IN THE FIELD OF TECHNOLOGYDEGREE PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEERING AND URBAN MANAGEMENTAND THE MAIN FIELD OF STUDYTHE BUILT ENVIRONMENT,SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS

, STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2020

Promoting a sharing economy in a small townAn empirical study assessing future potential and challenges in the town of Norrtälje

LISA LUNDSTRÖM

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYSCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Title Swedish: Främja en delningsekonomi i en småstad: En empirisk studie som utvärderar framtida potential och utmaningar i Norrtälje stad

Cover image: © Andrii Yalanskyi / Alamy Stock Photo

Author: Lisa Lundström

Supervisor: Åsa Callmer

KTH - Division of Urban and Regional Studies

Date: 2020-06-25

2

AcknowledgementsI would like to start by thanking my supervisor, Åsa Callmer, who, despite the very confusing times that the COVID-19 pandemic has presented this past spring, has offered great help and highly valued encouragements during this project. I would also like to thank all of the people who have taken their time to participate in this project in any shape or form, contributing with knowledge and insights crucial for the success of this study. Finally, I want to say thank you to my friends and family who always support me. Drawing on the fact that this study marks the end of five years of studies at KTH for me, I would also like to acknowledge all of the wonderful people I’ve met on my journey and all of the valuable experiences I bring with me into the future. I know that I leave KTH as a better, wiser and more confident person - and for that I am forever grateful.

3

AbstractThe concept sharing economy (collaborative economy or collaborative consumption) has recently gained attention in several cities over the world, with its promotion offering a prospective new path to sustainable development. In current research, most scholars cover global initiatives or initiatives in larger cities, but very few to none of them seem to have investigated the situation and potential in smaller cities. This empirical study therefore investigates both existing initiatives and work with collaborative consumption as well as the future potential and possible challenges for further promotion in a small town context, using Norrtälje town in Sweden as a case study for exploring the topic. In this study, a sharing economy is defined as a socio-economic system enabling consumers to gain access to commonly under-utilized physical assets in collaborative practices of sharing, borrowing, bartering, swapping, renting, redistributing, buying second-hand, repairing and rebuilding goods, instead of consuming new goods and/or owning privately, taking place either via online platforms or through physical infrastructure, possibly in exchange for financial compensation. A mixed method approach, including both qualitative and quantitative methods, was used in this study. The data collection included semi-structured interviews with both sharing economy initiators and the Norrtälje municipality Sustainability strategist, an online survey shared with residents in Norrtälje, as well a qualitative desk-based study. The collected results were then analysed though the lens of a formed theoretical framework, covering the themes of conditions for success and important stakeholders in a sharing economy context, as well as drivers for starting or using these initiatives and possible environmental, social and economic benefits of implementing a sharing economy. The findings showed that 11 initiatives currently exist in Norrtälje, and that the Norrtälje residents generally are very positive towards using sharing economy services. Further, it was found that the municipality is not actively working with collaborative consumption, but has been, and still is, involved in a few sharing economy activities. The findings of this study contribute to discussions on the actual role of the municipality in a sharing economy context, suggesting that the involvement of the municipality indeed is very important in regards to sharing economy initiatives, but that it is unclear from a municipal perspective whether it is actually included in the role of the municipality to promote and work with sharing economy initiatives. The results from this study suggests that the future for sharing economy initiatives in Norrtälje town looks bright. However, some challenges were found in relation to the promotion of a sharing economy in a small town context, including the current political situation not prioritising municipal involvement, the economic situation of the municipality not being able to prioritise municipal involvement, difficulties in understanding the concept among those who work for the municipality, negative mindsets among municipal workers, and lack of funding to existing and possible future initiatives. These challenges might have to be overcome in order for sharing economy initiatives to be able to grow and thrive. Further, this study found that it is believed from a small town municipal perspective it most likely is easier for a larger city to work with sharing economy initiatives, while on the contrary existing scholars suggest that the small town context might indeed be more beneficial for these types of initiatives.

