Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy

Report 2017/11

John Magne Skjelvik, Oscar Haavardsholm og Anne Maren Erlandsen

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy

Category	Reports
Sub-Categories	Statistics and Empirical AnalysisClimate change and the green transformationEnvironmentIKT og digitaliseringReguleringer og konkurranseøkonomi
Year	2017
Report Number	11
Author(s)	John Magne Skjelvik Oscar Haavardsholm Anne Maren Erlandsen
Download	file_download (1 MB)
Read in browser	PDF

R	E	PORT	 	
2017/11

Environmental impacts and
potential of the sharing economy

John Magne Skjelvik, Oscar 	Haavardsholm and Anne Maren Erlandsen
VISTA ANALYSE AS

Nordic Council of Ministers

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy

Do	cument	 deta	ils
Vista Analyse AS	 	Report num	ber 	2017	/11
Report	 title 	Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing
economy
ISBN	 	978	-82	-8126	-326	-0
Authors	 	John Magne Skjelvik, Oscar Haavardsholm and
Anne Maren Erlandsen
Dat	e for 	completion	 	01.07.2017
Projec	t leader	 	John Magne Skjelvik
Quality controller	 	Haakon Vennemo
Commissioned by	 	Nordic Council of Ministers
Availability	 	Public
Published	 	www.vista	-analyse.no
Keywords	 	Sharing economy, GHG emissions,
local environmental problems

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	1
For	ew	ord
This study was commissioned by the Working Group on Environment and Economy
(MEG) of the Nordic Council of Ministers in the fall of 2016. 	The Working Group on
Sustainable Consumption and Production (HKP) has contributed to the financing of the
study. 	The p	roject work started in January 2017, and the final report documenting the
results of the study was completed by end June 2017.
The study is a desk study going through various reports that have analy	zed po	tential
environmental impacts of	 the various sharing economy initiatives. 	The definitions of the
sharing economy and to some extent also the overview 	of sharing economy initiatives
are	 partly based a study of the sharing economy in Norway that was done by Vista
Analyse in 2016.
Our conta	cts in MEG have been 	Magnus Cederløf, Øyvind Lone and 	Jens Perus.
We thank all from various Nordic countries and institutions that have provided useful
comments to previous drafts.

John M. Skjelvik

Project manager
Vista Analyse AS

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	3
Contents
For	ew	ord	 ................................	................................	................................	.....................	 1
Executive Summary	 ................................	................................	................................	... 5
1. 	Introduction	................................	................................	................................	.........	10
1.1	 	The sharing economy and the environment	 ................................	................	10
1.2	 	Our analy	sis ................................	................................	................................	11
1.3	 	Content and outline of the report	 ................................	................................	.11
2. 	The properties of the sharing economy	 ................................	............................	13
2.1	 	Introduction	 ................................	................................	................................	.13
2.2	 	What is the sharing economy?	 ................................	................................	....	13
2.3	 	Advantages of the sharing activities	 ................................	............................	20
3. 	Nordic sharing economy initiatives	................................	................................	...26
3.1	 	The Norw	egian study	 ................................	................................	..................	26
3.2	 	The sharing economy in the Nordic countries	 ................................	.............	27
3.3	 	Car and transportation	 of people	 ................................	................................	.30
3.4	 	Transportation of goods	 ................................	................................	..............	33
3.5	 	Housing and property	 ................................	................................	..................	34
3.6	 	Services	 ................................	................................	................................	......	37
3.7	 	Other	 ................................	................................	................................	..........	38
4. 	Some numerical illustrations of emission reduction potentials	 ......................	40
4.1	 	Transportation	 ................................	................................	.............................	40
4.2	 	Housing/accommodation	 ................................	................................	............	50
4.3	 	Smaller capital goods	 ................................	................................	..................	55
4.4	 	Services	 ................................	................................	................................	......	57
5. 	Overall environmental and policy implications	 ................................	................	59
5.1	 	Several sharing initiatives have a potent	ial to contribute to environmental
improvements	 ................................	................................	................................	.......	59
5.2	 	Sharing initiatives’	 	impact	s 	on overall emissions depend on the
environmental policy instruments used	 ................................	................................	.60
5.3	 	Sharing initiatives	 should be encouraged, and all emissions should be priced
or regulated	 ................................	................................	................................	..........	61

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
4 	 	Vista Analyse
Refer	ences	 ................................	................................	................................	................	 63

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	5
Executive Summary
The various sharing initiatives seen in the Nordic countries	 over the last years within
transportation, housing/accommodation, sharing/renting of smaller capital goods and
personal services could yield considerable benefits for consumers due to better quality
and/or lower prices of the services. They also have a po	tential for emissions reductions
of 	CO	2 and local pollutants. However, savings from lower prices could lead to increased
emissions from increased demand of the services (particularly transport) and increased
spending on other goods and services. Depending 	on how consumers spend their
savings, these changes could partly, wholly or more than offset the initial emission
reductions. 	The impacts on overall	 CO	2 emissions 	depend on whether the emissions
are	 taxed	, part of the emissions trading system EU ETS	 or not regulated at all	. By
ensuring that all 	CO	2 emissions are faced with the same 	high 	price and that local
environmental problems are properly regulated, sharing initiatives could yield
considerable benefits 	to 	the overall economy without harming the e	nvironment.
A digital platform, spare resources and 	persons	 are properties recognising the
sharing 	economy
The concept of “sharing economy” is rather new, and there is no uniform definition as
to what it comprises or how comprehensive the various sh	aring economy initiatives
are. In our view the sharing economy initiatives could be defined as to fulfil the
following three criteria:
 	The transaction should cover a service based on goods or competence.
Transactions of owner rights are not included.
 	A dig	ital platform (app	) is a vital part of the service, as an intermediate
between buyer and seller, and/or as part of the quality of the service.
 	The initiative is established to carry out the service in the first bullet with the
help of the technology of the second bullet.
These criteria are pragmatic, but seek to comprise what is the core of the sharing
economy. Within it are the initiatives o	ffering transactions between persons/consumers
(C2C) and between businesses 	and persons 	(B2C), as well as business to business
initiatives (B2B). The criteria cover the 	best 	known initiatives like Uber, Airbnb and
similar. Several firms from the “old” econ	omy are developing digital platforms to meet
the competition from the sharing economy activities, for instance offering of various
streaming services. 	W	e have not included the	m in our survey	 since 	we would like to
focus on the new initiatives that offer di	fferent solutions 	than	 traditional firms	.
Our analy	sis covers four areas
Our attempt has been to give an overview of some current sharing economy initiatives
in the Nordic countries, analy	ze the change in consumer behavior that these initiatives
could	 lead to, and to assess what environmental impacts these changes might imply.
We have focused on the following four segments of the sharing economy:
 	Transportation	: various car sharing initiati	ves with or without driver, car	pooling,
transportation of goods	 and similar
 	Housing/accommodation	: access to cheap	 accommodation in private homes	.
 	Other, smaller capital goods: 	a large variety of machines and tools that
consumers coul	d borrow/rent instead of buying	.
 	Services	: a large group covering various a	ctivities related to personal services.

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
6 	 	Vista Analyse
Transportation has the largest 	emissions reduction 	potential
Our mapping of sharing economy initiatives in the Nordic countries shows that there
are several initiatives 	that could lead to environmental improvements	. Most initiatives
are 	related to	 the transport sector, and 	this	 is 	the	 sector where the direct potential for
emissions reductions 	is largest. 	There is a potential for 	CO	2-equivalent	 (CO	2e)
emissions	 reductions from reduced driving of private cars and redu	ced car production,
and reduced 	impacts on local air pollution, 	noise, traffic congestion 	etc. 	since most of
these initiatives are located in cities where local environmental problems from 	transport
are largest.
We have analyzed the potential for emis	sions reductions from sharing alternatives that
offer services with lower prices and/or better qualities compared to owning and driving
one’s own car, but there are several other transport sharing initiative	s that coul	d yield
similar reductions. Car	pooling	, where people ride together to and from work, could lead
to emissions reductions if people previously drove their own car instead. Car hailing
initiatives could yield similar benefits if people drive their own car less and/or don’t own
a car any more.
International studies show that households on average tend to reduce their vehicle
holdings afte	r becoming car	-sharing members, indicating that 	one shared car could
replace approximately 4 to 13 personal cars. 	Accounting for potential increases in new	-
car sa	les to car	-sharing fleets and 	more heavy utilization of shared cars, CO	2e-
emissions could be reduced by roughly 40 to 140 kg per member household p	er year
from reduced production and	 maintenance etc. of cars. Households that substitute their
personal car with a shared car generally drive less, because shared cars are relatively
less accessible and the per	-trip costs become more apparent compared to personal
vehicles, although the tota	l “car	-costs” might be reduced. But some households that
join car sharing drive more than before, since 	trips previously untraveled	 or traveled	 by
other modes of transport, such as public transport, bicycling or walking, are substituted
by trips in shared 	cars.	 The average net impact is a decrease in kilometers travelled,
ranging between 90 kg and 840 kg CO	2e-emissions per households per year according
to the studies we have reviewed.
Thus, the overall emissions reductions could be between 	some 130 kg to around 1,000
kg 	CO	2e-emissions per household per year according to these estimates. These
numbers are of course highly uncertain, and since 	the highest	 of the estimates are
from the US they 	may not accurately represent No	rdic conditions	 when	 it comes to
driving distances and emissions per distance	. Thus, Nordic emission reductions are
likely somewhat closer to the lower part of the interval than to the higher part.
Reduced car 	transport	 could also reduce the demand for parking infrastructur	e. In
addition, greater fuel efficiency because of newer cars and perhaps more use of
electric and hybrid cars in car	-sharing fleets compared to private cars could further
reduce emissions. However, the use of public transport would likely increase becaus	e
of reduced car ownership, that will in turn generate some emissions.
When people save money from reduced prices of some services, they will use all or
some of these savings on other goods and services causing environmental harm. We
have found that savi	ngs from participating in 	for instance 	a car sharing arrangement
instead of owning one’s own car could be considerable, and the use of these savings
on other goods and services could partly, fully or more than offset initial environmental
improvements. Exa	mples from Denmark and Norway indicate that the indirect rebound
effect could be as high as 3 tonnes and 814 kg CO	2e-emissions per car sharing
member per year, using numbers for emissions from “average consumption”. The size

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	7
of the effect will depend on th	e amount of economic savings from car	-sharing, how
much of the savings car	-sharers would spend, and the type of goods and services the
money is spent on.
Accomodation	 also ha	s a potential for emissions reductions
Private property 	accomodation	 through A	irbnb and similar initiatives may lead to lower
CO	2e-emissions because these properties may generate lower emissions than hotels.
This is because hotels often have more energy intensive facilities like bars,
restaurants, swimming pools and 24	-hour operatio	n. It is also possible that Airbnb
guests generate less water use and waste than hotel guests. However, Airbnb guests
mostly compete with lower	-end accommodation like hostels and motels, which
generally have lower emissions and other environmental impacts 	than high	-end hotels.
Some higher	-end Nordic hotel chains are working actively to reduce energy
consumption and become more environmentally friendly, implying that the difference
between the various accommodation alternatives might 	be coming down	. A study
commissioned by Airbnb estimates a reduced energy use of at least 88 percent by their
users compared to hotel guests. By 	using this estimate on	 emissions from Nordic
Choice and Scandic hotels there could be a reduction of 2	-3 kg CO	2e-emissions pe	r
guest night from using Airbnb and similar initiatives compared to using Nordic hotels.
Private property 	accomodation	 could reduce the demand for new hotels in the longer
term. This would lead to reduced CO	2e-emissions and local pollution from the
construction process and the production of building materials, as well as less waste
generation from leftover materials etc. However, the energy use from the operation of
hotels accounts for some 85 	- 90 percent of total life cycle emissions from hotels.
Cheaper rental prices could increase the demand for private accommodation, either in
the form of longer stays or more trips. This depends on the sensitivity of consumers’
demand to changes in price and income. The demand for air travel is typically highly
sensitive to changes in income and price, implying that demand for air travel increases
by 	more than	 the amount income is increased or prices reduced. This would indicate
that a higher disposable income from lower accommodation prices is more likely to be
spent on air travel than on other, less price	- and income elastic goods and services. If
a person because of cheaper accommodation decide	s to travel an extra return trip by
airplane from Oslo to London, this could generate an emissions increase 	of 	around 80	0
kg CO	2e. 	Private	 accommodation would have to substitute around 270	-400 guest
nights at hotels to offset these emissions	, according to the numbers above.
Renting of smaller capital goods could also lead to emissions reductions
There are several Nordic sh	aring economy initiatives that match people who want to
rent various small capital objects, such as tools, clothes 	etc	. Privately owned	 tools 	are
only used occasionally. For example, a power drill is only used around 18 minutes over
its entire life span ac	cording to a study. The life cycle emissions from a power drill
amount to around 28 kg 	CO	2e, and only 2 percent of the emissions are generated from
the use of the drill.
An example from the Danish online service Lejdet, that facilitates the sharing of all
kinds of items between people, shows that in 2014 power drills were shared 30 times.
If 5 electric drills covered 30 rentals	, i.e. each of the 5 drills w	ere	 rented 6 times, t	he
sharing suppressed the production of 25 electric drills	, reducing emissions by	 700 kg
CO	2e. But sharing services may also induce increased traveling as people pick up the
rented tools. If someone drives a return trip of 5 kilometers to 	pick up a hired	 drill
instead of driving a similar distance to purchase the drill, there is no difference in

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
8 	 	Vista Analyse
emissions. Now imagine the person needs the power dr	ill 9 more times over the years,
and drives	 an average of 5 	km	 each time, with emissions of 173 g/km, this wou	ld
generate approximately 8 kg CO	2e. In this instance, the additional emissions from
induced driving would be lower than the 28 kg emissions 	saved 	from the production of
a power drill.
But the alternative to using a shared tool may not always be to purch	ase a new one. In
the absence of online sharing of tools, people might borrow or rent the tools from
somewhere else in the neighborhood instead. More use of under	-used tools because
lending becomes cheaper could result in an increase in electricity use (fo	r power tools)
or fuels (e.g. lawn mowers) and associated environmental impacts.
Another example is from the clothes	-sharing business Resecond, which facilitates
sharing of dresses in Copenhagen and Århus. Customers can bring a dress they are
no longer usi	ng, and in return pick another dress from the stock. If a dress 	that 	is
assumed to be used six times	 and then thrown away	 instead 	is recycled 10, 15 or 25
times	, one could save some 144, 324 or 684 kg CO	2e-emissions respectively from
reduced purchase of ne	w dresses. But if one purchase	s a dress second	-hand instead
of buying a new one, sharing would not result in any additional emission reductions.
Also, if people travel more to pick up shared clothes compared to the travelling they
would have done to buy ne	w clothes, emissions 	reductions would be smaller and might
even	 increase.
Services	 seems to have less	 potential for emissions reductions
There are some sharing economy companies that offer matching of services like
transporting smaller goods, running 	errands, cleaning services, painting	, gardening,
maintenance etc	. in the Nordic countries. The	ir environmental impacts 	largely 	depend
on	 whether the services can be done remotely or whether the user must be present to
perform the service. 	Services that in 	the sharing economy can be done remotely but
earlier would have to be done on site could yield considerable environmental benefits.
The services that demand physical presence are typically smaller manual jobs, and the
companies put the users in contact 	on their digital platform. Many of these are jobs that
people previously had to do themselves or get help from others like neighbors or
relatives to do.
The environmental impacts of 	these 	shared services depend on whether 	they induce
increased driving. Thi	s will depend of what the alternative to the provision of the
service would have been. If a person instead of paying someone to paint his house
would have done it himself or perhaps not painted the house at all, the environmental
impact would be the emissi	ons generated from the transportation of the painter to and
from the house. But if the house owner had painted it himself, he would perhaps have
to go (drive) to and from a store to buy the paint. However, if the house owner would
have paid a painting comp	any to undertake the task, who also would have had to travel
to and from the house, there would be no additional environmental impacts from the
shared service. And if the house owner save	s money from using the new services he
will 	spend (some of) these on 	goods and services that in turn cause environmental
impacts.
Sharing initiatives	’ environmental 	impact	s depend on the environmental policy
instruments used
In the Nordic countries 	CO	2 emissions from transportation and some other sectors are
taxed through	 fuel taxes, and in some countries also through purchase taxes on
vehicles. Furthermore, 	CO	2 emissions from aviation, electricity, car and building

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	9
material production and most other production activities are covered by the EU
emissions trading scheme ETS,	 which also comprises Iceland and Norway. Thus, if for
instance e	missions from aviation increase	, emissions from other sectors covered by
the trading scheme will be reduced to keep overall emissions within the total cap	,
assuming that the cap is effective,	 which it hasn’t always been	.
W	hen countries have introduced cost 	efficient	 climate change	 policies, where all 	CO	2
and other GHG emissions have the same price either through a tax or emissions
trading system, people are faced with a price on emissions, s	o that this is taken into
account when they make their choices on what to spend their money on.
But not all CO	2e emissions are covered by taxes or EU ETS. Most of the policy
measures cover only CO	2, and not other GHG	s. Goods imported from outside the EEA
are often not covered by any emissions regulations, for instance does the EU ETS only
cover intra	-EEA flights. 	But this could change in the future, since countries outside the
EEA area could eventually take actions aga	inst 	CO	2 emissions.
Road 	transport	 is an important contributor to problems related to local air pollution,
noise, road congestion and accidents, and these problems mostly occur in (larger)
cities. As far as the sharing initiatives lead to less driving in 	cities they would have
positive impacts on these problems. Carpooling and sharing might make congestion
regulations etc. more efficient by offering alternatives to driving alone in private cars.
Even if 	the traffic	 isn’t reduced substantially, car sharing 	initiatives might contribute to
improved air quality by speeding up the introduction of low and zero emission cars.
In the long run impacts from the sharing economy initiatives might be somewhat
different	 from today	. If we all in some years drive in zero 	emission, (self	-driven) cars,
car transport will no longer contribute to CO	2e emissions and reduced local air quality.
The sharing initiatives could 	become an element in an integrated, intermodal transport
system	. One can imagine that in the future persona	l cars are no longer common, at
least in cities, and that fleets of autonomous electric vehicles provide transportation
with higher levels of service, faster rides and increased safety at a far lower price than
today’s individually owned cars. These fleets	 could include a wide variety of vehicle
types, sizes and configurations that meet every kind of consumer needs. But in cities
there could still be problems related to congestion and eventually noise, which would
have to be dealt with.
Sharing initiative	s should be 	facilitated	, and	 all emissions should be priced	 or
regulated
Sharing economy initiatives could yield considerable benefits to consumers, and might
also improve the overall efficiency of the economy, leading to better/more use of
existing cars, 	dwellings and other goods, and reduced production of new units.
Authorities should take the opportunity to go through various regulations to see if there
are some (un	-necessary) ones that are hampering the introduction of sharing
initiatives, and eventuall	y could be removed.
More efficient use of the resources through sharing initiatives could also contribute to
environmental benefits, but this 	depends on how people 	change their behavior and
spend their savings from using the initiatives	. But if all 	GHG	 emissions 	faces a high
price, and local environmental challenges are regulated properly, sharing initiatives
should contribute to higher consumer benefits and a more efficient economy 	at least
without harming the environment.

