will be audio recorded . I understand that my participation in this research is entirely voluntary and that I do not have to answer any question if I do not want to . I am aware that the student conducting this research cannot give any assurances that the other volunteers in this focus group will keep my name and information I supply confidential. . I understand that the data will be kept on the Jessica Correa’s personal computer, which is password protected . I understand that, after participating in the focus group, it is difficult to withdraw from the research . I understand that my name and personal information will be known to the researcher, but I will be anonymous in the final report. . I understand that I will have the opportunity to approve of the quotations, prior to the publication of any report. . I understand that I have been asked to provide my e-mail address for a chance to win a $50.00 gift card

155

I agree to participate in this study

Yes

______

Name of Participant (please print) Date

______

Signature of Participant Date

______

E-mail address for draw