4

SammanfattningKonceptet delningsekonomi (kollaborativ ekonomi or kollaborativ konsumtion) har nyligen fått uppmärksamhet i flera städer över hela världen, då dess främjning erbjuder en ny potentiell väg till hållbar utveckling. I aktuell forskning undersöker de flesta forskare globala initiativ eller initiativ i större städer, men mycket få till ingen av dem verkar ha undersökt situationen och potentialen i mindre städer. Denna empiriska undersökning undersöker därför både befintliga initiativ och arbete med kollaborativ konsumtion, samt den framtida potentialen och möjliga utmaningar för ytterligare främjning i ett småstadssammanhang, och använder Norrtälje stad som en fallstudie för att utforska ämnet. I denna studie definieras en delningsekonomi som ett socioekonomiskt system som gör det möjligt för konsumenter att få tillgång till vanligtvis underutnyttjade fysiska tillgångar genom att dela, låna, byta, hyra, omfördela, köpa begagnat, reparera och bygga om varor, istället för att köpa nya varor och/eller äga privat, vilket sker antingen via online-plattformar eller genom fysisk infrastruktur, eventuellt i utbyte mot ekonomisk kompensation. Både kvalitativa och kvantitativa metoder användes i denna studie. Datainsamlingen inkluderade semistrukturerade intervjuer med både initiativtagare för delningsekonomiinitiativ och den kommunala hållbarhetsstrategen i Norrtälje, en onlineundersökning som delades med invånarna i Norrtälje, samt en kvalitativ skrivbaserad studie. De insamlade resultaten analyserades sedan genom ett teoretiskt ramverk, som inkluderade förutsättningar för framgång och viktiga intressenter i ett delningsekonomisammanhang, samt drivkrafter för att starta eller använda dessa initiativ och möjliga miljömässiga, sociala och ekonomiska fördelar med att främja en delningsekonomi. Resultaten visade att 11 initiativ för närvarande finns i Norrtälje, och att Norrtälje-invånarna i allmänhet är mycket positiva till att använda delningsekonomitjänster. Vidare konstaterades att kommunen inte aktivt arbetar med kollaborativ konsumtion, men har varit, och fortfarande, är involverad i några delningsekonomiaktiviteter. Resultaten av denna studie bidrar till diskussioner om kommunens faktiska roll i ett delningsekonomiskt sammanhang, vilka tyder på att kommunens engagemang är av stor vikt när det gäller främjningen av dessa initiativ, men att det är oklart ur ett kommunalt perspektiv om det faktiskt ingår i kommunens roll att främja och arbeta med detta. Resultaten från denna studie tyder på att framtiden för delningsekonomiinitiativ i Norrtälje stad ser ljus ut. Vissa utmaningar hittades emellertid i anknytning till upprättandet av en delaningsekonomi i ett småstadssammanhang, inklusive om den nuvarande politiska situationen inte prioriterar kommunalt engagemang, om kommunens ekonomiska situation inte kan prioritera kommunalt engagemang, svårigheter att förstå konceptet bland de som arbetar för kommunen, negativa tankesätt bland kommunala arbetare och brist på finansiell finansiering till både befintliga och möjliga framtida initiativ. Dessa utmaningar kan behöva komma att övervinnas för att delningsekonomiinitiativ ska kunna växa och bli framgångsrika. Vidare fann denna studie att det antas ur ett småstadskommunalt perspektiv att det troligtvis är lättare för en större stad att arbeta med delningsekonomiinitiativ, medan befintliga studier tvärtom tyder på att småstadskontexten faktiskt kan vara mer fördelaktig för dessa typer av initiativ.