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
10	 	 	Vista Analyse
1.	 Introduction
In this 	chapter we present the background for the study.
1.1	 The sharing economy and the environment
The concept of «sharing economy» has become a buzzword for 	(new) digital
connections between single persons and/or legal persons facilitating exchange of
services and	/or sharing of goods, property, resources, competence or capital through
digital platforms. There is no distinct definition of the 	«sharing economy concept	», but
there are some broad characteristic features that are often used to recognize the
sharing econ	omy when one sees it. The essence in the definition seems to be that
through using (new) digital platforms one is able to create new market opportunities
and business models for more effective utilization of goods like dwellings, cars, tools,
and easier pr	ovide services like personal care, garden care, house repair etc. by
reducing transaction costs and making the goods and services more available through
larger networks. This could ultimately lead to less private ownership of goods, if people
can instead r	ent or borrow goods from others.
The various initiatives could be separated into the following categories:
 	Consumer to consumer (C2C), also called Peer to peer (P2P): connections
between persons/households
 	Business to consumers (B2C): Connections between 	companies and
persons
 	Business to business (B2B): Connections between companies.

Most of the focus of the sharing economy has so far been on the first two types of
connections. 	Airbnb is an example of 	offering 	C2C conne	ctions to share
accommodation,	 	whil	e 	Hotels.co	m and Bookings.com are examples of B2C
connections of accommodation. B2B has so far perhaps had little focus, but offer great
potential.
In public debate there seems to be a perception that the concept of sharing economy is
positive for the env	ironment, contributing to reduced emissions and reduced use of
scarce resources etc.	 As an example, car sharing initiatives give families car access
without owning their own car. This could reduce global car production and thus save
CO	2 and other emissions	. While this may show the “first order” impacts of some
initiatives, one has to take into account the so	-called “rebound effects”, or price and
income effects from the sharing economy. 	If the price of a good or service is reduced
because of sharing economy	 initiatives, people tend to want more of it. 	In our example,
some families will have cheaper and easier access to cars and thus drive more than
they would otherwise do, thus increasing emissions. 	This is the price effect (rebound
through price). Besides, 	some of the expenses saved from the lowered price will likely
be used to buy other goods and services, this is the income effect (rebound through
income	 or indirect rebound effect	). 	Families saving money from not having their own
car might use (some of) th	e money saved for instance to fly on vacation abroad,
contributing to increased 	CO	2 emissions. 	This increased consumption will imply
increased environmental burdens, which might partly or fully offset the initial emission
reductions.

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	11
Similarly, access to cheaper accommodation in private homes could imply that people
travel more, leading to increased emissions. However, in the longer run these
initiatives could lead to reduced need for new hotels, thus contributing to offset wholly
or p	artly the initial emission increases.
These examples show that the total environmental impacts from the various sharing
economy initiatives are hard to predict and calculate. 	However, some	 studies have
analyzed this, and our attempt through this proposal 	is to provide an 	overview of the
results that are most relevant in a Nordic perspective	 with some examples of what the
total environmental impacts might be for some of the main C2C and B2C initiatives.
1.2	 Our analy	sis
Our attempt ha	s been to 	give an overview of 	some 	current sharing economy initiatives
in the Nordic countries, 	analyze	 the chang	e in consumer behavior that these 	initiatives
could lead to	, and assess what environmental impacts these changes might imply	. We
have focused on	 the following four segments of the sharing economy:
 	Transportation	: Various car sharing initiati	ves with or without driver, car	pooling,
transportation of goods and similar
 	Housing/accommodation	: Access to cheap	 accommodation in private homes	.
 	Othe	r, smaller capital goods: 	This could comprise a large variety of machines
and tools that consumers coul	d borrow/rent instead of buying	.
 	Services	: This is a large group covering various activities related to personal
services 	at site or online	.
1.3	 Content and outline of the report
In chapter 2 	we give an 	overview of the 	properties of the 	sharing e	conomy in the
Nordic countries, starting by defining the sharing economy and the division into the four
main 	segments	 described above. 	Chapter 3 	presents some current sharing economy
initiatives in the Nordic countries. In chapter 4 	we go through various studies analyzing
potential environmental impacts of these sharing economy initiatives, focusing on
numerical examples covering the main se	gments.	 Chapter 5	 summarizes the mai	n
findings, and discuss	es	 what political impacts (if any) these should lead to.
Our main attention	 has been 	on 	greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions noted as 	CO	2e
(carbon dioxide equivalent) emissions	, since these are the environmen	tal problem
most focused on globally. Besides, 	the availability	 of data make	s it relatively easy to
analyze impacts on 	CO	2 emissions through the whole value chain from production to
use and waste treatment compared to other environmental problems. However,	 we
have	 to the extent possible also 	tried to 	look at the impacts on other pollutants, such as
impacts	 on local air quality (PM, NOx), noise etc. 	to get a broader picture of the
environmental impacts.	 But lack of data has made it difficult to give a good, 	overall
picture of t	hese impacts.

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	13
2.	 The 	properties of the sharing economy
2.1	 Introduction
In 	this	 chapter	 we 	define	 the sharing economy and how we divide it into four main
segments	 in this report. Then we go through the main advantages with the sharing
economy compared to more traditional ways of production	 and consumption	.
The definitions and to some extent the overv	iew is partly based a study of the sharing
economy in Norway that was done by Vista Analyse for the Norwegian Ministry of
Local Government and Modernization in 2016	, see Vista Analyse (2016)	.
2.2	 What is the sharing economy?
How one defines the sharing economy	 will be important to the results of our analysis.
There is a gliding scale of initiatives that can be counted as part of the sharing
economy depending on what boundaries 	one	 set	s for the definition	, but there is a core
of initiatives which most people thi	nk of as part of the sharing economy. We find it
useful to group the sharing initiatives according to how close to the center of the
definition they fall.
Different definitions in the literature
The Wikipedia page on the sharing economy gives a good 	introduction to the term:
«Sharing economy is an umbrella term with a range of meanings, often used to
describe economic and social activity involving online transactions. Originally
growing out of the open	-source community to refer to peer	-to-peer based
sharing of access to goods and services, the term is now sometimes used in a
broader sense to describe any sales transactions that are done via online
market places, even ones that are business to consumer, rather than peer	-to-
peer. For this reason, the te	rm sharing economy has been criticized as
misleading, some arguing that even services that enable peer	-to-peer exchange
can be primarily profit	-driven. However, many commentators assert that the
term is still valid as a means of describing a generally more	 democratized
marketplace, even when it's applied to a broader spectrum of services.”
(“Sharing Economy”, 2017)
The sharing economy has no precise and universally accepted definition. Even though
people use it differently and there is strong disagreement a	bout the use of it as a term,
it has become widespread. The sharing economy relates to many things, and the
ambiguity of the label reflects the ambiguity of the subject matter. As one tries to define
its meaning, one finds that there are many things relate	d to the subject that needs to
be described and understood.
In the invitation to the open tender for this project on the environmental impact and
potential of the “sharing economy” from The Nordic Council of Ministers, the sharing
economy is described as 	follows:
“The concept of a "sharing economy" has recently emerged to give name to
digital platforms (smartphone applications with associated websites and
databases) for exchange of services. The most prominent examples are private
dwellings used as hotel r	ooms (Airbnb) and transport services by private cars
(Uber). This is different from ordinary e	-commerce with goods, and usually

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
14	 	 	Vista Analyse
C2C	-based (Consumer	-to-Consumer) while most e	-commerce is B2C	-based
(Business	-to-Consumer), but this division is not at all clea	r-cut. Some of these
business models have expanded rapidly after the introduction of smartphones,
e.g. Apple's iPhone and a large range of Android	-based models, since 2007.
The term "sharing economy" is often used to include examples both commercial
and th	ose based on genuine sharing; the first category could more
appropriately be called "exchange economy". Genuinely free, cooperative
sharing has solid digital traditions (e.g. Linux, the Gutenberg project,
Wikipedia), and several examples of true "sharing e	conomy" networks (or
"collaborative consumption", in EU parlance) exist. The best	-known examples
(above) are however, new business models, where the "new" element is a
digital platform based on smartphone applications. "Sharing economy"
("delingsøkonomi") 	is thus a misnomer for this broader category of "sharing"
networks and profit	-based business models. Car sharing schemes as well as
digital platforms for Consumer	-to-Consumer exchange of second	-hand products
(such as eBay, or Finn.no in Norway) also belong	 in this larger, broader
category, for which this, somewhat misleading, term has	 now become
established usage.” 	(The Nordic Council of Ministers, 2016)
The Nordic Council of Ministers points out that the sharing economy has become a
name for a broad catego	ry of “sharing” networks and profit	-based business models.
They use a quite broad definition, claiming that the sharing economy 	is digital platforms
for exchange of services.	 This addresses two important characteristics. That the
activity happens across di	gital platforms	, and that there is an exchange of services (not
goods). However, many services are bought and sold over digital platforms, and most
of them are not part of what most people associate with the sharing economy. Flight
tickets, hotel rooms, pu	blic transportation tickets, taxi rides etc. can be bought
on/through digital platforms. In fact, most industries today have some online presence
and the possibility of buying their 	products or services on	 those platforms.
There is no definition which is 	precise enough to include all the aspects one wishes to
include and at the same time encompasses only the initiatives people usually think of
as part of the sharing economy.	 There is a spectrum of initiatives that can be part of
the sharing economy dependi	ng on the limits you draw, but there is a core of initiatives
that most people recognize as part of the sharing economy, for example Airbnb, Uber
etc. These businesses	 have certain characteristics: t	hey are critically dependent on a
digital platform, the p	latform ensures matching of people and lowering of transaction
costs, and leads to better resource utilization. The services are often peer	-to-peer,
meaning that 	they are	 decentralized and people can be producers as well as
consumers of the services. There	 are rating systems that ensure trust and quality.
The new business model of these companies is based on a third	-party model, see
Figure 	2.1. The sharing economy init	iative is just a “middle man”. They simply put
people in touch with each other through their digital platform. The platform lowers the
transaction costs and makes transactions, that earlier were not being made, possible
and profitable. The sharing economy 	initiative	s do not own the capital or offer the
services, they simply tap into the large pool of unused or underutilized goods	, time and
knowledge.

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	15
Figure 	2.1 The third	-party business model of sharing economy	 companies	.

Source: Vista Analyse
The sharing economy allows for people to rent instead of owning things, such as cars,
or to get help with tasks, while creating an opportunity for other people to make money
from their idle possessions or talents.
When 	trying to define the sharing economy one soon finds that there is a problem with
limiting what should fall within the definition. The Wikipedia page on The Sharing
Economy says that there are a number of attempts at defining the sharing economy,
from the n	arrow to the wide:
A variety of definitions exist. "The people who share" is one of the broadest
definitions, which encompasses the on	-demand economy, the gig economy,
social media, and a great deal else. Academic definitions tend to be narrower,
limiting	 the sharing economy to only peer	-to-peer transactions, and sometimes
further limiting the definition to only peer to peer transactions that relate to the
temporary exchange of physical goods.	1 Another set of narrow definitions used
by free culture activis	ts, members of the co	-operative movement and similar,
excludes for	-profit companies from the sharing economy, even if they facilitate
just peer to peer transactions. Sometimes called the "real" or "true" sharing
economy, organisations that operate within s	uch definitions are mostly small and
localist, run by volunteers on a cooperative basis, though sometimes also by
governments and municipal authorities. They can include some organisations
that operate without online transactions, such as bike kitchens. Th	e "true" sharing
economy does include some large internationally available web sites however,
such as Freecycle	. (“Sharing Economy”, 2017)
“The people who share”	 is according to Wikipedia the wide definition, while the
transacti	ons between private individu	als	 and the renting of physical objects/capital are
elements in a narrower definition. An even narrower definition excludes transactions by
a for	-profit agent.
Organizations, movements, websites and bloggers are interested in the sharing
economy and have 	suggested definitions. Ouishare presents them	-/itself as “The think

1 Here Wikipedia references a report by Goudin (2016).
Platform
Demand	 	Supply

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
16	 	 	Vista Analyse
and be	-tank for a collaborative society”, and defines the collaborative economy as
follows	1:
The collaborative economy is defined as initiatives based on horizontal networks
and 	participation of a community. It is built on "distributed power and trust within
communities as opposed to centralized institutions" (R. Botsman), blurring the
lines between producer and consumer. These communities meet and interact on
online networks and 	peer	-to-peer platforms, as well as in shared spaces such as
fablabs and coworking spaces.
This definition puts emphasis on digital platforms and other spaces where people
switch between being a producer and a consumer.
Another organization or movement is 	The People Who Share, whose goal is “to
mainstream the sharing economy worldwide”. Their definition is quite wide	2:
The Sharing Economy is a socio	-economic ecosystem built around the sharing of
human, physical and intellectual resources. (…)
A Sharing Econ	omy enables different forms of value exchange and is a hybrid
economy. It encompasses the following aspects: swapping, exchanging,
collective purchasing, collaborative consumption, shared ownership, shared
value, co	-operatives, co	-creation, recycling, upcy	cling, re	-distribution, trading
used goods, renting, borrowing, lending, subscription based models, peer	-to-
peer, collaborative economy, circular economy, on	-demand economy, gig
economy, crowd economy, pay	-as	-you	-use economy, wikinomics, peer	-to-peer
lendi	ng, micro financing, micro	-entrepreneurship, social media, the Mesh, social
enterprise, futurology, crowdfunding, crowdsourcing, cradle	-to-cradle, open
source, open data, user generated content (UGC) and public services.
We presume that the ecosystem signa	lizes a system where the agents, primarily
private individuals, are dependent on each other and change between being producers
and consumers.
There has also been written several books on the topic. 	(Gansky, 2010)	 touches upon
many of the central aspects of later definitions when she writes:
1. The core offering is something that can be shared, within a community, market,
or value chain, including products, services, and raw materials. 2. Advanced Web
and mobile data networks ar	e used to track goods and aggregate usage, customer,
and product information. 3. The focus is on shareable physical goods, including the
materials used, which makes local delivery of services and products	—	and their
recovery	—	valuable and relevant. 4. Offers	, news, and recommendations are
transmitted largely through word of mouth, augmented by social network services.
In his book, 	(Stephany, 2015)	 puts it simply:

1 http://ouishare.net/en/about/collaborative_economy 	 	2 The defini	tion is written by Benita Matofska, Chief Sharer i	n The People Who Share.

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	17
The sharing economy is the value in taking underutilized assets and 	making
them accessible online to a community, leading to a reduced need for ownership
of those assets.
In his book, 	(Sundararajan, 2016)	 identifies five points in his definition of the sharing
economy:
1. Largely market	-based: the sharing economy creates markets that enable the
exchange of goods and the emergence of new services, resulting in potentially
higher levels of economic activity.
2. High	-impact capital: the sharing economy opens new opportunities fo	r
everything, from assets and skills to time and money, to be used at levels closer
to their full capacity.
3. Crowd	-based “networks” rather than centralized institutions or “hierarchies”: the
supply of capital and labor comes from decentralized crowds of in	dividuals
rather than corporate or state aggregates; future exchange may be mediated by
distributed crowd	-based marketplaces rather than by centralized third parties.
4. Blurring lines between the personal and the professional: the supply of labor
and servic	es often commercializes and scales peer	-to-peer activities like giving
someone a ride or lending someone money, activities which used to be
considered “personal.”
5. Blurring lines between fully employed and casual labor, between independent
and dependent em	ployment, between work and leisure: many traditionally full	-
time jobs are supplanted by contract work that features a continuum of levels of
time commitment, granularity, economic dependence, and entrepreneurship.
From the core of the definition to its fri	nges
Our summary of the definitions above is that they all gravitate around Gansky’s three
first points 	– the kind of object and services that are shared, characteristics of those
that share them and the use of digital platforms as means of facilitating 	the sharing.
A possible way of thinking about this in a practical manner is by dividing the activities in
the sharing economy in categories or circles, see 	Figure 	2.2.

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
18	 	 	Vista Analyse
Figure 	2.2 Different circles of The Sharing Economy	.

Source: Vista Analyse	 (2016)
In the inner circle, we find initiatives that most people agree are in the sharing
economy. They are characterized by th	eir new business model which is critically
dependent on digital platforms and that facilitate sharing or renting of capital between
private individuals. The initiative, however, can be a company (Airbnb, Uber etc.). We
recognize these companies as part of 	the sharing economy when we see them.
In the second most inner circle we place facilitation of services other than capital,
especially labor and/or skills. An example is WeClean, who facilitates cleaning
services. For many more examples	, see Chapter 	3. In 	this circle, we also include legal
persons/companies on the supply or demand side.
In the third circle from the center we place older companies that utilize new technology
and digital platforms. Here there are a lot of examples. Finn.no, the established t	axi
companies, car rental companies etc. Activities where the public sector is central on
the supply side is also part of this circle. This includes for example bike sharing in
some cities.
In the fourth circle from the center we have companies that meet 	the formal definitions
of sharing economy in the chapter above, but are not part of our understanding of the
sharing economy. This could be because they are largely dominated by companies,
they are old/have traditional business models and not critically de	pendent on the digital
platform. Examples of this can be public transportation, hotels.com and online courses
(including massive open online courses, MOOCs).
Everything else that 	satisfies the definition of the sharing economy
Existing companies
Skills/know 	how/competence
Legal 	persons/companies
Capital
Private individuals
New business model
Critically dependent on digital plattforms

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	19
We focus on the two inner circles
In our study of the 	sharing economy initi	atives in the Nordic co	untries we focus on the
two inner circles and their 	environmental	 effects. This entails that we study initiatives
that:
 	Enable the exchange of services from capital or human capital
 	Enable the exchange of services between private individuals and/or compani	es
 	Are critically dependent on a digital platform
A practical reason for including companies is that initiatives that formally facilitated
services between private individuals, over time have got a larger part of companies on
both the supply and demand sid	e. For example, more and more companies are
accepting stays at Airbnb and transportation with Uber as travel expenses.
The limit of our focus on the two inner circles excludes initiative	s that are not obvious.
Amongst other things we exclude sharing initi	atives run by established old companies.
The rationale behind this is not strictly principal, but rather that old companies are not
perceived by many as part of the sharing economy.
We choose not to focus on financial services including peer	-to-peer lendi	ng and
crowdfunding. We also exclude streaming of music, videos and digital books and
magazines. These are information goods that are of a different character than other
goods and services. This includes libraries which also 	are	 public provider	s on the
sup	ply side.
Categorizing of the sharing economy initiatives
We find it useful to divide the services from capital in the main categories housing and
property on one side and car and transport on the other. In addition, we have services
and a residual category for all the other initiatives. Furthermore, we have crea	ted
subcategories in each of the main categories. See 	Figure 	2.3 for an overview of the
sharing economy categories.
Figure 	2.3 The sharing e	conomy categories	.