5

Tableofcontents

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................. 2

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Sammanfattning ...................................................................................................................................................... 4

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Problem statement .......................................................................................................................................... 9 1.2 Aim and objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 10 1.3 Research questions ....................................................................................................................................... 10 1.4 Report outline ............................................................................................................................................... 10

2 Background and literature overview ............................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Overview of Norrtälje .................................................................................................................................. 11

2.1.1 Current situation ................................................................................................................................... 11 2.1.1 Demography ......................................................................................................................................... 11

2.2 Sharing economy: History and research overview ...................................................................................... 12 2.2.1 History .................................................................................................................................................. 12 2.2.2 Literature overview: General ............................................................................................................... 12 2.2.3 Literature overview: Swedish authors .................................................................................................. 14 2.2.4 The contribution of this thesis to the research field ............................................................................. 14

2.3 Defining the term “sharing economy” ......................................................................................................... 14 2.3.1 Definitions by various authors ............................................................................................................. 15 2.3.2 How this study defines the term “sharing economy” ........................................................................... 19

2.4 Connection to related concepts .................................................................................................................... 19 2.5 What is usually being shared? ..................................................................................................................... 20 2.6 Successful examples ..................................................................................................................................... 20

2.6.1 International ......................................................................................................................................... 20 2.6.2 Swedish ................................................................................................................................................ 20

3 Theoretical framework ...................................................................................................................................... 22 3.1 Conditions for success and important stakeholders .................................................................................... 22

3.1.1 General conditions and the small town context ................................................................................... 22 3.1.2 Local authorities ................................................................................................................................... 23 3.1.3 Businesses ............................................................................................................................................ 24 3.1.4 Users ..................................................................................................................................................... 26

3.2 Drivers and possible benefits of implementing a sharing economy ............................................................. 27 3.2.1 Drivers for initiating or participating ................................................................................................... 27 3.2.2 The promises of the sharing economy ................................................................................................. 28

4 Research methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 31 4.1 Choice of study area .................................................................................................................................... 31 4.2 Study limitations ........................................................................................................................................... 31 4.3 Data and data quality .................................................................................................................................. 32 4.4 Data collection ............................................................................................................................................. 33

4.4.1 Desk-based study ................................................................................................................................. 33 4.4.2 Interviews ............................................................................................................................................. 34 4.4.3 Survey .................................................................................................................................................. 34

4.5 Data processing and analysis ...................................................................................................................... 37 4.5.1 Desk-based study ................................................................................................................................. 37 4.5.2 Interviews ............................................................................................................................................. 37 4.5.3 Survey .................................................................................................................................................. 37

4.6 Evaluation of methods .................................................................................................................................. 38 4.6.1 Desk-based study ................................................................................................................................. 38 4.6.2 Interviews ............................................................................................................................................. 38 4.6.3 Survey .................................................................................................................................................. 38

4.7 Ethical considerations .................................................................................................................................. 39

6

5 Findings, analysis and reflections ..................................................................................................................... 40 5.1 Existing sharing infrastructures and initiatives in Norrtälje town .............................................................. 40

5.1.1 Borrowing and renting ......................................................................................................................... 41 5.1.2 Swapping and redistributing ................................................................................................................ 41 5.1.3 Buying second-hand ............................................................................................................................. 42 5.1.4 Sharing ................................................................................................................................................. 43 5.1.5 Reparing and rebuilding ....................................................................................................................... 44

5.2 Norrtälje municipality’s current work with infrastructures for collaborative consumption ....................... 46 5.2.1 Overall work ......................................................................................................................................... 46 5.2.1 In current development projects ........................................................................................................... 47

5.3 Actors of importance and their roles in a small town context ..................................................................... 48 5.3.1 The municipality .................................................................................................................................. 48 5.3.2 Initiative workers and businesses ......................................................................................................... 50 5.3.3 Users and contributors .......................................................................................................................... 50

5.4 The future potential for further promotion in Norrtälje town ...................................................................... 51 5.4.1 The potential based on the views of the citizens .................................................................................. 51 5.4.2 The potential from a municipal perspective ......................................................................................... 54 5.4.3 The potential from the perspective of initiators ................................................................................... 56 5.4.4 Probable challenges .............................................................................................................................. 58

5.5 Reflections on how to move forward ............................................................................................................ 59 5.6 Implications for further work and studies .................................................................................................... 61