The Sharing
Economy in the
Nordic countries
Car and
transport
Personal
transportation,
with driver
Personal
transportation,
without driver
Transportation
of
goods/products
Housing and
property
Private housing
Business
property and
venues
Services
Location	-bound
Nonlocation	-
bound
Other
Small capital
goods
Other

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
20	 	 	Vista Analyse
Source: Vista Analyse (201	6)
2.3	 Advantages of the sharing activities
In this subchapter, we present the advantages of the sharing economy	 in the market. It
is 	useful to understand theoretical mechanisms that drive 	the sharing economy’s
success. We will also briefly discuss some of the challenges and potential downsides
of the sharing economy.
Advantages of the sharing economy activities
 	Price	: t	he sharing economy services are offered at a lower price, which make
the	m interesting for the customers.
 	Cost	: t	he low price has its origin in the fact that the services are cost efficient.
They use information to match supply and demand in ways that lead to better
resource utilization. This involves a cost saving compared to 	having to offer the
services themselves.
 	Quality	: t	he sharing economy services are, to many customers, better than
traditional alternatives. The services are based on applications (digital
platforms) that have attractive functionalities, such as rating, o	verview of offers,
customization, simple payment solution etc.
 	Culture	: f	or some costumers, the sharing economy’s cultural connotations are
important. They like that the sharing economy can lead to lower environmental
impacts, that they challenge the trad	itional companies that may have too much
power and/or bad service, that they erase the division between producer and
consumer and that they induce a feeling of community.
 	Transaction costs	: t	he application does not only have functions to improve the
quality of the service. Probably the most important function, as with payment
options and smart telephones etc., is making more transactions feasible.
People with underutilized resources can, through the app, connect with
costumers with a need for that exa	ct thing. This makes it possible to deliver
efficient services to a low price and of high quality/culture (in other words the
four first bullet points).
 	Contagion	: b	ecause the sharing economy challenges the traditional economy,
technological and cost	-effic	ient solutions may be adopted by the traditional
companies.
We can capture all the advantages of the sharing economy activities in quality and
cost, based on technology.
It is	 useful to isolate the effects of lower cost and higher quality before we study t	he
combined effect. We first study the effect of lower costs and assume that the quality of
services is the same for all providers, see 	Figure 	2.4. We assume that the	 sharing
economy service is qualitatively equal to that of a traditional provider, but that sharing
economy service has a lower cost of provision. The cost of the sharing economy
service includes both the cost of the provider of the service and the platfor	m, i.e. Airbnb
etc. The opportunity cost of labor is also included. Since all the services are of the
same quality, there is only one price in this market.

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	21
Figure 	2.4 The effect of	 lower cost of the service 	provided	.

Source: Vista Analyse (2016)
In a theoretical model of this market, a new provider that can offer the service to a
lower price, creates a downward shift in the supply curve. The shift leads to a lower
price and	 a large	r quantity of transactions. The new provider will take some market
share from the incumbents (m) and partly generate new activity in the market (n). How
much of their business is taken from others and how much is generated by new
transactions depen	d on the slope of the curves.
An important prediction from this model is that the price will go down in this market.
There is evidence of this happening in the markets where sharing economy initiatives
have had considerable success. This has for example be	en the case in many cities
after Uber and other taxi	-like services have been introduced: the new service has
lowered the price, and incumbents have lost c	usto	mers to the new ride hailing apps. At
the same time the market has increased, but the market share of the new initiatives
has increased more.
The model predicts the relationship between price reduction, increase in volume and
cost saving. The cost saving 	comes from the fact that the new services can utilize
underutilized capital and human capital. The gain in productivity is represented by the
downward shift in the supply curve, equal to the distance 	s in 	Figure 	2.4. The market
price is not reduced by the same amount	, meaning that the gain in productivity is
shared between the consumers (who get a lower price) and the producers who can
convert some of the gain in produc	tivity into profits.
We now turn to the other case, where the price is equal but the quality of the sharing
economy service is higher, see 	Figure 	2.5. In this case, th	ere is a positive shift in the
demand curve, since the consumers are willing to pay more for the service because of
its higher quality. In this case, the price increases as well as the quantity of services
sold. The sharing economy increases the market (n)	 as well as takes part of the
incumbents’ business (m). The rise in willingness to pay is shared between the
consumers (as increased benefit) and producers (increased profits).
Price
Quantity
s
m

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
22	 	 	Vista Analyse
Figure 	2.5 The effect of 	highe	r quality in the service provided	.

Source: Vista Analyse (2016)
The combined effect of lower costs and increased quality is illustrated in 	Figure 	2.6.
Figure 	2.6 The effect of both lower cost and higher quality	.

Source: 	Vista Analyse (2016)
The effect on the price in the market (down in the case of lower cost, up in the case of
higher quality) tends to offset each other so that the price does not change
dramatically. The effect on the quantity in both cases leads to a hig	her quantity of
services sold. In the theoretical example in 	Figure 	2.6, the price goes down a little and
Price
Quantity
m

New price
Old price
Price
Quantity
A
B
Traditional
economy
Sharing economy

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	23
the quantity increases a lot. This entails that some of the i	ncumbents are forced out of
the market since they cannot compete with the new competit	ors	. But the majority of the
service providers exist side by side with the sharing economy in this market	, which has
now grown considerably.
The revenue of the sharing e	conomy is equal to the area A + B in the figure. The
wealth creation is equal to the area A, which is the revenue minus the costs, B. The
effect of lower cost and higher quality on price and quantity depends on the slope of
the supply and demand curves.
The impact of the sharing economy on the Nordic economies
It is not clear whether the sharing economy will give 	higher or lower prices. Our
impression is that the sharing economy’s effect on cost has been bigger than the effect
on quality. In other words, t	he sharing economy has generally led to lower prices. This
is for example the case for the large initiatives in the markets for transport and housing.
If it was quality that dominated, the sharing economy would lead to higher prices in the
market.
To what	 extent the sharing economy takes market shares from existing companies and
to what extent it expands the market is closely related to the effect it has on the market
price. When the price go	es	 down, parts of the existing market are taken by the sharing
economy. All else equal, the more the price go	es	 down, the larger market share the
sharing economy takes. In the interviews with sharing economy companies in Norway
(Vista Analyse, 2016), many cl	aimed they did not take business from incumbents but
rather created new markets and reached new c	usto	mers. The companies in the
traditional economy may disagree with this. In the theoretical framework, the sharing
economy companies	’ claim is that the deman	d curve is price elastic. If the demand
curve is price elastic, one would expect a small change in price. If the effect on price is
small, then a price inelastic supply curve is what would lead to a small change the
market share of the incumbents.
Whethe	r or not the sharing economy is taking business from the incumbents depends
partly on how much the price changes and how inelastic the supply curve is. We do not
know the empirical estimates of the supply curve in for example the taxi or hotel market
in th	e Nordic countries. We expect it to be more inelastic in the short term than the long
term. In the short term, many of the companies on the supply side, for example hotels
and taxi drivers, will continue as usual even if their income goes down. In the long	 term
however, they adjust by not b	uilding new hotels or finding 	new job	s instead of driving a
taxi.
Economic growth will also affect the market shares, in absolute terms. But in relative
terms the competition between the sharing economy and the traditiona	l economy
remains the same. Meaning that the sharing economy could be taking business from
the incumbents even as the incumbent	’s revenue increases, because their revenue
might have been larger if the sharing economy was not there and there was still
econo	mic growth.
The sharing economy is characterized by having network effects. This entails that the
benefit depends on others use of the platform. There could be network effects from one
initiative controlling the whole market by everyone using their platfo	rm as a
marketplace. This depends on whether the market is able to realize the network
effects. There is reason to believe that the network effects differ from market to market.

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
24	 	 	Vista Analyse
Figure 	2.7 The case of little	 competition with existing companies	.

Source: Vista Analyse (2016)
Explanation: In the figure, we have assumed that the demand curve has not shifted
since the effect on price seems to dominate. 	However, we have assumed an elastic
demand curve. Given the effect on price, the market share taken from the incumbents
by the sharing economy is smaller the steeper the original supply curve is around the
earlier market point	.
To what extent the initiativ	es compete with traditio	nal initiatives is an empirical
question. In the 2016 study of the sharing economy in Norway we did not have enough
data to pinpoint the number in each segment. However, we found evidence that there
were two effects; the new 	initiatives where creating new costumers/expanding the
market, as well as taking c	usto	mers away from traditional companies. We could not
say how large the effects were, but the experts in the panel of that study expect	ed	 the
sharing economy’s share of the 	economy	 to rise (Vista Analyse, 2016).
There are several factors that affect the market development of the sharing economy:
 	Preferences/attitudes.	 Preferences/attitudes toward th	e modern sharing
economy affect	 the size of the sharing economy. This would en	tail a shift in the
demand curve	, and if it is positive would lead to higher demand (but also to
higher prices).
 	Technological development.	 Technological development of sharing economy
platforms affects the size of the sharing economy. It affects the shif	t in the
supply curve, since better technology would lead to lower costs.
 	Public regulations	. Public regulations of the sharing economy and the mar	kets
they operate within affect	 the sharing economy. If the sharing economy is
regulated more harshly, the s	ize of the shift in the supply curve will likely be
smaller since they lose some of their cost advantage.
 	Unemployment and inequality.	 Unemployment a	nd inequality in society affect
the size of the sharing economy. Unemployment reduces the opportunity cost of
offering your time and skills in the sharing economy. It would increase the shift
in the supply curve. Inequality could, all else equal, lead to an increase in
Price
Quantity
Old price
New price
m

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	25
individuals that 	are dependent on economizing on their resources. This could
increase the sharing economy through a shift in the supply and demand curve.
In 	the Nordic countries	, the unemployment is low and inequality is small, but
this could change with immigration, educa	tion, the system for wage
negotiations, taxes and the general societal development.
 	Urbanization.	 The degree of urbanization affects the size of the sharing
economy. Both the demand curve 	(through the accessibility of costumers etc.)
and the supply curve 	(through the accessibility of cars etc.)	 could shift
outwards. A	n article by Cohen and Kietzmann (2014) emphasizes this in the
transportation market. In 	the Nordic countries	 people live relatively spread out
compared to other countries, but urbanization is	 rising also here. This could
over time increase the market for the sharing economy.
Possible negative effects of the sharing economy
The sharing economy might have negative effects on the economies they are a part of.
The negative effects relate to how th	e sharing economy fits into to the current rules and
regulations. The sharing economy might affect	:
 	Worker	’s rights
 	Consumer	’s rights
 	Taxation
 	Private information/personal data
We have referred to the fact that sharing economy initiatives can offer 	services at a low
price. This is because of the utilization of underutilized resources. However, there
might also be cost savings related to the service not being/fully being taxed, or
because rules regarding competition, rights or personal information are	 not being
followed.	1
Many of the initiatives do not fit clearly into the current regulatory framework. When the
initiatives are small this might not be a big problem, but as the initiatives grow, the
companies and the lawmakers have to solve what rules an	d regulations apply and
how. The 	fact that the transactions take	 place on digital platforms make	s taxation and
regulation easier that with traditional businesses.
It seems	 that so far	 many sharing economy initiatives are regulated lighter than their
tradit	ional counterparts. For example, hotels must comply with more ru	les than a host
on Airbnb. W	heth	er this is right, or whether they should be put under more strict
regulation is up to the governments of each country	 to decide	. Another opportunity is
that the	 introduction of these new actors	 may change the current regulation for the
incumbents. The new competition may challenge outdated regulations or unfair marke	t
advantages in some markets and in that way, introduce new	, healthy competition.
There has been 	some	 pushback in 	the Nordic countries	 because of fear that the 	new
companies do not comply with legal standards and/or that they undermine the legal
and regulatory standards. The future of the sharing economy depends on many
factors, such as cultural and l	egal developments. However, the business model and
the 	technological capabilities provide	 a clear advantage f	or some form of sharing
economy.

1 A working document by Einav et.al. (2016) reviews some of these aspects in more depth.

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
26	 	 	Vista Analyse
3.	 Nordic sharing economy initiatives
In this chapter, we give an overview and a description of some of the sharing 	economy
initiatives in the Nordic countries. We present the different markets and describe some
of the international companies as well as initiatives from the Nordic countries in each
segment.
3.1	 The Norw	egian study
In our study of the Norwegian sharing econo	my from 2016, we identified around 50
initiatives in Norway (Vista Analyse, 2016). Most of the initiatives where founded within
the previous 2	-3 years. We estimated that the sharing economy revenue was around
500 million NOK in 2015. This is approximately 	0.16 per mille of the total Norwegian
economy (GDP) in 2015. Furthermore, in collaboration with a panel of experts, we
estimated that the sharing economy 	could have a revenue of 42 billion NOK in 2025.
This is approximately 	1.1 	percent of the	 expected tota	l Norwegian economy in 202	51.
This entails a growth of around 60 percent a year for the sharing economy in Norway
(Vista Analyse, 2016)	.
We found the largest part of the sharing economy to be in the housing market and the
transportation market, with Airbnb and Uber being the most prominent companies.
Most of the companies 	are	 commercial, in the sense tha	t people using the platform pay
for t	he services they receive	 and that the company behind the platform 	is for	-profit.
However, there are some initiatives that are non	-commercial. Some initiatives are
idealistically motivated and want to promote true sharing without any form of payment.
Probab	ly the largest and most successful of this kind is Couchsurfing, but usually these
initiatives tend to be rather small. Another non	-commercial model is the co	-ownership
model. There are for example four large car collectives in Norway. Here the members
pay	 for use, but only as a way of covering costs, since the initiative is a non	-profit one.
The sharing economy business model, with a company running a digital platform that
connects suppl	y and demand, typically produces	 few but large winners and many small
challengers. The challengers are often new companies, with little or no profit. Out of
the 50 sharing economy companies identified in the Norwegian study, the majority had
very little revenue. 12 companies had more than 5 mill. NOK in revenue, while the
largest company had 200 million NOK in revenue in 2015. The reason is that there are
network externalities, meaning that the platforms are a form of natural monopolies,
where the value of the service depends on the number of people using it. There are
some 	prominent companies, however most of the sharing economy initiatives are small
and will probably disappear since there is likely just going to be one large player in
each 	market.	 Some initiatives are international, however there were mo	stly	 Norwegian
initi	atives in the study	 (Vista Analyse, 2016)	.

1 Assuming the total Norwegian economy grows by 2 percent per year from 2015 to 2025

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	27
3.2	 The sharing economy in the Nordic countries
We have identified	 around one hundred sharing economy initiatives in the Nordic
countries. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but gives	 an idea of the size and
range of sharing economy initiatives that are active in the Nordic countries today.
Figure 	3.1	 gives an overview of the identified companies in each 	segment	. The housing
segment is probably the largest segment of the sharing economy in terms of economic
activity. Airbnb has established itself as the biggest company and has activities in all
the Nor	dic counties. There are most companies in the car and transportation segment.
This is a segment with a valuable capital good that is underutilized	, and there are many
different types of transportation services. There are also many sharing economy
initiativ	es in the services segment. Some facilitate services of all kinds, while others are
focused on one area or type of service. The segment containing the initiatives that do
not fall under any of the other segments include facilitation of small capital goods,
parking and food related sharing.

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
28	 	 	Vista Analyse
Figure 	3.1	 Overview of 	some	 identified companies in each 	segment	 in the Nordic
countries.
Source: Vista Analyse
Car and transportation
 •Personal transportation, with driver	 	•Uber	 	•Haxi	 	•Whim	 	•UbiGo	 	•Personal transportation, without driver	 	•Bilkollektivet	 	•Bildeleringen	 	•Trondheim bilkollektiv	 	•DanskeDeleBiler •CityCarClub	 	•Hertz bilpool	 	•Move About	 	•Sunfleet	 	•DriveNow	 	•Samferda	 	•GreenRiders	 	•Kimppa.net	 	•Mobilsamåkning.se	 	•Samåkning.se	 	•Skjutsgruppen.nu •GoMore	 	•LetsGo	 	•Snappcar	 	•Kortteliauto/Shareitbloxcar	 	•Nabobil	 	•Sambil	 	•DriveBack	 	•Transfercar4u/returbil	 	•Boatflex	 	•Nabobåt	 	•Transportation og goods	 	•Foodora	 	•Nimber	 	•CarryCut	 	•Sociotransit	 	•BagHitch
Housing and property
 	 •Private housing	 	•Airbnb	 	•Couchsurfing	 	•HomeExchange •Homii	 	•Qasa	 	•Workspace/Venue •Eventum	 	•Resecond	 	•Vennuu	 	•Hacklab	 	•Hoffice	 	•WorkAround	 	•DeskDoubler	 	•Meetrd
Services
 •DenLilleTjeneste	 	•Meploy	 	•Freelanceri	 	•Microtask	 	•Ventoura	 	•Finn småjobber	 	•Zappy	 	•Jobbr	 	•WeClean	 	•Freska Norge	 	•Konsus	 	•Graphiq	 	•Corso 	 	•Domytask	 	•HinnerDu	 	•TaskRunner	 	•eWork	 	•Fliffr 	 	•QuestionMe 	 	•TechBuddy 	 	•Triple 	 	•Universal Avenue 	 	•Vint	 	•Yepstr 	 	•DogBuddy
Other
 •ShareOne	 	•Lejdet	 	•iRent	 	•Kuinoma	 	•Vaaralainaamo	 	•Leieting	 	•Plendit	 	•Peerby	 	•Fjong	 	•SkyLib	 	•Belco	 	•Shareware	 	•Lånegarderoben	 	•Delbar	 	•Rentl	 	•GrannSaker	 	•Vpark	 	•Space	 	•Vigga	 	•CookWithALocal	 	•Resterant	 	•Grabster	 	•Too good to og	 	•Eat in Common	 	•EatWith	 	•Airdine	 	•Invitationsdepartementet	 	•Deemlu	 	•Sharetribe

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	29
Figure 	3.2	 Overview of 	some	 identified companies in each 	of the 	Nordic countries.

Source: Vista Analyse

Denmark (Faroe Islands, Greenland)
 •Car and transportation	 	•Without driver	 	•DanskeDeleBiler 	•LetsGo	 	•GoMore	 	•Snappcar 	 	•Boatflex	 	•Goods	 	•Sociotransit	 	•Foodora	 	 	•Housing and property	 	•Private housing	 	•Airbnb	 	•Couchsurfing	 	•HomeExchange 	•Workspace/Venue	 	•Resecond	 	 •Services	 	•DenLilleTjeneste •Meploy	 	 •Other	 	•ShareOne	 	•Lejdet	 	•Vigga	 	•CookW ithALocal	 	•Deemlu
Finland (Åland)
 •Car and transportation	 	•With driver	 	•Uber	 	•W him	 	•Without driver	 	•CityCarClub	 	•GreenRiders	 	•Kimppa.net	 	•Kortteliauto/Shareitbloxcar 	 	 •Housing and property	 	•Private housing	 	•Airbnb	 	•Couchsurfing	 	•HomeExchange 	•Workspace/Venue	 	•Vennuu	 	•Hacklab	 	 	 •Services	 	•Freelanceri	 	•Microtask	 	•Ventoura	 	 •Other	 	•Sharetribe	 	•iRent	 	•Kuinoma	 	•Vaaralainaamo
Iceland
 •Car and transportation	 	•Without driver	 	•Samferda	 	 	•Housing and property	 	•Private housing	 	•Airbnb	 	•Couchsurfing	 	•HomeExchange
Norway
 •Car and transportation	 	•With driver	 	•Uber	 	•Haxi	 	•Without driver	 	•Bilkollektivet	 	•Bildeleringen	 	•Trondheim bilkollektiv	 	•Hertz bilpool	 	•Nabobil	 	•Transfercar4u/returbil	 	•Nabobåt	 	•Goods	 	•Nimber	 	•CarryCut	 	•Foodora	 	 	•Housing and property	 	•Private housing	 	•Airbnb	 	•Couchsurfing	 	•HomeExchange	 	•Workspace/Venue	 	•Eventum	 	 •Services	 	•Finn småjobber	 	•Zappy	 	•Jobbr	 	•W eClean	 	•Freska Norge	 	•Konsus	 	•Graphiq	 	 •Other	 	•Leieting	 	•Plendit	 	•Peerby	 	•Vpark	 	•Space	 	•Fjong	 	•SkyLib	 	•Resterant	 	•Grabster	 	•Too good to go	 	•Eat in Common	 	•EatW ith
Sweden
 •Car and transportation	 	•With driver	 	•Uber	 	•UbiGo	 	•Without driver	 	•Mobilsamåkning.se •Move About	 	•Samåkning.se	 	•Sambil	 	•Skjutsgruppen.nu	 	•Sunfleet	 	•DriveNow	 	•DriveBack	 	•Goods	 	•BagHitch	 	•Foodora	 	 •Housing and property	 	•Private housing	 	•Airbnb	 	•Couchsurfing	 	•HomeExchange	 	•Homii	 	•Qasa	 	•Workspace/Venue	 	•Hoffice	 	•W orkAround	 	•DeskDoubler	 	•Meetrd	 	 •Services	 	•Corso 	 	•DogBuddy	 	•Domytask	 	•eW ork	 	•Fliffr 	 	•HinnerDu	 	•QuestionMe 	 	•TaskRunner	 	•TechBuddy 	 	•Triple 	 	•Universal Avenue 	 	•Vint	 	•Yepstr 	 	 •Other	 	•Beleco 	 	•Delbar	 	•Lånegarderoben	 	•Rentl	 	•Sharewear	 	•GrannSaker	 	•Airdine	 	•Invitationsdepartementet

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
30	 	 	Vista Analyse
3.3	 Car and transportation	 of people
We have divided the category transportation into three segments, personal
transportation with driver, 	- without driver and transportation of goods. In the following
we present some of the initiatives within the three 	segments.
3.3.1	 Personal transportation	 with driver
Internationally, t	here are several 	large sharing economy companies for personal
transportation with a driver. Uber is the only one that is present in some of the Nordic
countries. They are ride hailing services	 similar to taxis, but where people can use their
own car to drive other people. Users plot in their location and destination, and the
platform matches the users to drivers willing to drive them for a pre	-specified price.
There are other companies that foc	us more on ride sharing, where people that are
traveling the same distance can carpool instead of taking separate cars. 	An	 example	 of
this is	 the French company BlaBlaCar.
The market for transportation with driver is regulated in the Nordic countries under	 the
laws concerning taxi business. The arrival of these new types of sharing economy
services has created a lot of debate around the legality of these services as well as the
need to reform the current laws and regulations.
The platforms compete with th	e taxi industry	, and have in many cases taken market
shares through lower prices in addition to the functionalities that are offered through
their apps. Some taxi companies have been quick in offering similar applications with
similar functionalities to ma	tch the competition.
Uber	 is present in Norway, Sweden and Finland. They used t	o be in Denmark as well,
but have	 ended their presence there after some legal and cultural pushback	s. There is
no Uber in Iceland. Uber is an online platform that facilitates t	ransportation/rides
between passengers and Uber	-affiliated drivers. 	Users	 need a smartphone to use the
service, since the platform uses information about their location. The passengers and
drivers have different types of applications. The drivers use their	 own cars. Uber has
launched different types of services; Uber POP is with regular cars, Uber BLACK is a
limousine service, Uber EL is with electric cars and Uber XXL is wi	th larger cars. In the
US	, they have launched Uber RUSH for transportation of goods 	and Uber EATS for
delivery of takeaway food from restaurants. One of the fastest growing services they
offer is Uber POOL, which is a service based on cars picking up several passengers
going the same direction. According to Uber, it has already saved Amer	ican cities for
millions of 	transport	 kilometers and thousands of tons of 	CO	2 emissions as an effect of
Uber POOL’s success.
The users have profiles and both passengers and drivers rate each other after each
trip. Uber handles the payment on their platfor	m and takes a cut of 20 percent of the
price of the transaction. An algorithm calculates the prices based on time, distance and
other factors. To balance supply and demand, Uber uses something called surge
pricing. This is a form of dynamic pricing, where 	an algorithm can temporarily increase
the price in an area where there is 	high	 demand compared to supply of available cars.
This has a double effect, first and foremost that available drivers drive toward the area
with high	 demand, since they get more paid	 for driving in that area. In addition, some
passengers will wait until the price has gone down or find alternative forms of transport.
When surge pricing is utilized it is clearly presented in the application.
According to 	The Economist (2016)	 Uber is in 	425 cities in 72 countries all over the
world. They have ambitions of further growth. And they are engaged in the

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	31
development of self	-driving cars. According to Uber they would like to be regulated in
the same way as other actors in the economy, but the re	gulations should be at a
minimum level and open to the usage of new technology to secure consumer safety
and safety for the users of the platform.
Haxi	 facilitates transportation services between its users across their platform. It is a
marketplace where 	passengers and drivers are matched.	 People that own a car and
want	 to be a driver can sign up on the platform. Passengers can find a driver or request
a driver for a certain trip, and then be contacted by a driver that wants to take them.
Communication and	 payment between passengers and drivers happens across the
platform. All users have profiles with recommendations from other users that have
been in contact with them on the platform.
Haxi is different from Uber in that they do not set prices on travel ro	utes. This is agreed
upon between the users that have gotten in touch with each other on the Haxi platform.
According to Aleksander Soender, the CEO of Haxi Norway, they are promoting
carpooling and is not a form of taxi service and charge no fees from the	ir users.
Haxi was established in 2013 by a group of engineers from Finland, Norway and
Denmark. They had previously worked on a sharing system for longer travels, but it
was difficult to establish a critical mass for the service to work well. After looking at
other	 opportunities they discovered that in many places the access to taxis was low
and the price was high. They therefore developed Haxi, that quickly became a
success. The service 	is based on an established routine of people agreeing on social
media to drive 	each other.
Haxi is present in Norway, Sweden and Iceland, but is largest i	n USA. While Uber has
focused on densely populated cities. Haxi has focused on markets in areas that are
less densely populated. Haxi is partly a competitor to traditional taxis. A	ccording to
Aleksander Soender, Haxi has focused on a market that the traditional taxi industry
does not cover, and therefore they are expanding the market.
Whim	 is an application that organizes travels across different modes of transportation.
It optimize	s travel routes and gives the user options. It also integrates the payment as
a monthly fee. The app is a product of Maas Glob	al, a company based in Helsinki	.
Whim is the world’s first all	-inclusive mobility service. They are launching the app in
Helsinki 	and in West Midlands, UK.
UbiGo	 offers mobility as a service through a mobility subscription across different
modes of transportation. Public transportation, car sharing, rental car service, taxi and
bicycle systems are all in one app with one payment sys	tem, support and bonus points
for sustainable choices. They have had a pilot in Gothenburg with 70 households for
half a year, and 	are	 preparing a launch in Stockholm at the end of the year. Chalmers
is a partner in the project and has published papers bas	ed on a thorough evaluation.
3.3.2	 Personal transportation	 without driver
There are many sharing economy companies that facilitate transportation without a
driver. These are companies that enable car sharing, pooling or renting across digital
platforms. Some of	 these are closely related to what traditional car renting companies
do, 	which fall outside our definition of sharing economy activities from chapter 2	.
The	 companies can broadly be placed in three categories: car collectives, carpooling
and private car re	nting. Then there are some initiatives that match cars that need to be

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
32	 	 	Vista Analyse
transported and drivers who also need to travel the same distance. There are also
companies dedicated to matching the renting of privately owned boats.
Car collectives	 are collectives w	here all the members own and share the cars
together. There are also some car rental companies that have made their way into this
market 	by	 utilizing new technology and making it easier for people to share/rent cars
for shorter trips. In these cases, the c	ars are owned by the company.
Bilkollektivet, Bildeleringen and Trondheim bilkollektiv	 are all Norwegian 	car
collectives with their headquarters in Oslo, Bergen and Trondheim respectively. They
are organized in a similar way, where the members own the cars	 collectively and pay
according to their use. They have existed since the middle of the 1990s. The members
can book the cars through digital platforms. People become members by buying a
share and paying a deposit and a yearly fee. They then have access to 	the cars and
can book and pay according to their use. The cars are placed in pre	-specified places,
where the members pick up and park the cars within the time frame they have booked
the car for. The car collectives have a few employees to handle the operat	ions of the
cars and 	the 	digital platform.
Below we present an overview of companies that own and operate cars that customers
can rent through 	a subscription	-like arrangement,	 that largely looks like the car
collectives. The members pay a deposit and a monthly fee for access to the cars that
are rented according to a time and distance 	price related to the actual us	e. The
difference is that the members are not owners and does no	t have the same
responsibility or control as the owners in the car collectives.
DanskeDeleBiler	 is a Danish company that allows users to rent cars from each other
as well as owning shared cars that members can rent.	 LetsGo	 is a similar Danish
company that	 gives members access to their pool of cars in a number of Danish cities.
City car club	 is like a car collective, but owned by a private company in Finland. 	Hertz
bilpool 	in Norway	 owns	 cars 	in many cities that members	 can 	use against a fee	. Move
About	 in 	Norway focuses on electrical cars with designated locations where the cars
can be charged. 	Sunfleet	 exists 	in 	many places in Sweden, and members can rent the
cars for shorter time periods. 	DriveNow	 is an application for car renting. BMW, MINI
and Sixt own 	the cars and run the serv	ice. Among the Nordic countries	 they cover
Denmark and Sweden.
Carpooling	 is when people 	that are 	going the same way decide to ride in the same car
instead of driving separate cars	 or travel by other transportation modes	. Some of t	he
platforms are more advanced with user profiles and reviews as well as other
functionalities for finding and matching with other users, depending on where, when
and other preferences. Other platforms are simpler with the main functionality of
offering or	 requesting a ride for a certain trip at a certain time. Then other users that
are interested can get in touch with them on the platform. Carpooling can be organized
for a single trip or regular trips.
Samferda	 is a carpooling platform in Iceland.	 In Finland, there are two carpooling
platforms, 	GreenRiders	 and 	Kimppa.net	. In Sweden, there are several carpooling
initiatives, like 	Mobilsamåkning.se	, Samåkning.se	 and 	Skjutsgruppen.nu	.
Private car renting	 are platforms where one can rent a car, but whe	re the cars are
rented out by private individuals	. The following are all companies that organize car
renting between private people. The organizing happens on their digital platforms that
match people who want to rent out their car, and people who want to 	rent a car at the
relevant time, cost and place. The companies do not own any of the cars themselves,

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	33
but put the users into contact. The users have profiles where they can describe the car
and/or person and it is possible for other users to write reviews.	 There are functions on
the platforms to find the right car according to location, price and type. The whole
transaction is done across the platform.
GoMore	 is a Danish company that organizes carpooling and leasing of cars in addition
to car renting between private individuals. 	Snappcar	 is from the Netherlands, but they
exist in Denmark and Sweden as well. In Finland there is 	Kortteliauto/Shareitbloxcar.
In No	rway there is 	Nabobil	, and in Sweden there is 	Sambil	.
DriveBack	 is a Swedish company. On their platform users can post cars that need to
be transported from one place to another. Other users that wish to travel the same
distance can drive the car and in t	hat way both the car and the person gets transported
for free. In Norway there is a similar platform called 	Transfercar4u/returbil	.
Boatflex and Nabobåt	 are platforms where private people can rent out their boat
when they don’t use it, similar to the 	private car renting initiatives. Boatflex is a Danish
company, while Nabobåt is Norwegian and affiliated with Nabobil.
3.4	 Transportation of g	oods
There are some sharing economy companies that exclusively facilitate transportation of
goods in the Nordic countr	ies. There are also several initiatives that facilitate services,
where one of the services might be transportation of goods. We will get back to those
companies in the next subchapter. Also, Uber and other on demand transportation
apps 	are	 moving into tra	nsportation of goods. It is possible that this area of the sharing
economy will increase over time.
Foodora	 is a service for delivery of take away food from restaurants. The platform
facilitates the sale of take away food from restaurants that cooperate wi	th Foodora, and
match the delivery service with a Foodora delivery cyclist.
Foodora is an international company that was started in Munich in 2014. Among the
Nordic countries Foodora is in Norway, Sweden and Finland. Foodora can be regarded
as competition	 to the restaurants that organize delivery on their own, typically pizza	-
and other fast food restaurants. But in the Nordic countries where food delivery has
been relatively small, Foodora has expanded the market. They work with restaurants
that previousl	y did not do home delivery, and the business model utilizing a digital
platform and people on bicycles means they can offer home delivery at a low cost.
There are several sharing economy companies that focus on the transportation of
goods with a similar m	odel. They run a digital platform that matches people that want
an object carried from one place to another with people who are traveling that route
and is willing to bring the object with them. People who want an object transported can
post the task on th	eir platform, with a description of the object, the location and
destination, as well as the price for the assignment. People who are travelling the same
route	 can contact them and get paid for the job. The users decide the practicalities
regarding pickup 	and delivery. The companies handle the transactions	 across their
platform and take	 a part of the price as a fee. All the users have profiles where other
users can write reviews. All the transportation assignments on the platforms are
insured.
They are comp	eting with traditional logistics companies, but are focusing on a part of
the market that is not well served. They utilize the sunk cost principle, where the
people that transport the goods have already paid for the journey. The price they get

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
34	 	 	Vista Analyse
for carrying	 an additional object is just an extra bonus and does not have to cover the
actual 	costs of the 	trip (just the inconvenience related to picking up and delivering the
item). In a way, they are utilizing the excess carrying capacity of travelers and giving
them a chance to capitalize on that as well as people to send stuff more cheaply.
In Norway, there are two companies offering this kind of service; 	Nimber	, which was
established in 2010 and 	Ca	rryCut	 that was established in 2016.	 Sociotransit	 is a
Danish com	pany 	established in 2017 	that	 offers a similar service. 	BagHitch	 is a similar
Swedish company.
3.5	 Housing and property
Private housing
In the Nordic countries	 there are two significant international sharing economy
initiatives in the housing sector, 	Airbnb	 an	d 	Couchsurfing	. They facilitate short term
rental or lending of a whole or parts of a residence between hosts and guests across
their digital platforms. It is the sharing of the capital resource housing between mainly
private individuals.
There are several international 	initiatives like these	 around the world, but we are not
sure whether they have any substantial activity in the Nordic countries. Another
international sharing economy company in this segment is 	HomeExchange	. They
have websit	es in all the Nordic languages, but it is not clear 	how 	much activity they
have in the region.
Airbnb	 is a commercial company, where both the hosts and Airbnb themselves make
money on the renting of housing on their platform. Couchsurfing on the other han	d,
started as a non	-commercial initiative. They became a for	-profit company in 2011 and
makes money from, amongst other things, commercials on their website, but the hosts
and guests do not pay for the accommodation that is organized across the platform.
This sort of activity can have two effects. Firstly, one can imagine Airbnb and
Couchsurfing taking c	ustomers form the hotel	- and accommodation sector because
they offer cheaper alternatives. Secondly, one can imagine that this new form of
accommodation, th	rough lower prices and a different offer, leads to more travel and
subsequently more demand for accommodation.
There are some Nordic companies that operate in the same market, for example 	Homii
and 	Qasa	 in Sweden.	 They	 are focused on renting apartment	s for	 longer periods, more
like traditional apartment renting.
Airbnb	 is a sharing economy company for rooms and residences. It is a digital platform
that matches people who would like to rent out their housing with pe	ople who would
like to rent it.	 Airbnb is a	 complete marketplace with functionalities/features for
uploading, searching for, discovering and booking accommodation around the world.
People who want to become a host on Airbnb can upload their room or residence on
Airbnb’s website/platform with a des	cription and price. Potential guests can find and
book the rooms through contact with and approval from the host on the platform. The
platform has features to ensure the best possible match by location, price and
standard. Additionally, both the hosts and 	guests have profiles where other users that
have been in contact with them can rate and write reviews. The host	’s residence is
protected by an insurance that covers damage up to one million USD. Airbnb handles

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	35
the transaction between the host and guest. Ai	rbnb takes a service charge of 6	-12
percent of the price from the guests and a service charge of 3 percent from the host.	1
Airbnb was established in 2008 and is based in San Francisco. They have had
substantial growth since they started	, and large amount o	f funding from investors.	2
Airbnb does not want to go public with detailed information about their revenue and the
value of transactions across their platform. But they have released	 key figures from
their activities	 in several countries, including Norway 	in 2015. They are the largest
initiative within housing and property in the sharing economy in the Nordic countries
and probably in the world, but they are still a small part of the total hotel	- and
accommodation industry.
Airbnb compete against tradition	al hotel	- and accommodation businesses. It is often
claimed that Airbnb has a small impact on the hotel activity. It is challenging to quantify
whether this is the case, but there is a study from the USA that claims that Airbnb has
had a negative effect on	 the income of traditional hotels of around 8	-10 percent in the
study area, Austin, Texas (Zervas et.al., 2016).
Airbnb has grown rapidly and has a large user base. At the same time, they have met
legal challenges in several cities related to the legality	 of the renting across their
platform and other opposition related to taxation and gentrification 	– the process of
locals being pushed out of their neighborhoods because of rising housing prices as an
effect of the opportunity to rent out on Airbnb (Schnei	derman, 2014). Airbnb has on the
other side done studies to highlight the positive impacts of Air	bnb activity for a
neighborhood	 (Airbnb Action, 2016).
Couchsurfing	 is a service that matches its members to a global network of travelers.
The platform can b	e used to get in contact wit	h other members to arrange
acco	mmodation in their home. There are no formal criteria to host other members, but
it is encouraged. Couchsurfing wants to connect people and promote travel and
experiences. The members create user p	rofiles where other members can rate and
write recommendations to increase trust and ensure better matches. In addition to
enabling accommodation, the platform is used to promote other forms of interaction
between its members through events and sharing of 	knowledge.
Couchsurfing was founded in 2004 and began as a small idealistic initiative, but 	grew
quickly and became a for	-profit company in 2011. It is an international company and
has more than 12 million members in over 200 000 cities. Based on the number of
members and popularity as a concept and cultural phenomena, there are reasons to
believe tha	t there are many bookings across their platform. According to their website
there are around 20 000 hosts in Norway, 6 000 in Iceland, 40 000 in Denmark, 30 000
in Sweden and 15 000 in Finland per April 2017.
HomeExchange	 is an internat	ional company that 	enables home	 ex	changes or house
swapping between its users.	 They exist under different names in all the Nordic
countries; 	Kodinvaihtoloma	 in Finland	, HemByte in Sweden etc. The users pay an