6 Conclusions and suggestions for future research ........................................................................................... 62 6.1 Concluding remarks ..................................................................................................................................... 62 6.2 Suggested questions for future research ...................................................................................................... 63

Reference list ......................................................................................................................................................... 64

Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................................ 69

Appendix B ............................................................................................................................................................ 70

Appendix C ............................................................................................................................................................ 71

7

Listoffigures

Figure 1. A model of the sharing economy, based on the definition by Skjelvik et al. (2017). .............................. 16 Figure 2. The relationship between the sharing economy, collaborative consumption and the collaborative economy, based on the work by Botsman (2013). ................................................................................................... 18 Figure 3. Diagram of the four business model structures and how they function, based on the work by Acquier et al. (2019). ................................................................................................................................................................ 25 Figure 4. The gender distribution of those who participated in the survey. ........................................................... 36 Figure 5. The age distribution of those who participated in the survey. ............................................................... 37 Figure 6. The number of people who have used collaborative consumption services or participated in these initiatives during the past year in Norrtälje. .......................................................................................................... 44 Figure 7. The five current development projects in Norrtälje town: Närheten in orange, Norrtälje Hamn in blue, Busstorget in red, Övre Bryggårdsgärdet in yellow and Lommarstranden in green. Map collected from Norrtälje kommun (n.d.). ........................................................................................................................................................ 47 Figure 8. Citizens perceptions towards using collaborative consumption services or participating in these initiatives. ................................................................................................................................................................ 51 Figure 9. The drivers of Norrtälje citizens for using collaborative consumption services or initiatives. .............. 53 Figure 10. The categories of belongings most interesting for sharing, borrowing etc. to those who said they are interested in using collaborative consumption services or initiatives in Norrtälje. ............................................... 54

Listoftables

Table 1. Age distribution in Norrtälje municipality, based on numbers by Norrtälje kommun (2013) ................. 11

Table 2. Mechanisms for creating and capturing value related to each business model structure, based on the work by Acquier et al. (2019) ................................................................................................................................. 26

Table 3. An overview of the data used in this study, including the type and how it has been collected ................. 32

Table 4. Overview of the existing initiatives and their respective business model structure. ................................ 40

Table 5. The number of people who have used collaborative consumption services or participated in these initiatives based on gender ..................................................................................................................................... 45

Table 6. The number of people who have used collaborative consumption services or participated in these initiatives based on age .......................................................................................................................................... 45

Table 7. Citizens perceptions towards using collaborative consumption services or participating in these initiatives, based on gender .................................................................................................................................... 52

Table 8. Citizens perceptions towards using collaborative consumption services or participating in these initiatives, based on age ......................................................................................................................................... 52