1 https://www.airbnb.no/help/article/104/what	-are	-guest	-service	-fees
https://www.airbnb.no/help/article/63/what	-are	-host	-service	-fees	 	2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbn	b

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
36	 	 	Vista Analyse
annual fee to get access to the HomeExchange marketplace, and then	 get the
opportunity to search and find homes to exchange for the users	’ own home for a
specified period.
Homii and Qasa 	are both companies in Sweden. They focus on renting of apartments
for longer time periods. They have a platform where users can post an	d find
apartments. They facilitate matching of people, help with rental agreements and handle
payments through the platform.
Workspace/Venue
There are several sharing economy companies in the Nordic countries that facilitate
matching of workspaces or 	booking of venues for events. Some are Nordic companies,
but there are also many international initiatives of this kind. It is possible that the latter
ones also have activities in the Nordic countries, but not that we are aware of. This is
an area that is	 growing and might potentially be	come	 a big part of the sharing economy
in the Nordic countries in the future.
Eventum	 is a platform for renting venues for meetings and events. The concept has
been called Airbnb for events. Users can post and find venues 	that can be booked on
their platform. There are functions that allow for searching based on category, number
of guests, price, time, location etc. The service was established in 2014 and is run by 7
employees. Eventum is based in Oslo, but enables renting 	of venues all over Norway.
They have ambitions of growing in Norway and 	are	 considering expanding abroad.
Eventum has several professional actors on the supply side who can offer other
services in addition to the venue like catering and cleaning. According	 to Eventum this
is a traditional market where people had to find venues by recommendations or looking
them up in the phone book.
Resecond	 is a Danish sharing economy community. They offer a shared workspace
with access to venues and other sharing economy 	benefits. They are located in
Copenhagen. They also have a sharing community where members swap clothes and
other 	things.
Venuu	 is a Finnish company and platform for booking venues, and is similar to
Eventum in Norway. They have a Swedish branch as well.
Hacklab	 is a locally run workshop where people with common interests can work,
study and play. Members pay a fee to cover the cost of the workshop and can use the
facilities to work on different projects.
In Sweden, there are several sharing economy initiatives in the event and property
segment. 	WorkAround	 is like Airbnb for office spaces. People can use the platform to
find and rent a space in an office or rent out spare office space. WorkAround is a
Swedi	sh company and they have hosts in several Swedish cities as well as in
Copenhagen. 	DeskDoubler	 is also a platform for renting offices spaces. 	Meetrd	 is
similar to the other platforms, but focuses on matching rooms for meetings/events.
Users can sign up and	 book rooms for their meetings. Another Swedish initiative has a
bit of a different concept. 	Hoffice	 started in 2013 and 	is a platform that allows people to
work together in each other’s homes. It is a structured working environment where
people that do no	t have	 a workplace can join a working group that takes place in one of
the participant’s homes. The service utilizes people	’s underutilized homes during the
dayt	ime, and uses it as a workspace	 where people can come together and have the
benefits of a share	d workspace.

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	37
3.6	 Services
There are many sharing economy companies that offer matching of services in the
Nordic countries. A theoretical dividing line between different services are those that
can be done remotely and those where the user must be present to	 perform the
service. This is relevant to the amount of international competition these companies
are exposed to and other effects on the economy in general, including environmental
impacts. We have not classified the companies on either side of this line 	because it is
in many cases difficult to draw the line, but we mention the principal difference.
The services that demand physical presence are typically smaller manual jobs, and the
companies put the users in contact on their digital platform. This can b	e 	jobs	 like
cleaning, building, maintenance, shopping etc. These are jobs that people previously
had to do themselves or get help from others through other channels. The platforms
increase the access to people who are willing to do the job, and it is a mar	ketplace
where people can do small jobs for money. The users’ platforms have profiles with
descriptions of themselves and jobs that they have done, where other users have rated
their work and written reviews/recommendations. There are several international
sharing economy initiatives of this kind, like TaskRabbit, but they are not present in the
Nordic countries.
There has been a lot of growth in these types of services and it is difficult to compare it
to the traditional labor market. The digital platform	 lowers the transaction costs and
makes a lot of services viable for outsourcing that previously would not have happened
because of high transaction costs. When it comes to 	carrying out	 services in the
sharing economy in the Nordic countries, there are a l	ot of challenges related to
taxation and workers’ rights and regulations. (FAFO, 2016)
There are also many sharing economy companies that facilitate the matching of non	-
location specific services. These are services where the person doing the job does not
have to be at the same location as the person requesting it. These kinds of services
are more open to foreign competition.
An important point regarding these services is the fact that people can do these
services using the digital platform and make more mo	ney than they would be able to in
their local labor market, but at the same time at a lower cost than in the labor market
where the employer is requesting the service from. It is not only the difference in pay,
but also the access to a larger market that e	nables better matching and the possibility
of organizing the work in a more efficient manner. One of the main benefits of these
platforms 	is the ease in which one can outsource work on them.
Outsourcing is already widespread and a natural part of a more g	lobalized and
specialized world. The companies do not do the services themselves, but run a
platform that matches supply and demand for labor. In addition, these platforms can
have functionalities that simplify the process or increase the quality of the se	rvice.
TaskRabbit	 is one of the biggest sharing economy companies for services. It is an
American company that was founded in 2008. They are present in many cit	ies around
the US and in London	.
In Denmark, there are at least	 two of these kinds of platform	: DenLilleTjeneste	 and
Meploy	. In Finland there are	 Freelanceri	 and 	Microtask	 where people can 	put web or
data capture services	, and the work gets outsource	d to freelancers. 	Ventoura	 is a
digital application where locals can guide travelers.

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
38	 	 	Vista Analyse
In Norway there are 	a 	number of companies. 	Finn småjobber, 	which is a part of
finn.no AS, was started in 2013 and matches services all over Norway. 	Zappy	 is a
platform that since 2015	 has 	facilitate	d smaller services. 	Jobbr	 is similar to Zappy	.
WeClean	 and	 Freska Norge	 are s	pecialized for cleaning.	 Konsus	 is an on	-demand
freelance service platform where people can send tasks and pre	-vetted experts will do
the job immediately.	 Graphiq	 is specialized for graphic design jobs.
In 	Sweden,	 there is	 Corso 	-  Driving instructors on demand	, Domytask	, HinnerDu	,
TaskRunner	 – small	 jobs	, eWork	 – co	nsulting work	, Fliffr 	 -  Experts on demand	, –
small jobs, 	QuestionMe	 - Q&A on demand	, TechBuddy	 - Tech support on demand	,
Triple 	-  Visitor experiences on demand	, Univ	ersal Avenue 	  - Sales force on demand	,
Vint	 – for personal trainers	, Yepstr 	- Help from neighbours on demand	, Dogbuddy	 –
For dogsitting.
3.7	 Other
There are a number of sharing economy initiatives that do not fall within the categories
above. We will present the remaining identified initiatives in this subchapter.
There are a number of sharing economy initiatives that match people that want to rent
out and people that want to rent various 	small 	capital objects. Larger capital goods like
houses and cars have been discussed 	above	.
ShareOne	 and	 Lejdet 	are such companies in Denmark. In Finland there are 	iRent	,
Kuinoma	 and 	Vaaralainaamo	. In Norway there 	are 	Leieting	, Plendit	, Peerby	 and
Fjong	 for clothes	 and 	SkyLib	. In Sweden there are 	Beleco 	that rents out furniture,
Sharewear	 and 	Lånegarderoben	 which focus on clothes and 	Delbar	, Rentl	 and
GrannSaker	 where you can rent everything else.
There are a few sh	aring economy initiatives that match parking spaces for cars. Both
Vpark	 and 	Space	 in Norway facilitate renting of parking spaces.
In Denmark there are several initiatives that facilitate the sharing of clothes.
Resecond	, which was mentioned above relating to their shared working spaces	, also
facilitate swapping of clothes and things, primarily dresses, between its members.
Chare	 was a company that also facilitated the sharing of clothes, but it was dissolved
in 2015 becau	se of lack of funds. The business model was that members paid a
monthly fee and transaction costs related to the washing of clothes. They could rent as
many clothes as they wished, and deliver them within 14 days. 	Vigga	 is a Danish
company that offers a su	bscription to baby clothes. Its costumers borrow baby clothes,
and rotate the wardrobe as the baby grows. The smaller clothes are used by other
subscribers.
There are a number of initiatives that are related to food. 	CookWithALocal	 is a
sharing economy pla	tform where people can offer to host or attend food and beverage
events worldwide by meeting up and cook or taste food together.	 The company was
founded in Denmark in 2014. In Norway, 	Resterant	, Grabster	 and	 Too good to 	go all
facilitate food preparation s	ervices, while 	Eat in Common	 and 	EatWith	 match people
that would like to eat in common. 	Airdine	 is a Swedish company that connects users
that like to cook with users looking for a place to dine.	 Invitationsdepartementet	 is a
similar service, but the point 	is to connect people that would like to learn Swedish with
people that speak Swedish fluently over a homecooked dinner.
Deemlu	 is a platform that collects all the users rating from different platforms, letting
people leverage their trustworthiness online.	 It is not a sharing economy initiative per

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	39
se, b	ut is closely related to the sharing economy by letting people leverage their
trustworthiness.
Sharetribe	 is a Finnis	h company that helps companies build marketplace websites
online. The digital platform 	that they help users create is the basis for sharing economy
companies.

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
40	 	 	Vista Analyse
4.	 Some numerical illustrations of 	emission
reduction 	potential	s
This chapter 	will provide some numerical illustrations of the potential environmental
effects changes in consumer 	behavior from various sharing economy initiatives could
lead to. For simplicity, the focus of this chapter is on potential changes in emissions of
CO	2e,1 however it should be noted that sharing initiatives also could have impacts on
local air pollution, ac	idification etc. Particular attention has been devoted to
transportation because the body of literature on potential effects on emissions is
considerably larger for this sector than for the other sectors.
4.1	 	Transportation
As described in chapter 3, there are	 several types of sharing initiatives related to
transportation. Car	-sharing, which provides short term access to cars, is distinct from
ride	-hailing services, where customers are being driven. Uber and GoMore are
examples of ride	-hailing services. This se	ction will focus on the potential environmental
effects of car	-sharing. One might, however, expect ride	-hailing to have some similar
environmental impacts to car	-sharing. The key difference between car	-sharing and
ride	-hailing is that car	-sharing utilizes 	the spare capacity of cars when they are not
being used, while ride	-hailing utilizes the spare passenger capacity of cars. Another
example of the latter is ride sharing, where people that are traveling the same distance
can carpool instead of taking separa	te cars. In both cases, the environmental impacts
will largely depend on changes in consumer behavior.
Car	-sharing includes business	-to-customer services and peer	-to-peer services. The
business	-to-customer services generally involve that cars are availab	le at fixed
locations throughout metropolitan areas. Examples of such organizations are the
Danish DanskeDeleBiler and Bilkollektivet in Norway. Peer	-to-peer services allow
people to rent cars directly from car owners (e.g. the Norwegian Nabobil). Car	-shar	ing
is mos	t common and best suited	 in urban areas with access to public transportation.
Studies have shown that around 95 percent of car	-sharing members live in cities (TØI,
2011).
Th	e remainder of this section is structured as follows:
 	Subsection 	4.1.1	 provide	s a short description of environmental impacts of
personal vehicles (from production, through use and final disposal)	.
 	Subsection 	4.1.2	 	present	s the key factors that can determine the
environmental impacts of car	-sharing	, with numerical examples	.
 	Subsection 	4.1.3	 summarizes the findings in terms of overall environmental
impacts.

1 CO	2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) is a measure of greenhouse gases emitted when humans
undertake certain activities. In addition to CO	2, the measure includes other greenhouse gases
such as methane, nitrous oxide and ozone, expressed in terms of CO	2 ba	sed on their relative
global warming potential.

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	41
4.1.1	 Environmental impacts of personal vehicles
Nemry et al. (2008) estimate the life	-cycle environmental impacts of a typical personal
car in Europe.	1 Life	-cycle environmental impact	s include both the direct and indirect
processes and services required to operate a vehicle.
The life	-cycle phases include;
 	Car production (raw material extraction, material transformation and car
assembly)
 	Replacement and spare parts production (tyres, b	attery, lubricants and
refrigerants)
 	Fuel transformation process upstream to fuel consumption (well	-to-tank 	- WTT)
 	Fuel consumption for car driving (tank	-to-wheel 	- TTW)
 	Car disposal and waste treatment (end	-of-life 	- EOL)
As already mentioned, t	his 	chapter will focus on the CO	2e-emissions, however the
production, use, and disposal of a car also cause a range of other environmental
impacts. For example, extraction, refining and transportation of crude oil lead to
acidification, emission of particles (	PM	2.5), eutrophication (which depletes water of
oxygen), ozone depletion, and photochemical pollution (e.g. from NO	x).
Figure 4.1 presents the CO	2e-emissions from a typical petrol car, showing that most of
the emissions stem from fuel consumption for driv	ing (TTW), followed by the fuel
transformation process (WTT) and car production.
Figur	e 4.1 Life	-cycle impacts 	of a typical petrol car

Source: Nemry et al. (2008), p. 64. 	The impacts are similar for the base case diesel car.

1 The study considers two typical (or ‘base case’) car models 	– one petrol car and one diesel
car 	- defined as those corresponding to the average characteristics of new cars sold in Europe,
which primarily 	co	ncern	 power,	 cylind	er size and 	weight.	 These characteristics are summarized
in table 7 on page 48 of Nemry et al. (2008).

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
42	 	 	Vista Analyse
4.1.2	 Key factors that determine the environmental impacts of car	-sharing
There are several factors which can determine the overall environmental impact of car	-
sharing. According to the literature, the key 	positive environmental impacts from car	-
sharing arise from changes in consumer behavior related to car ownership and the
number of kilometers traveled by car. That is, on average people own fewer cars and
drive less after becoming car	-sharing members.	1 Thi	s offers environmental benefits
from reduced vehicle manufacturing, maintenance, use and disposal. As car	-sharing
members drive less, they might also increase their use of public transportation, which
in turn could generate additional emissions. A reductio	n in vehicle holdings and the
volume of motor 	transport	 can also reduce congestion and the demand for
infrastructure, such as parking. In addition, the average shared car generally uses less
fuel and emits fewer pollutants compared to the average personal 	car as the car	-
sharing fleets typically consist of newer and more energy	-efficient cars.
At the same time, car	-sharing may cause indirect rebound effects 	– meaning that 	– if
car	-sharing members save money, they may spend their savings on other products or
services, which in turn could lead to increased CO	2e-emissions or other negative
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts from	 the indirect rebound effect will
vary with the types of goods and services the consumer spends his/her savings on	.
Each	 of the above	-mentioned factors 	are	 discussed in greater detail below.
Car ownership
Several studies have estimated the impact of car	-sharing on personal car ownership.
The results of these studies are summarized in Table 4.1 and show that 	households on
average tend to reduce their vehicle holdings after becoming 	car	-sharing	 members.
As defined by Martin and Shaheen (2016), there are two types of effects that can
reduce vehicle holdings	:
 	Suppression effect:	 car	-sharing removes	 the need for members to purchase a
personal	 vehicle	.
 	Shedding effect:	 car	-sharing allows members to sell or get rid of a personal
vehicle.
Most of the studies in table 4.1 have conducted surveys among car	-sharing members,
asking questions about their trav	el behavior, vehicle holdings etc. before and after
joining a car	-sharing organization. The surveys with the largest number of respondents
are from North America.
While the studies find that car	-sharing reduces personal vehicle holdings among car	-
sharing 	members, this may not directly translate into lower car sales. Boston
Consulting Group (2016) have found that car	-sharing will only have a small impact on
future new	-car sales because some share of lost car sales will be offset by sales into
car	-sharing fl	eets. This phenomenon is attributed to the high turnover rates of car	-
sharing fleets. Shared cars are replaced more often than personal cars (typically every
three years) because of the high utilization and subsequent wear and tear.

1 The studies that arrive at these results are presented 	in 	tables 4.1 and 	4.2	 later in this chapter.

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	43
Boston Consulting Grou	p (2016) predicts the number of vehicles that will be purchased
for car	-sharing fleets in 2021, as well as the share of foregone private purchases those
sales will offset. They find that sales to car	-sharing fleets in Europe will offset foregone
car sales 	by approximately 35 percent.	1
Based on the results of the studies in table 4.1, one shared car could replace
approximately 4 to	 13 personal cars. If this reduction is offset by 35 percent due to
sales to car	-sharing fleets, the replacement rate would be r	educed to around 3 to 8
personal cars.
Nemry et al. (2008) estimate that the production, maintenance, and disposal of a car
generate approximately 5 tons of CO	2e-emissions.	2 Using this estimate, and assuming
that one shared car replaces 3 to 8 personal ca	rs (eliminating the production of 2 to 7
cars), CO	2e-emissions from car production, maintenance, and disposal could be
reduced by around 10 to 35 tons per shared car. Split evenly over an average life of a
car of 12.5 years,	3 the annual average reductions 	range from 0.8 to 2.8 tons of CO	2e.
With 20 members per shared car,	4 this would equal a reduction per member household
by 40 to 140 kg CO	2e per year.
As a comparison, one of the studies in table 4.1	 (Nijland et al.	, 2015), estimates the
reduction in emiss	ions that result from reduced car ownership. The study is based on a
survey of 165 car	-sharing members in the Netherlands. The researchers find that car	-
sharing reduces emissions generated from 	vehicle manufacturing and demolition	 by 	85
to 175 kg per membe	r household per year.	5 This does	, however	, not consider the effect
of new	-car sales into car	-sharing fleets described above. Reducing the estimates by 35
percent, they become 55 to 114 kg, which is within the range of 40 to 140 kg CO	2e.
It should be noted 	that the estimate of 40 to 140 kg is only a rough approximation used
to illustrate the potential environmental benefits from car	-sharing. The size of the
reduction of CO	2e-emissions will vary with the underlying assumptions. 	For example,
Concito (2010) rev	iews a range of different input	-output studies and finds that CO	2e-
emissions from the production and maintenance of a car could be as high as 16 tons.
Emissions will also vary greatly with the type of car that is being produced.

1 The report predicts that new	-car sales in Europe will increase by 96,000 cars in 2021 because
of sales to car	-sharing fleets, while private new	-car sales will decrease by 278,000 cars. The
resulting net decrease in new	-car sales is 182,000 cars. 	 	2 4.8 tons CO	2e for the base case petr	ol car and 5.3 tons CO	2e for the base case diesel car.
See page 64 and 65 of Nemry et al. (2008) for complete summaries of the life	-cycle impacts. 	 	3 This is the average life of cars assumed in Nemry et al. (2008).	 	4 According to Concito (2015), Letsgo in Denmark has about 19 members per shared car.
Bilkollektivet in Norway has approximately 20 members per shared car (300 cars and 6000
members). 	 	5 Nijland et al. (2015) assume that 10 to 20	 percent	 of the CO	2 emitted 	during the lifespan of a
vehicle is related to its production and demolition (e.g. see Gbeghaje	-Das,	 2013; Samaras et
al., 2008)	, a	 vehicle lifespan of 15 years	, and an average	 of 10 users per shared car.

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
44	 	 	Vista Analyse
Furthermore, some of the es	timates in table 4.1 may not be applicable to a Nordic
context. For example, transportation in the US is typically characterised by a higher
reliance on personal cars compared to the Nordic countries.
Table 	4.1 Impact of 	car	-sharing	 on per	sonal car holdings*
Study	 	Country/
reg	ion
Results	 	Data sources
Martin and
Shaheen
(2016)
USA and
Canada
Each car2go vehicle removed
between 7 to 11 vehicles from
the road of the fiv	e cities
studied	 (on average).
Survey of car2go members in
Calgary, San Diego, Seattle,
Vancouver, W ashington, D.C.
with 	6,167 responses	.
Nijland et
al.	 (2015	)
Netherlands	 	Car ownership decreased by
33 	percent	 compared with the
period before becoming car	-
sharing members.
Survey of 165 	car	-sharing
members in the Netherlands.
Concito
(2015)
Denmark	 	31 	percent	 of car	-sharing
members reported that they
would have purchased a car if
they were not members.
Survey performed by the Danish
car	-sharing provider Letsgo
among its members.
TØI 	(2011)	 	Norway	 	25 	percent	 owned fewer 	cars
after becoming members. 40
percent would most likely	 have
purchased a car had they not
joined Bilkollektivet.
Survey of car	-sharing members
in Bilkollektivet. 742 responses.
Martin et
al. (2010)
USA and
Canada
9 – 13 vehicles taken off the
road for each shared car.
North American car	-sharing
member survey with 6,281
respondents conducted in 2008.
Momo
(2010)
Europe	 	Each newly	-acquired, normally
used car	-sharing vehicle
replaces on average at least 4	-
8 personal 	cars.
Review of surveys undertaken
between 2003 and 2009 in
European countries.
* All of the studies 	consider both the suppression effect and the shedding effect, except Concito
(2015), which only considers the suppression effect.
Source: 	Vista Analyse
Vehicle operation
Studies typically measure the net impact of car	-sharing on the volume of personal
motor vehicle 	transport	 by the change in kilometers traveled by personal cars (Vehicle	-
Kilometers Traveled 	- VKT	1). Table 4.2 summarizes the results of stu	dies that have
estimated the impact of car	-sharing on VKT and the subsequent reductions in CO	2e-
emissions. 	The results show that households 	– overall 	- drive less after becoming 	car	-
sharing	 members	, thereby reducing CO	2e-emissions	.
There are two main ways	 in which 	car	-sharing	 may impact households’	 transport
patterns, each with opposite effects on the volume of motor 	transport	. Firstly,
households that substitute their personal car with a shared car generally drive less.

1 VKT = 	Number of	 Vehicles	 × Distance 	Traveled	.

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	45
This could be attributed to shared 	cars being relatively less accessible (as the cars
may be parked further away, it involves reserving etc.) and the per	-trip costs being
more apparent compared to personal vehicles.	1 Secondly, some households that join
car	-sharing drive more than before. Th	at is, trips previously untraveled	 or traveled	 by
other modes of transport, such as public transport, bicycling or walking, are substituted
by trips in shared cars.
The studies in table 4.2 found that most households joining car	-sharing drive more than
be	fore. However, the increases in driving by these households are small compared to
the decreases in driving by households that substitute their personal car for a shared
car. The net impact is a 	decrease	 in the number of kilometers traveled.
Susan Shaheen 	and her colleagues at	 the Transportation 	Sustainability Research
Center	 at UC Berkley	 in USA have published several articles on th	e topic of car	-
sharing. In 2008	 they conducted a survey among car	-sharing members in North
America.	2 The results, presented in Martin and Shaheen (2011)	, show a reduction in
CO	2e-emissions of 	840 kg per member household per year. 	Shaheen also conducted a
survey among car2go members in five North American cities in 2014	-2015,	3 showing
that car2go househol	d VKT on average was reduced by 6 to 16 percent across all five
cities studied, resulting in a reduction in CO	2e-emissions	 per car2go hou	sehold	 of 4 to
18 percent (see Martin and Shaheen, 2016). The CO	2-reductions found in the studies
by Martin and Shaheen	 from 2011 and 2016 include changes in emissions that would
arise from changes in car	-use. The studies do not consider changes in emissions from
changes	 in the production, maintenance	 or disposal or cars.
Nijland et al. 	(2015)	 conducted a survey among car	-sharing members	 in the
Netherlands. The survey results showed 	that 	car	-sharing results in a net reduction of
90 kg CO2e	-emissions per household per year.
The results of Nijland et al. (2015) are notably lower than the 840 kg 	CO	2e-emissions
reductions estimated by Martin and Shaheen (2011) 	– even though the percentage
reduction in VKT is quite similar for the two studies. 	Possible explanation	s for the large
difference could be that the average annual distance traveled by car 	and em	issions per
distance travelled are	 greater in USA than in the Netherlands. 	Thus, Nordic emission
reductions are likely somewhat closer to the Dutch figure tha	n to the US one.
Ryden and Morin (2005) conducted surveys among car	-sharing members in Bremen
and	 in Belgium. The results showed a reduction in 	car mileage by 28	 percent	 in

1 Almost all costs of car	-sharing are incurred on a per	-trip basis, as opposed to personal car
ownership where most costs are incurred upfront and there are only small costs related to
driving. 	 	2 The survey had 	6,281 respondents. The participating North American organizations in the
survey included (a) AutoShare, (b) City CarShare, (c) CityW heels, (d) Community Car Share of
Bellingham, (e) Communauto, (f) Community Car, (g) Co	-operative Auto Network, (h) I	-Go, (i	)
PhillyCarShare, (j) VrtuCar, and (k) Zipcar (in the United States and Canada).	 	3 Car2Go 	operates as a one	-way instant access car	 sharing system within a pre	-defined urban
zone. Members can find an unoccupied parked	 vehicle, use it, and park it again with	in the
defined operating zone. 	The five cities were: Calgary, San Diego, Seattle, Vancouver,
Washington, D.C. The survey received 	6,167 responses	.

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
46	 	 	Vista Analyse
Belgium and 45 	percent	 in Bremen.	 They assume this means a reduction in CO	2
emissions by the same amount.
Table 	4.2 Impact of car	-sharing on vehicle	 operations
Study	 	Country/
region
Reduction in VKT	 	Reduction in CO	2e 	Data sources
Martin and
Shaheen
(2016)
USA and
Canada
Across all five
cities studied the
reduction in VKT
traveled by
personal car
range	d from 	6 to
16	 percent	.
Reduction in CO	2e-
emissions	 per
car2go hou	sehold
of 	4 -18 	percent	.
Survey of car2go
members in Calgary,
Dan Diego, Seattle,
Vancouver,
Washington, D.C.
with 	6,167
respondents.
Nijland et
al.	 (2015	)
Netherlands	 	Car	-sharing
members drove
around 15	-20
percent	 less after
becoming
members.
Net reduction of 90
kg CO	2e per
member household
per year.
Survey of 165 car	-
sharing members in
the Netherlands.
Martin and
Shaheen
(2011)

USA and
Canada
The average
observ	ed VKT	 per
year declined by
27	 percent	 after
respondents joined
a car	-sharing
organization.
Reduction of 840 kg
CO	2e per member
household, per year
due to	 the shedding
effect (580 kg) and
the suppression
effect (280 kg).
North American car	-
sharing member
survey with 6,281
respondents
conducted	 in 2008.

Ryden and
Morin
(2005)
Belgium and
Germany
Car	-sharing
reduces car
mileage by 28
percent	 in Belgium
and 45 	percent	 in
Bremen
Reduction in CO	2
emissions from
reduction in car
mileage; 28 	percent
in Belgium and 45
percent	 in Bremen.
Surveys 	undertaken
in Bremen (301
respondents) and in
Belgium (272
respondents).
Source: 	Vista Analyse
Alternative modes of transportation
While car	-sharing may reduce the distance driven by car, it may also increase the
distance traveled by public transport. For	 a complete picture of the environmental
impact of car	-sharing, emissions from the increased use of alternative modes of
transport (for example trains and buses) should be included, however few studies
consider these effects	. Ryden and Morin (2005) estimat	e that the change in public
transp	ort usage from car	-sharing lead	 to an increase in CO	2 emissions of around 2
percent.
The amount of emissions from an increase in the use of public transportation will firstly
depend on the size of this increase, and the mo	de of transport. Secondly, if the
increase takes place mostly during peak hours, extra buses, trains etc. might need to
be put into service. However, if the increase takes place off	-peak, it is less likely to
create additional 	transport	.
Parking 	infrastructure demand
By reducing vehicle holdings and VKT, car	-sharing also	 has potential impacts on
infrastructure requirements, particularly parking. 	Few studies have quantified the

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	47
magnitude of this impact. However, three are summarized in Chen and Koc	kelman
(2016	):
 	A 2004 study in the U	K surveyed employers and found that spaces fell from
0.79 spaces per staff member to 0.42 spaces per staff member after starting a
car	-sharing	 program (Department for Transport	, 2004).
 	Looking at 	car	-sharing	 and parking	 at the building scale in Toronto, Engel	-Yan
and Passmore (2013) found that buildings with dedicated car	-share vehicles
required 50	 percent	 fewer parking spaces than those without such dedications.
 	Using survey data from Ithaca Carshare, 	Stas	ko et al. 	(2013)	 estimated that
program participants’ on	-street parking needs or demands fall by 26 to 30
percent	, depending on day of 	the 	week and time of the day.
Furthermore, Ryden and Morin (2005) estimated that car	-sharing reduces the 	need for
parking space by 	90	-135m	2 in Bremen and 45	-75m	2 in Belgium for each 	car	-sharing
car.
Energy consumption during use phase
The 	car	-sharing	 fleets typicall	y consist of newer, lower	-emission	 cars compared to the
average stock of personal cars. 	Momo (2010) found that car	-shari	ng fleets register up
to 15 to 20 percent lower 	CO	2-emissions, in some cases up to 25 percent, compared to
the average personal car.	1 Based on survey responses from car	-sharing members in
Belgium, Ryden and Morin (2005) estimate that the average shared car	 consumes 17
percent less fuel 	– and emits 17 percent less 	CO	2 - compared to the average personal
car.
The higher fuel efficiency of shared cars may be attributed to a higher replacement rate
(around every 3 years) compared to the average personal car, and	 car	-sharing
providers having incentives to choose fuel	-efficient cars to reduce their costs (Concito,
2015). Several car	-sharing fleets also have a higher percentage of hybrid or electric
cars compared to personal cars. For example, 15 	percent	 of the Lets	go shared cars in
Denmark are electric.
Additionally, while personal cars often are purchased to handle the maximum capacity
needed, car	-sharing members can adjust their choice of car based on the situation in
which the car is to be used and thereby lower	 their fuel use.
While the cars may be more fuel efficient, the fuel use and emissions from driving also
depend on how the car is being driven. Concito (2015) argues that, as car	-sharing
members often are less experienced drivers, they may drive less econo	mically and
burn more fuel per kilometer compared to personal car owners.
Indirect rebound effects
Being a car	-sharing member may offer some financial benefits compared to owning a
personal car, at least for someone who does not use a car very often. 	When people
save money, they may spend some of their savings on other products or services. This
is called the indirect rebound effect. The environmental impacts	 from the indirect

1 Based on results from 10 surveys from various countries. Most of the surveys were conducted
in 2008/09.

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
48	 	 	Vista Analyse
rebound effect will vary with the types of goods and services the consumer s	pends
his/her savings on	. For example, if a family decides to spend the savings on flight
tickets for a holiday, this could more than offset the environmental benefits from car	-
sharing.
Whether someone will save money by joining car	-sharing depends on wha	t mode of
transportation they otherwise would have used. Someone who chooses to use a
shared car instead of going by bike will not save money, but someone who uses a
shared car as a replacement for a personal car may indeed save money.
As an example, imag	ine someone who over the course of a year would use a shared
car for 10 weekend trips and 20 trips during weekdays.	1 It is a	ssu	med	 an average
travel distance of 400 km per trip	 for the weekend hire, and 	an average travel distance
of 30	 km per trip	, with a 	hire period of 5 hours, for the weekday hires	. With a Peugeot
308 combi from the Norwegian car	-sharing organization Bilkollektivet, this would cost
NOK 22,500 per year. If the alternative would be to own a small	-sized used car worth
NOK 150,000, the averag	e annual cost for the same distance traveled would be
approximately NOK 41,000. The driver in this example would save NOK 18,500
annually by using a shared car.
Almost all costs of 	car	-sharing	 are incurred on a per	-trip basis	, while a large share of
the c	osts of personal car ownership is fixed (e.g. annual fees, insurance, depreciation).
Therefore, someone driving less than what is assumed in the example above would
save more money, all else being equal. Likewise, someone driving more would save
less or no	t save at all.
To get an idea of the amount of CO	2e-emissions that would result from the indirect
rebound effect, one could as a rough approximation look at the amount of CO	2e-
emissions that on average result from each monetary unit (e.g. NOK) spent on 	goods
and services. 	Steen	-Olsen et al. (2016) 	estimates	 that the carbon footprint embodied in
each NOK of final consumption of goods and services on average 	is 44 g CO	2e/NOK.	2
The differences between commodities are large. For example, every NOK spent on
transport le	ads to emissions of 95 g	 CO	2e, compared to only 29 g	 CO	2e for every 	NOK
spent on	 housing	.
If the driver from the example above spends all the NOK 18,500 he/she saves on other
goods and services, assuming average emissions per NOK 	of 	44 g CO	2e, this would
translate 	into annual emissions of 814 kg 	CO	2e.
As a comparison to the example above, Concito (2015) estimates that 	the annual
indirect rebound effect could be almost 3 tonnes CO	2e per year.	 This is based on the

1 	This is an example from 	www.smartepenger.no	, see
http://www.smartepenger.no/bilokonomi/2005	-bilkollektiv	 for the full example.	 	2 The researche	rs used data from the Norwegian consumer expenditure survey combined with
a global multiregional input	-output database to assess the carbon footprint of Norwegian
household consumption in 2012, as well as its annual development since 1999.

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	49
assumptions that 	every DKK sav	ed will lead to emissions of 78.6 grams CO	2e,1 and
annual savings of DKK 3,000 per month (DKK 36,000 per year).	2
4.1.3	 Overall environmental impacts of car	-sharing
The above sections have shown that car	-sharing can change consumer behavior,
which in turn will l	ead to environmental impacts. 	The numerical examples have focused
on the potential impacts on CO	2e-emissions, but changes to the production of cars and
volume of motor 	transport	 will also affect levels of	 local pollution, acidification	 and other
environmental impacts.
The above sections have shown that car	-sharing 	– overall 	– reduces the number of
cars on the roads and the distance traveled by car. Based on studies from Europe and
USA, each shared car could on average replace somewhere	 between 4 and 13
personal cars. Accounting for potential increases in new	-car sales to car	-sharing fleets,
from more heavy utilization of shared cars, CO	2e 	emissions could be reduced by
roughly 40 to 140 kg per member household. Furthermore, results from 	studies of car	-
sharing’s impact on the number of vehicle kilometers traveled shows a potential
reduction ranging between 6 and 45 percent, with annual emission reductions of
between 90 kg and 840 kg per member household. These results are summarized in
tab	le 4.3. The total CO	2e emission 	reductions from lower vehicle ownership and fewer
kilometers being traveled could range between 130 kg and 980 kg per member
household per year. 	Nordic emission reductions are likely somewhat closer to the lower
part of the 	interval than to the higher part.
To provide a point of comparison for the size of this reduction, a one	-way trip by
airplane from Stockholm to Gothenburg could generate approximately 140 kg CO	2e-
emissions, and a return trip by airplane from Stockholm to L	ondon could generate
around 990 kg CO	2e-emissions.	3
Tabell 	4.3 Reduction	s in CO	2e-emissions 	from car	-sharing
 	Low estimate	 	High estimate
Vehicle
ownership
40 kg	 	140 kg
Vehicle
operation
90 kg	 	840 kg
Sum	 	130 kg	 	980 kg
Source: Vista Analyse

1 Concito (2015)	 arrives at this estimate by using the marginal usage (that is, how much a
consumer spends on consumption of each DKK saved) as an estimate for how much Danes
use of each DKK, and assuming that this amount is spent on products with average emissions. 	 	2 Ac	cording to the Danish car	-sharing provider Letsgo, a member can save between DKK 3,000
and 4,000 per month by being a car	-sharing member instead of purchasing a private car
(Letsgo Interview 2014, in Concito, 2015).	 	3 Based on estimate by Chester and Horva	th (2009) of life	-cycle emissions from a midsize
airplane (346 g CO	2e/km). Distance Gothenburg 	– Stockholm: 398 km. Distance Stockholm 	–
London (return): 2868 km.