8

1IntroductionCities are currently large contributors of many of the environmental problems that the world faces. They represent as much as over 70 percent of the world’s total energy consumption, while only representing about one percent of its landmass (Cohen & Munoz, 2016). During the past 20 years, sustainable development has become an important discourse both locally and globally (Heinrichs, 2013). This discourse has provided a central framework for handling complex environmental, social and economic challenges and developments (Grunwald & Kopfmüller, 2006). Basic approaches within the discourse of sustainability remain crucial (Huber, 2011), but despite the accomplishments of both initiatives and measures, many trends follow a path that is unsustainable (Heinrichs, 2013). The global economy need to shift to include more sustainable systems for both production and consumption in order for life to be sustained (Cohen & Munoz, 2016). According to Cohen and Munoz (2016), cities are expected to form a part of solving this issue. Alternate perspectives on consumerism and capitalism have recently started being recognised, (Heinrichs, 2013). As described by Heinrichs (2013), there is no single pathway for facilitating sustainability, but different pathways and opportunities have to be explored. One prospective new path to sustainable development is the promotion of sharing economies (collaborative economy or collaborative consumption); a concept that recently has gained attention in several cities over the world (Heinrichs, 2013). Many scholars, including Belk (2010), Botsman & Rogers (2010) and Schor (2014), share a general view that the promotion of a sharing economy could be a major step towards more environmental and social sustainable living. As described by Ferguson (2016), the sharing economy is not equivalent to the circular economy. However, as stated by Sposato et al. (2017), the promotion of sharing models are often strongly connected with strategies promoting a circular economy, especially referring to waste prevention and reduction. This concept, inspired by sustainable consumption principles (Sposato et al., 2017), steers away from both individual ownership and consumption (Botsman & Rogers, 2011). Instead, the practice focuses on access to under-utilised items, spaces, services etc. (Botsman & Rogers, 2011) and comprises “commercial for-profit sharing platforms, barter and co- operative structures and a myriad of citizen-managed, not-for-profit sharing schemes, such as tool pools, clothing libraries, neighbourhood swapping initiatives and maker spaces” (Hult & Bradley, 2017, p. 599). The socio-technical infrastructure needed for sharing these under-utilised resources should according to Hult & Bradley (2017, p. 598) be called “sharing infrastructure”. As discussed by Cohen & Munoz (2016), sharing is arguably the most general form of human behaviour from an economic viewpoint, and has been so throughout much of human history. Historically sharing only took place between family members or local communities, but today this activities no longer rely on formerly promoteed relationships between those who share (Cohen & Munoz, 2016). Today, these initiatives are often driven by factors such as economic decline, environmental awareness and the increased use of information and communication technologies (Owyang et al., 2013), and many sharing economy activities can greatly influence the quality of life for city residents (Cohen & Kietzmann, 2014). Although sharing economy activities evidently are relevant and beneficial in urban settings, cities are still sometimes resistant to getting involved in sharing initiatives (Cohen & Munoz, 2016). What these local governments might not understand is that they in fact can play a significant role as support for local sharing activities (Cohen & Kietzmann, 2014).

9

Some scholars (e.g. Botsman, 2013), argue that the terminologies sharing economy, collaborative economy and collaborative consumption refer to different things. However, in this study, in accordance with what is suggested by most authors, these terms are treated as synonyms. 1.1ProblemstatementRetail is often seen as a tool for attractiveness in cities (Öner, 2015) and an important factor for urban life (Fredriksson et al., 2019). According to Dauvergne (2010), consumption is seen as one of the most significant problems and one of the largest challenges from a global environmental perspective. Car dependency is another constant challenge, with the number of passenger cars per capita having continuously increased since the 1960s in Sweden (Izzo, Myhr & Wiklund, 2015). Due to these sorts of behavioural patterns, material resource use may more than double between 2015 and 2050 according to IRC (2017), putting incredible pressure on our planet. At the same time, sustainability and decreased resource use are topics that are becoming increasingly more important, and the common interest for environmental caution and social responsibility has increased (Fredriksson et al., 2019). Both topics are part of Sweden’s environmental goals, which state that patterns for consumption of goods and services should “cause as little environmental and health problems as possible” (Naturvårdsverket, 2018, para. 4, author’s translation). The Stockholm region is expected to grow with as much as 450 000 new inhabitants until 2030 (Norrtälje kommun, 2013). Norrtälje municipality, located in the north of the Stockholm region, has together with the rest of the municipalities in the region a responsibility to provide a part of these people with housing. The municipality therefore needs to be competitive regarding both housing and work opportunities in relation to these other municipalities (Norrtälje kommun, 2013). In this context, Norrtälje town with its various services plays an important role in encouraging people to move to the municipality. Due to this challenge, Norrtälje town is currently growing and redeveloping on a relatively large scale. According to the municipality, the aim is for the town to double in size until 2040, while keeping sustainable development in mind in every part of the process (Norrtälje kommun, 2020a). Also in Norrtälje, retail is listed as an important part of the town and its development, both currently and historically (Norrtälje kommun, 2013). Decreasing the dependency on non-renewable energy resources is seen as one of the biggest challenges faced by the municipality, with car dependency being a large contributor to this issue (Norrtälje kommun, 2013). The municipality’s aim of doubling the town in size until 2040 will, of course, bring various challenges, but also possibilities regarding changes of current structures, trends and habits. Promoting a sharing economy could help changing habits related to problems such as excessive consumption and resource use (Botsman & Rogers, 2010). However, compared to the more often spoken about concept of a circular economy, where the focus often seem to lie only on its environmental benefits, promoting a sharing economy could also contribute to various social benefits, such as social bonding and the nurturing of a sense of community (Belk, 2010). Further, these two concepts have the possibility to support each other. Overall, a sharing economy has the possibility deliver both better environmental and socio-economic outcomes than what we see in current economic systems (IRC, 2017), which is why promoting this concept in a city might be very beneficial. It is, however, unclear what types of sharing infrastructures exist in Norrtälje town today, how the municipality works with the topic of collaborative consumption, and what the future potential is for promoting this concept in Norrtälje town. Further, most well-known initiatives related to the topic of