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
50	 	 	Vista Analyse
It should be noted that many of the estimates may not be representative in a Nordic
context as there are differences in driving patterns and the availability of alternative
transport modes between USA and the Nordic countries. Some of the surveys were
unde	rtaken several years ago, and the conditions for car	-sharing could have changed
since then.
A reduced volume of motor 	transport	 could also reduce the demand for parking
infrastructure. In addition, greater fuel efficiency and the use of electric and hybri	d cars
in car	-sharing fleets could further reduce emissions. However, a switch towards public
transport will in turn generate emissions. There is limited evidence in the literature on
the environmental impacts of higher fuel efficiency in shared cars, cha	nges in the use
of alternative travel modes (i.e. emissions generated from public transportation) or
demand for parking infrastructure.
The indirect rebound effect could part	ly, fully or more than offset the reductions from
lower vehicle holdings and redu	ced car use. In the examples above, the indirect
rebound effect is estimated to 814 kg and 3 tonnes CO	2e-emissions. The size of the
effect will depend on the amount of economic savings from car	-sharing, how much of
the savings car	-sharers would spend, and 	the type of goods and services the money is
spent on.
4.2	 	Housing/accommodation
Chapter 	3 provides an overview of sharing 	initiatives in the housing/accommodation
market in the Nordic countries. This section will focus on the potential impacts of
Airbnb, which	 is the most prominent sharing initiative within housing/accommodation
(see chapter 3)	. The types of changes in consumer behavior described here may also
be relevant to other, similar sharing initiatives.
Property rentals through Airbnb may induce both pos	itive and negative environmental
impacts. On the one hand, Airbnb properties may be ‘greener’ and generate lower
CO	2e-emissions than hotels. Also, the growth of Airbnb could lead to lower demand for
hotels and a reduced hotel construction rate. On the othe	r hand, with Airbnb generally
being more affordable than hotel rooms, some people may travel more often than they
would in the absence of Airbnb, potentially generating increased CO	2e-emissions from
air travel and/or other transportation modes. These poten	tial impacts are discussed in
more detail below.
4.2.1	 Airbnb vs hotels 	– comparison of energy use and associated emissions
Airbnb argues that stays at Airbnb properties generate less energy, water, and waste
than hotel	-stays. For simplicity, this section will o	nly consider the potential difference in
energy use and associated CO	2e-emissions.
The energy use of buildings varies with a range of factors, such as location, size,
weather conditions and architectural design. In general, one might expect the
operational	 energy use of Airbnb properties to be lower compared to hotels because
the latter often have more energy intense facili	ties, such as bars, restaurants	 and
swimming pools, as well as 24	-hour operation.
There is almost no existing literature on the potenti	al environmental impacts of home	-
sharing. One reason for this is that sharing platforms have been restrictive and
selective in granting researchers access to their user data, for privacy and competition
concerns, releasing their own research results	 instea	d (Frenken and Schor, 2017).
Airbnb commissioned the Cleantech Group in 2014 to analyze the environmental

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	51
impacts of home	-sharing in North America and the European Union compared to hotel
stays.	1 The findings of the study are based on an analysis of public	 sources,
proprietary Airbnb d	ata	 and survey responses from over 8000 Airbnb hosts and
guests.	2 There is limited information available about the method and data used in the
analysis as Airbnb has only released a summary of the report.
The study concludes	 that p	er guest	-night, Airbnb guests use an estimated 78	-84
percent	 (150	-330 kBtu) less energy than hotel guests and that the CO	2-emissions
associated with energy 	use	 for Airbnb stays are at least an estimated 88 percent (20 kg
CO	2) lower than for hotel 	stays.	 Cleantech considers the impacts from activities that
occur 	at Airbnb properties and hotels. Other, indirect impacts from for example
extraction and production of materials, transportation of fuels and electricity generation,
are not included in the 	analysis. Cleantech also finds that Airbnb guests use less water
and generate less waste compared to hotel guests.
According to Pérez	-Lombard et al. 	(2008)	, the average energy intensity of hotels in
USA is about 2.1 times higher compared to dwellings. Unde	r the assumption that
energy use at Airbnb properties and dwellings is the same, this suggests that energy
use could be around 50 percent lower at Airbnb properties compared to hotels.
One might expect that energy use by high	-end hotels is higher compared 	to lower	-end
accommodation (e.g. pensions and motels) because the former often offer more
energy	-intense facilities and services. If people who choose to stay at Airbnb properties
otherwise would have chosen more low	-budget accommodation such as pensions a	nd
motels with a lower associated energy use, the energy saved from Airbnb	-stays would
be lower. Zervas et al. (2014) analyze the impact of 	Airbnb on hotel stays in Texas	,
and find	s that the revenue of low	-budget accommodation is most affected by Airbnb,
while high	-end hotels and hotels that cater for business customers are mostly
unaffected.	3
Certain hotel chains are also working actively to reduce energy consumption and
become more environmentally friendly. For example, Nordic Choice hotels, which is the
largest hotel chain in Scandinavia,	 is ISO 14001 certified (an international
environmental standard), and has implemented measures to reduce its environmental
impact.	 From 2007 to 2011, the chain reduced its electricity consumption by 7 percent.	4
If hotel	 chains are reducing their energy consumption and shifting towards renewable
energy sources at a faster rate than Ai	rbnb hosts, the gap in energy use and CO	2e-
emissions between hotels and Airbnb will narrow.
If travelers decide to stay in an Airbnb apartment 	instead	 of in a hotel, the
environmental impacts would be determined by the difference between the Airbnb

1 See Cleantech (2014)	 	2 4,092 responses from Airbnb hosts. 4,448 responses from Airbnb guests. 39 percent of the
responses came from EU	-countries and 37 percent from North America. 	 	 	3 Zervas et al. (2014) used data collected from Airbnb.com on over 22,000 stays in the state of
Texas over the five year period from 2008 to 2013, and quarterly hotel revenue tax data from
over 4,000 hotels in Texas from 2003 to 2013.	 	4 	See the Nordic Choice hotels website; 	https://www.nordicchoicehotels.com/social	-
responsibility	-in-nordic	-choice	-hotels/our	-environmental	-commitment/energy/	 [Accessed 8 May
2017].

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
52	 	 	Vista Analyse
property and the hotel. If, on the other hand, travelers use Airbnb 	in addition	 to hotel
stays beca	use of more frequent travelling, the environmental benefits would not
materialize. Instead, there would be increased emissions from the transport modes
used to get to the destination. This issue is discussed in section 	4.2.2	. Any positive
impact on CO	2e-emissions associated with lower energy use at Airbnb properties
compared to hotels will therefore only be relevant in 	instances	 where Airbnb
accommodation substitutes hotel accommodation.
Zervas et al. (2014) find that a 1 percent increa	se in Airbnb lis	tings in Texas	 result in a
0.05 percent decrease in quarterly revenues for the hotels in the same area, with
lower	-end hotels incurring most of the financial impact. These results suggest that
Airbnb, at least to some degree, is a substitute to the hotel i	ndustry.
There are few points of comparison for this study as there has been little academic
research on the topic.	1 Airbnb has however commissioned a set of short stories, which
argue that the Airbnb business is complementary to the hotel industry becaus	e most of
Airbnb’s properties are located outside central hotel districts (Zervas et al., 2014).	2
Underutilization of resources is a key concept in the sharing economy. As with the
higher utilization of cars through car	-sharing, Airbnb or other home	-shari	ng initiatives
utilize idle housing capacity (for example a spare room). If however Airbnb encourages
people to buy a second property to rent out, this does not constitute use of idle
capacity (Frenken and Schor, 2017).
Assuming that Airbnb utilizes idle 	capacity, and that it leads to some substitution away
from 	traditional hotel accommodation, the growth of Airbnb could reduce the demand
for construction of new hotels. 	Emissions 	from the construction of new hotels vary
significantly with the types of mate	rials used, the size of the hotel etc.	 Environmental
impacts from construction of buildings include CO	2e-emissions, local air pollution and
waste from leftover materials.
Energy use from the operation of hotels holds by far the largest share of a building	’s
total life	-cycle energy consumption in the form of heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning 	(Filimonau et al., 2011).	 Researchers have estimated embodied energy,
which includes construction, maintenance, refurbishment, development, and demolition
of b	uildings, as a share of total energy use over the life	-cycle of a hotel building.
According to Filimonau et al. (	2011	), most researchers estimate the share of embodied
energy to be 10 	– 15 percent, sometimes up to 20 percent, of the total energy use in
mo	st of the conventional and commercial buildings with a life	-cycle of 50 to 100 years.
Filimonau et al. (	2011	) assumes embodied energy accounts for 15 percent of the total
energy use in their Life	-cycle Energy Analysis (LCEA) of two tourism accommodation

1 A literature search did not return any results for artic	les from the Nordic countries. A few
Master these	s have however covered the topic, for example:
- 	Ytreberg, Nora Svarstad. "Competitive effects of Airbnb on the Norwegian hotel
market." (2016).
- 	Neeser, D. (2015). Does Airbnb Hurt Hotel Business: Evidence fr	om the Nordic
Countries. Master's thesis, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid.	 	2 See for example Airbnb (2013), where it is stated that	 70 percent	 of Airbnb properties in Paris
are located outside the central hotel corridor.

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	53
facilities in Poole, Dorset (UK), acknowledging that the estimate lacks precision as it is
based on a wide	-ranging literature sample.
While there is limited (and potentially skewed) evidence in the literature, Airbnb guests
could have a lower energy use an	d associated CO	2e-emissions than hotel guests.
Cleantech (2014) estimates a reduction in CO	2-emissions associated with energy 	use
of at least	 88 percent (20 kg CO	2) compared to hotel stays	. CO	2 emissions from energy
use in Nordic countries is likely to be lower compared to other European countries
because of the high degree of renewable energy in the energy mix.
Nordic Choice hotels reported emissions of 3.71 kg CO	2e in 2013 per guest night at
their hotels (Nordic Choice hotels, 2016).	1 For Scandic hotels the emissions per guest
night were 2.42 kg	 for the first half of	 the same year (Scandic, 2013).	2 Note that these
emissions are of a completely different order than the emissions in Cleantech (2	014),
where CO2	-emissions associated with energy use are 20 kg lower in Airbnb properties
compared to hotels. If nevertheless it is assumed that emissions are 88 percent lower
in an Airbnb property, there could be a reduction of approximately 2	-3 kg CO	2e-
emissions per guest night. If additionally, the growth of Airbnb reduces the rate of
construction of new hotels, the reduction in emissions per guest night could be further
increased by 15 percent.	3 This is a rough approximation intended only to provide an
indication of the size and direction of the impact of Airbnb on emissions.
4.2.2	 Impact on travel patterns
Airbnb rooms are often given at a cheaper rate compared to hotel rooms because
there’s a lower transactional overhead than renting from a traditional provi	der (Zervas
et al., 2014). O	ne can imagine th	at Airbnb	, through lower prices and a different offer,
leads to more travel and subsequently more demand for accommodation.	 This could in
part, fully or more than offset the positive impacts described in the sec	tion above.
As discussed in chapter 2, the demand for a particular good or service depends on a
variety of factors, including the level of household income, the price and qua	lity of the
product in question	 and the price of close substitutes. If a consumer	 saves money by
staying at an Airbnb property, this could increase the demand for Airbnb
accommodation because the consumer’s disposable income increases (income effect),
and Airbnb is relatively cheaper than other goods and services, such as hotel
accommo	dation (substitution effect). The consumer may also decide to spend the
money saved on accommodation on other goods and services, which in turn will
generate CO	2e-emissions (see description of the indirect rebound effect in section
4.1.2).

1 The estimate includes 	Scope 1, 2	 and 3 from the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, i.e. direct
emissions, indirect emissions from the generation of purchased electricity, and other indirect
emissions from for example transportation of fuels.	 	2 Emissions generated between January and August 2013. F	ossil carbon dioxide emissions.
Scandic has not disclosed information about whether both direct and indirect emissions are
included in the number.	 	3 Based on the estimate of embodied energy as a share of total energy consumption by
Filimonau et al. (2011) 	of 15 percent and assuming a 1 to 1 relationship between increase in
energy use and increase in emissions.

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
54	 	 	Vista Analyse
Because of a lo	wer accommodation price, people may choose to go on trips that they
otherwise would not have taken or to stay longer at a destination. Whether Airbnb
induces increased travel depends on the sensitivity of consumers’ demand to changes
in price and income. T	he demand for air travel is typically highly sensitive to changes in
income and price. That is, the demand for air travel increases by 	more than	 the amount
income is increased or prices reduced. Aama	as and Peters (2017) have estimated an
income elasticity 	of demand for air travel of 1.69.	1 That is, as income increases by 1
percent, the demand for air travel increases by 1.69 percent. This would indicate that a
higher disposable income from lower accommodation prices is more likely to be spent
on air travel 	than on other, less elastic goods and services.
Voytenko et al. (2015) report the results of the first stage of an ongoing 3	-year project
on Urban Reconomy (‘sharing for circular resource efficiency’) funded by the Swedish
Research Council FORMAS.	2 The results showed that accommodation sharing
platforms did not lead to a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions from air
travel compared to incumbent hotel industry	, because they were used as a substitution
rather than an addition to hotels. Ho	wever, the researchers found that one third of
respondents stayed longer 	at the destination when they booked accommodation
through the sharing platform compared to a stay in a hotel. This could create extra
(local) pressure on the environment.
As an illust	ration of the different impacts on emissions from Airbnb, imagine someone
who 	– because of Airbnb 	– decided to travel on a return trip by airplane from Oslo to
London. The total return distance is 2300 km. Based on Chester and Horvath's (2009)
estimate of 	CO	2e-emissions per passenger kilometer travelled for a midsize plane,	3 this
trip would generate around 800 kg CO	2e. Under the assumption that one Airbnb guest
night generates 2	-3 kg less CO	2e than a hotel guest night, Airbnb accommodation
would have to sub	stitute around 270	-400 guest nights at hotels to offset these
emissions.
In the study commissioned by Airbnb, Cleantech (2014) found that Airbnb induced
increased travel in the EU in 2013, 	but that the	 emissions generated from the additional
travel was sig	nificantly lower (	7,500 metric tons CO	2) than the estimated total avoided
emissions associated with staying at an Airbnb property instead of a hotel 	(at least
370,000 metric tons CO	2). The assumptions and methodology applied for the
estimation are not publ	icly available.

1 Estimated mainly based on data from the Norwegian national survey in 2009, whereby around
29,000 persons were interviewed over telephone. 	 	2 The 	researchers collected data via a quantitative online survey with the users (i.e. hosts and
guests) of five accommodation sharing platforms (Airbnb, Home Exchange, Warm Showers,
Couchsurfing and Be Welcome), complemented by 10 in	-depth qualitative interview	s with eight
accommodation sharing platforms (9flats, Airbnb, Behomm, Be Welcome, Guest to Guest,
Home Exchange, Trustroots and Warm Showers).	 	3 346 grams CO	2e per passenger kilometer traveled. The estimate includes life cycle impacts
(emissions from opera	tion, maintenance and manufacturing, infrastructure construction and
operation, and energy production).

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	55
4.3	 	Smaller capital goods
Chapter 3 lists several Nordic sharing economy initiatives that match people who want
to rent various small capital objects, such as tools, clothes, furniture etc., with people
who want to rent out these kinds of obje	cts. The sharing of small capital objects may
lead to positive environmental benefits if it suppresses sales and production of new
objects. At the same time, it may under certain circumstances induce increased driving.
Sharing initiatives allow the sharing	 of a range of different objects. This section will
analyse the potential impacts from the sharing of tools and clothes based on a couple
of examples given by the Danish green think tank Concito in a report about the climate
potential of the sharing econom	y (see Concito, 2015).
4.3.1	 Tools
Privately owned tools are mostly stored away and only used occasionally. For
example, a power drill is only used around 18 minutes over its entire life span (Concito,
2015). The production of a tool generates around 7 kg CO	2e per kg of material.	1 The
English organi	zation WRAP has estimated that the life	-cycle emissions from a power
drill amount to around 28 kg CO	2e (WRAP 2010, cited in Concito, 2015). Only 2
percent of the emissions are generated from the use of the drill.
Concito (2015) provides a hypothetical example of	 the potential benefits of the sharing
of power drills through the Danish online service Lejdet. Lejdet facilitates the sharing of
all kinds of items between people, with tools making up the largest share of	 goods
exchanged on the site. In 2014 power drills were shared 30 times via Lejdet (Concito,
2015). Concito (2015) makes the following assumptions:
 	5 electric drills covered 30 rentals	, i.e. each of the 5 drills w	as	 rented 6 times.
 	The sharing suppressed	 the production of 25 electric drills.
 	Production of one power drill generates 28 kg CO	2e-emissions.
Based on the assumptions above, the 30 rentals would reduce emissions by 700 kg
(see table 4.	4).
Table 	4.4	 Example	 – Reduction of CO	2e-emissions from 	sharing of electric power drills
Emissions from th	e production of 5 power
drills
Reduced 	emissions from sharing 5 power
drills between 30 people
140 kg CO	2e 	700 kg CO2e
Source: Concito (2015	)
It is assumed in the example above that one rental of a power drill will suppress the
sale of one drill. Whether this is a realistic assumption depends on what people would
have done in the absence of the sharing service. Typically, people will only rent
something if they expect this to be cheaper than buying it new. That is, the hire price
times the number of expected rentals should be lower than the purchase price. Other
reasons for renting instead of buying could be the convenience of not having to store	 or
maintain the object.

1 Estimated by Concito using 	SimaPro, which is a life cycle analysis software.

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
56	 	 	Vista Analyse
The alternative to using a shared tool may not always be to purchase a new one. In the
absence of online sharing of tools, people might borrow or rent the tools from
somewhere else instead. For example, if someone needs an expensi	ve and
specialized machine they only expect to use once, it is likely t	hat they would rent the
machine	 instead of buying a new one (Concito, 2015).
If the sharing services make tools cheaper and more accessible, this could potentially
wear out the tools f	aster. This will depend on how much more the tool is being utilized.
If a tool is only used a few more times during its lifetime from being shared, it is unlikely
that they would have to be replaced faster from the additional use, considering that
most too	ls are heavily underutilized. In the case that sharing of tools facilitates the use
of tools that otherwise would not have been used, there would be an increase in
electricity use (for power tools) or fuels (e.g. lawn mowers) and associated
environmental i	mpacts.
The availability of sharing services may also induce increased traveling as people pick
up the rented tools. Whether this generates environmental impacts depends on the
travel mode and the distance traveled. It is likely that people would only be 	willing to
take short trips to pick up tools 	– for example within their neighborhood or suburb.
Imagine that someone instead of buying a new	 power drill	 drives a return trip of 5
kilometers to hire the drill. If the person otherwise would have driven a si	milar distance
to the shop to purchase the drill, there is no difference in emissions. Now imagine the
person needs the power drill 9 more times over the years. Driving an average of 5
kilometers each time, with emissions of 173 g/km,	1 this would generate 	approximately
8 kg CO	2e. In this instance, the additional emissions from induced driving would be
lower than the 28 kg emissions from the production of a power drill.
4.3.2	 Clothes
Concito (2015) 	presents an example of the potential emission reductions from the
clothes	-sharing business Resecond, which facilitates sharing of dresses in
Copenhagen and Århus. Customers can bring a dress they are no longer using, and in
return pick another dress from t	he stock. Resecond charges a monthly fee for the
service.
Concito (2015) makes the following assumptions:
 	A shared 	dress could 	be used 	up to 	25	 times.
 	A 	owned 	dress 	is normally only 	used 6 times before it	 is put at th	e back of the
cupboard.
 	1 kg of 	clothing generates 24 kg CO	2e-emissions over its lifetime.	2
 	One dress weighs approximately 1.5 kg (36 kg CO	2e)
 	Every	 time	 a dress is swapped, it is used one 	time.
Based on these assumptions, Concito (2015) calculates the potential emission
reductions from	 the recycling of dresses facilitated by Resecond. The results are
presented in table 4.	5.

1 Average CO	2e-emissions from a petrol car in Norway in 2015. Source: SS	B (2015).	 	2 Estimated by Concito using Sima Pro.

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	57
Table 	4.5 Example	 – Reduction of CO	2e-emissions from sharing of dresses
 	Dress is recycled in
Resecond 10 times
Dress is recycled in
Resecond 15 times
Dress is recy	cled in
Resecond 25 times
Saved CO	2e in kg
from increased use
of dresses
144 kg	1 	324 kg	2 	684 kg	3
Source: Concito (2015	)
As with the example given above for tools, it is important to consider what a person
would have been doing in the absence of Resecond.	 For example, someone might
have purchased a dress second	-hand instead of buying a new one. In this case,
sharing through Resecond would not result in any additional emission reductions.
Sharing could also induce increased travelling, if people travel more	 to pick up shared
clothes compared to the travelling they would have done to buy new clothes. If one
dress generates 36 kg of CO	2e emissions reductions, a person would have to travel
around 210 km by car to offset the emissions reductions.	4
There exists a	 range of different business models to facilitate sharing of clothes.
Resecond is just one of these. Vigga is another business in Denmark where a package
of baby clothes (15	-20 pieces) is circulated eight times between members during the
first two years of	 the baby’s life. While different business models could have different
environmental impacts, the principle of better utilization of clothes is the same for all of
them.
As mentioned in the examples of sharing in the transportation and
accommodation/housin	g sectors, 	lower	 prices may lead to indirect rebound effects
whereby saved money is spent on goods and services, which in turn will generate
CO	2e-emissions. This also applies to sharing of small capital goods.
4.4	 	Services
Chapter 	3 presents digital	 platforms that facilitate sharing of services in the Nordic
countries. Examples of the types of services that can be requested/offered include
running errands, cleaning services, painting	, gardening, 	house 	maintenance	,
transportation of smaller goods	 etc	. Services that in the sharing economy can be done
remotely but earlier would have to be done on site could yield considerable
environmental benefits.
The key determinant of the environmental impacts of shared services is the extent to
which it induces in	creased driving. This will depend of what the alternative to the
provision of the service would have been. Imagine a person paying someone to paint
his house, who 	– in the absence of shared services 	- would have done it himself or

1 This means suppression of the purchase of 4 dresses, as one dress alternatively would have
been used six times.	 As every dress generates 36 kg CO	2e, this equals a reduction of 144 kg.	 	2 Suppression of prod	uction of nine dresses.	 	3 Suppression of production of nineteen dresses.	 	4 Assuming average CO	2e-emissions of 173 g/km. Based on average emissions from a petrol
car in Norway in 2015. Source: SSB (2015).

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
58	 	 	Vista Analyse
perhaps not painted the h	ouse at all. The environmental impact in this instance is the
emissions generated from the transportation of the painter to and from the house.
However, if the house owner would have paid a painting company to undertake the
task, who also would have had to	 travel to and from the house, there would be no
additional environmental impacts from the shared service. Besides, if the house owner
had painted it himself, he would have to go (drive) to and from a store to buy the paint.
However, if hiring a painter t	hrough a shared service is cheaper than hiring one
through a professional company, the house owner would save money and potentially
spend th	ese	 money on goods and services that in turn cause environmental impacts 	–
this is the ‘indirect rebound effect’.
Emissions can also be generated directly from the provision of the service itself, such
as the transportation of smaller goods. Again, the environmental impact depends on
whether these goods would have been transported regardless of the existence of
shared 	services.
Another potential impact, like the case of smaller capital goods, is if someone foregoes
the purchase of tools or other equipment needed to undertake an activity because they
can hire someone to do it for them.

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	59
5.	 Overall environmental and p	oli	cy implications
In this chapter we summari	ze the main findings of our analysis and di	scuss what policy
implications this should eventually lead to.
5.1	 Several sharing initiatives have a potential 	to contribute to
enviro	nmental improvements
Our mapping 	of sharing economy initiatives in the Nordic countries shows that there
are several initiatives in transportation, housing/accommodation, sharing/renting of
smaller capital goods and services	 that could lead to environmental improvements	.
Most initiatives 	are 	related to	 the transport sector, and it is in this sector where the
direct potential for emissions reductions 	is largest. 	Analys	es show that t	here is a
potential for 	CO	2e 	emissions	 reductions	 from reduced driving of private 	cars and
reduced car product	ion. B	ut the	re are likely similar	 impacts on NOx, PM and other
pollutants causing local air pollution, 	noise, 	emissions 	of hazardous substances etc.	,
especially since 	most	 of these initiatives are located in cities where local environmental
problems 	from 	transport	 are largest	. Also in other sectors like accommodation, small
goods and services, there are emission reduction potentials from using existing
equipment and goods more instead of p	roducing more equipment that is less	 used.
We have analyzed the	 potential for emissions reductions	 from 	sharing 	alternatives that
offer	 services with 	lower prices 	and/or better qualities 	compared 	to owning and driving
one’s own car, but there are several other 	transport	ation	 sharing 	initiative	s that coul	d
yield simila	r reductions. Car	pooling, where people for instance ride together to and
from work, could lead to emissions reductions if people previously 	drove their own car
instead. 	Car hailing	 initiatives	 could yield sim	ilar benefits if people drive their own car
less	 and/or don’t own a car any more	.
Th	e environmental benefits result	 from changing peoples’ behavior away from
emissions intensive activities to less intensive ones. Thus, if there are environmental
benefits from sha	ring economy initiatives depend	 on 	how	 people 	change their
behavior	. Some would for instance drive more when cars become more available, thus
offsetting some of the initial positive benefits. The same will happen if 	some 	people
instead of traveling with public transport start driving 	shared 	cars	. It is of course
uncertain what the total, environmental impacts of these i	nitiatives would be, but
analyse	s of car sharing initiatives indicate that the impacts 	on 	CO	2e emissions 	resulting
from reduced price and/or improved quality/better availability of	 these services are
positive. Similar, positive	 impacts from reduced price and/	or better quality/availability
are likely also from various sharing initiatives in other sectors.
But we also know that when people save money from reduced prices of some services,
they will use all or some of these savings on other goods and services causing
environmental harm. 	We have 	found	 that for instance savings from	 participating in a
car 	sharin	g arrangement	 instead of owning one’s own car could be considerable, and
the use of these savings on other goods and services 	could partly, fully or more than
offset initial environmental improvements. For instance, it is likely that people 	will	 travel
mor	e by air when they get richer, which will cause large increases of 	CO	2e emissions.
A particular concern here 	might be	 that cheap accommodation through sharing
initiatives could spur people to travel more by air.

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
60	 	 	Vista Analyse
5.2	 Sharing initiatives	’ impact	s on overall emissions depend
on the environmental policy instruments used
So will these various sharing initiatives lead to environmental improvements? If we first
look at 	CO	2e emissions, it is likely that 	the initiatives	 will have only a small or no impa	ct
on overall emissions. In the Nordic countries 	CO	2e 	emissions 	from transportation and
some	 other sectors 	are taxed through fuel taxes	, and in some countries also through
purchase taxes on	 vehicles.
Furthermore, 	CO	2e 	emissions from aviation	, 	electricity, car and building material
production and most other production activities 	are 	covered by	 the EU emissions
trading scheme ETS, which 	also comprises Iceland and Norway	 (together 	with EU they
are the European Economic Area, EEA)	. Thus, if 	for ins	tance 	emissions from	 aviation
increase	, emissions from other sectors covered by the trading scheme must be
reduced to keep overall emissions within the total cap (this requires that the cap is
effective, which it hasn’t always been). 	Also, electric cars ar	e indirectly covered by the
emissions trading system because power production is part of the system. 	CO	2e
emissions from increased use of energy in hotels and other buildings are 	also 	covered
by the EU ETS system, as 	most	 emissions from the construction of	 new buildings.
This shows that when countries have 	introduced 	cost efficient climate change	 policies,
where all 	CO	2 and other GHG emissions 	have	 the same price either 	through a tax or
emissions trading system, 	people are faced with a price on emissions, s	o that this is
taken into account when they make their choices on what to spend their money on.
People change their demand for goods and services all the time because of changes in
prices, quality etc. caused among other things by new, improved goods and s	ervices
coming 	on	 the market	. Since almost all human activities cause some 	CO	2e 	emissions
through production, consumption and waste handling, it is important that all emissions
are priced so that producers and consumers can take this into account when they
make their choices. The case with the sharing economy also illustrates that 	when using
taxes	, they	 would have to be adjusted 	over time as	 we	 get richer to avoid overall
emissions to increase. I	n an emission	 trading system the 	CO	2 price will automatically
adjust to increases in emissions	 through increased demand for 	emission 	allowances	.
But not all 	CO	2e 	emissions	 are covered by taxes or EU ETS. 	Most of the policy
measures cover only CO	2, and not other GHG. 	Goods imported from outside the EEA
are 	often	 not 	covered by any 	emissions 	regulations, for instance does the 	EU ETS	 only
cover 	intra	-EEA 	flights. 	But this could change in the future, for instance will more
international flights be regulated from the mid	-2020s through a scheme adopted I by
the Internation	al Civil Aviation Organization, requiring that increases in emissions must
be offset through emissions reductions measures. 	Also, countries outside the E	EA
could eventually take actions against other 	CO	2e emissions.
If we look at impacts on local environm	ental problems the picture is more nuanced.
Road 	transport	 is an important contributor to	 problems related to local air pollution,
noise, 	road congestion and accidents, and these problems 	mostly occur in (larger)
cities	. As far as	 the sharing initiatives lead to less driving	 in cities they 	would	 have
positive impacts	 on these problems. Car	pooling and 	car 	sharing might make
congestion regulations etc. more efficient by offering alternatives to driving alone in
private cars. Even if 	transport	 isn’t reduced substantially, car sharing initiatives might
contribute to improved air quality by 	speeding up	 the introduction of low and zero
emission cars.
In the long run 	impacts from the sharing economy initiatives might be 	somewhat
differen	t. If we all in some year	s drive in zero emission, (self	-driven	) cars, 	car 	transport

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	61
will no longer contribute to 	CO	2e 	emissions and reduced local air quality. 	The sharing
initiatives could contribute to speeding up the introduction of self	-driven cars als	o, and
become an element in an integrated, intermodal transport system	. TØI (2016) foresees
that in the future personal cars are no longer common, at least in cities, and that fleets
of autonomous electric vehicles provide transportation with higher levels	 of service,
faster rides and increased safety at a far lower price than today’s individually owned
cars. 	These fleets could include a wide variety of vehicle types, sizes and
configurations that meet every kind of consumer needs. 	There are several researc	h
initiatives in the Nordic countries, for instance through the project “	Charming cities	:
Shared Mobility for Innovative and Inclusive Green Cities	” by the University of Oslo and
several partners, that try and look into how the various car sharing initiative could
shape our cities.
5.3	 Sharing initiatives	 	should be encouraged, and	 	all
emissions	 should be 	priced	 or regulated
Sharing economy initiatives co	uld yield considerable benefits to consumers by offering
lower prices and/or higher quality on t	he 	capital 	goods and services, particularly in the
transport 	and accommodation 	sector. They might also improve the overall efficiency of
the economy, leading to	 better/more use of existing cars, dwellings and other goods,
and reduced production of new 	units	. Authorities should take the opportunity to go
through various regulations to see if there are some (un	-necessary) ones that are
hampering the introduction of	 sharing initiatives, and eventually could be removed.
More efficient 	use of the resources	 through sharing initiatives could also contribute to
environmental benefits, but this is far from certain if emissions are not regulated
properly through taxes, emi	ssions trading or similar. 	Sharing initiatives would lead to
variou	s changes in how people utilize	 goods and services, and the overall impacts on
emissions are hard to foresee. But i	f all 	CO	2e 	emissions have a 	high 	price, 	and local
environmental challenges	 are regulated properly, 	sharing initiatives	 should contribute
to higher consumer benefits and a more efficient economy 	at least 	without harming the
environment.

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	63
Refer	ences
Airbnb action (2016): 	Airbnb har gjennomført	 samtlig	e «Economic Impact	»-reports	.
URL: 	https://www.airbnbaction.com/category/economic	-impact/
Airbnb (2013)	: New Study: Airbnb community contributes 	€185 million to Parisian
economy	.
Aa	maas, B. & Peters, G.P. (2017): The climate impact of Norwegians’ travel behavior.
Travel behavior and society	 6 (2017) 10	-18.
Boston Consulting Group (2016)	: What’s ahead for 	car	-sharing	? The new mobility and
its impact on vehicle sales.
Chen, T.D. & K	ockelman, K.M. (2016)	: Car	-sharing’s life	-cycle impacts on energy use
and greenhouse gas emissions. 	Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment	 47, 276	-284.
Chester	, Mi	khail 	and Arpad Horvath	 (2009	): Environmental Assessment of Passenger
Tran	sportation Should Include Infrastructure and Supply Chains,	 Environmental
Research Letters	 4(2)	.
Cleantech (2014): Environmental Impacts of Home Sharing. Phase 1 Report, April 30,
2014: Prepared by Cleantech Group for Airbnb.
Concito (2015)	: Deleøkonomiens klimapotentiale, 	Rapport 	12. Juni 2015.
Concito (2010): Forbrugerens klimapåvirkning. Rapport 20. december 2010.
Department for Transport (2004)	: Making Car Sharing and Car Clubs Work: Final
Report. DfT, London, UK.
Einav	 L., C	. Farronato	 og J	. Levin (2016): 	Peer	-to-Peer Markets	, The Annual Review of
Economics, 8:6	-15	-35, Reviews in Advance.
Engel	-Yan, J. and Passmore, D. (2013)	: Car	-sharing	 and Car Ownership at the
Building Scale: Examining Potential for Flexible Parking Requirements. Jo	urnal of the
American Planning Association 79(1), pp. 82	-91	.
FAFO (2016): Nordic labor markets and the sharing economy	.
Filimonau,	 V.	, Dickinson,	 J., Robbins,	 D.	 & 	Huijbregts,	 M.A.J.	 (2011)	: Reviewing the
carbon footprint analysis of hotels: Life	-cycle energy analysis (lcea) as a holistic
method for carbon impact appraisal of tourist accommodation. 	Journal of Cleaner
Production	, vol. 19, iss. 17	-18, pp. 1917	-1930.
Frenken, K., & Schor, J. (2017):	 	Putting the sharing economy into
perspective.	 Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions	.
Gansky, L. (2010)	: The Mesh: Why The Future of Business Is Sharing.	 Penguin
Publishing Group.
Gossling, S, Peeters, 	P., 	Ceronc	, J-P., 	Duboisd, 	G.,	Pattersone	, T. &	 Richardson	, R.B.
(2005	): The Eco	-Efficiency of Tourism.	 Ecological Economics	, vol. 54, no.15, pp. 417	-
434.

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
64	 	 	Vista Analyse
Goudin	 P. 	(2016): 	The Cost of Non	-Europe in the Sharing Economy	; EPRS: European
Parliamentary Research Service	.
Martin, E. & Shaheen, S. (2016)	: Impacts of Car2Go on vehicle ownership, modal shift,
vehicle miles traveled, and greenhouse gas emissions: An analysis of five North
American cities.
Martin, E. & Shaheen, S. (2011)	: Greenhouse gas emission impacts of car	-sharing in
North America. 	IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems	 12(4), 1074	-
1086.
Martin, E., Shaheen, S.A., and Lidicker, J. (2010)	: Impact of 	Car	-sharing	 on Household
Vehicle Holdings: Results fr	om North American Shared	-Use Vehicle Survey.
Transportation Research Record	 2143, pp. 150	-158.
Momo (2010)	: The state of European car	-sharing. Final Report 2.4 Work Package 2.
June 2010.
Nemry, F., Leduc, G. Mongelli, I. & Uihlen,	 A. (2008):	 Environmental 	Improvement of
Passenger Cars (IMPRO	-Car), Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective
Technological Studies, Seville, Spain.
Nijland, H., Meekerk, J. & Hoen, A. (2015)	: Impact of car sharing on mobility and CO	2
emissions. PBL Netherlands Environmenta	l Assessment Agency, publication number
1842. July 2015.
Nordic Choice Hotels (2016):	 Annual report. Available from: 	 [Accessed 8 May 2017].
Pérez	-Lombard, L	., Ortiz, J., & Pout, C. (2008):	 A review on buildings energy
consumption information.	 Energy and buildings	, 40	(3), 394	-398.
Ryden, C & Morin, E (2005):	 Environmental Assessment Report WP 6, moses
deliverable D6.2, version 1,1, January 18, 2005.
Sharing Economy	 (2017):	 (n.d.) In 	Wikiped	ia. R	etrieved March 28, 2017, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharing_economy	.
Scandic (2013):	 Scandic	 reduces its environmental impact. Sustainability report 	– first
half of 2013. Press release. Stockholm, 2 September 2013	.
Schneiderman	 E. (2014): 	Airbnb in the city	, This report was prepared by the Office of
the Attorney General of the State of New York’s	 Research Department and Internet
Bureau.
SSB (2015)	: Utslipp fra veitrafikken i Norge. 	Dokumentasjon av beregningsmetoder,
data og resultater. 	Rapport	 nr. 2015/22	, Statistisk Sentralbyrå, Oslo	.
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, pp. 262	-268.
Steen	‐Olsen, K., Woo	d, R., & Hertwich, E. G. (2016):	 The carbon footprint of
Norwegian household consumption 1999	–2012.	 Journal	 of Industrial Ecology	, 20	(3),
582	-592.
Stephany, A. (2015):	 The Business of Sharing: Making it in the New Sharing Economy.
Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Environmental 	impacts and potential of the sharing economy
Vista Analyse 	 	 	65
Sundararajan, A. (2016):	 The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise
of Crowd	-Based Capitalism.	 The MIT Press.
The Economist (2016): Uber; From zero to seventy (billion). Printed version,
September 3	rd 2016.
The Nordic Council of Ministers (2016)	: Invitation to open tender for a project on
Environmental impact and pot	ential of the sharing economy.
TØI (2016) Mobilitet når du trenger det: Bildeling og innovative forretningsmodeller.
Presentasjon på TØI	-frokostseminar: Delemobilitet 	– 	et svar på fremtidens
transportutfordring? Ove Langeland, forskningsleder TØI.
TØI (2011):	 Bildeling 	i hovedstadsområ	det. 	Rapport 1156/2011	, Transportø	konomisk
Institutt, Oslo.
Vista Analyse. (2016): 	Delingsøkonomiens betydning for norsk økonomi 	- i dag og i
fremtiden.	 VA	-rapport 2016	-45. 	Vista Analyse, Oslo.
Voytenko et.al. (2015): Sharing Economy and Sustainability: Zo	oming in on
Accommodation Sector. 	International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics
(IIIEE) at Lund University,
World economic forum (2009)	: The Travel & Tourism	 Competitiveness Report 2009	 –
Managing in a time of turbulence. Geneva, Switzerland.
Zervas, G.	, Davide	, P. & Byers	, J.W. (2014)	: "The rise of the sharing economy:
Estimating the impact of Airbnb on the hotel industry."	 Journal of Marketing Research	.

Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy
66	 	 	Vista Analyse

Vi	sta Analyse AS
Vista 	Analyse AS er et samfunnsfaglig analyseselskap med hovedvekt på
økonomisk forskning, utredning, evaluering og rådgivning. Vi utfører oppdrag
med høy faglig kvalitet, uavhengighet og integritet. Våre sentrale temaområder
omfatter 	klima, energi, samferdsel, næringsutvikling, byutvikling og velferd.

Våre medarbeidere har meget høy akademisk kompetanse og bred erfaring
 inn	ennfor konsulentvirksomhet. Ved behov benytter vi et velutviklet nettverk med
selskaper og ressurspersoner nasj	onalt og internasjonalt. Selskapet er i sin
helhet eiet av medarbeiderne.
Vista Analyse AS
Meltzersgate 4
0257	 Oslo

post@vista	-analyse.no
vista	-analy	se.no