10

collaborative consumption can be seen in larger cities, while it is unclear how this would work in a smaller city and/or less populated municipality. This empirical study therefore investigates both existing initiatives and work with collaborative consumption as well as the future potential and possible challenges for further promotion in a small town context. Norrtälje town serves as a case study for exploring this topic, using both qualitative and quantitative methods. As described by Cohen & Munoz (2016):

Knowledge about the impacts of sharing activities could be beneficial for local policy makers, scholars, executives and entrepreneurs alike. Cities are only getting started in understanding the sharing economy, what it means for their city, and what kind of policy can be used to support those services that lead to positive benefits while limiting negative externalities. (Cohen & Munoz, 2016, p. 95)

Knowing information about existing initiatives, the future potential and possible challenges could help both Norrtälje municipality and other actors in improving their work towards becoming more sustainable, as well as supporting possibilities to promote new systems that could be beneficial for both inhabitants and the city as a whole. Analysing Norrtälje town’s potential and possible challenges in this context and using these findings as a case study for exploring the topic of sharing economies from a small town perspective could also be beneficial from a bigger view, since research about this is visibly lacking in the field. 1.2AimandobjectivesThe aim of this study is to use the Swedish town of Norrtälje as a case study in order to assess the future potential and possible barriers of promoting a sharing economy in a small town. It will evaluate existing sharing infrastructures through interviews and reviews of relevant literature, as well as investigate the topic from a future perspective through interviews, an online survey and analyses based on a set theoretical framework. The thesis further aims to create material that can be useful for Norrtälje municipality in their future work with sustainable development. 1.3ResearchquestionsThis thesis project intends to answer the following questions:

1. What types of initiatives and infrastructures for sharing and other related activities exist in Norrtälje town today and how are they used?

2. How is Norrtälje municipality currently working with collaborative consumption and infrastructures for sharing and other related activities?

3. What is the future potential for promoting a sharing economy in Norrtälje, including both possible benefits and potential challenges, and how can this be reached?

1.4ReportoutlineThis thesis report begins by giving the reader an overview of necessary background information about both Norrtälje and the sharing economy concept, including an outline of the work of existing scholars. Second, the report provides the reader with a theoretical framework. Third, the research methodology is presented including choice of study area, limitations, data collection data processing and an evaluation of the chosen methods. Fourth, the study findings are presented and analysed. Last, conclusions are drawn and suggestions for future research are presented.

11

2BackgroundandliteratureoverviewIn this chapter, an overview of both Norrtälje town and the history of the sharing economy will be given. Then, a research summary is presented, followed by an overview of how to define the term sharing economy. Last, additional background information is presented, including connections to related concepts, what usually is “shared” in a sharing economy and successful examples.

2.1OverviewofNorrtälje2.1.1CurrentsituationNorrtälje municipality is the largest municipality in the Stockholm region (Norrtälje kommun, 2013). The municipality takes up as much as a third of the Stockholm region area, although much of its surface consists of archipelago and rural environments. Due to its large surface, the municipality is facing different kinds of challenges. Part of this is balancing a dispersed population with traditional values (Norrtälje kommun, 2013). In the centre of the municipality, Norrtälje town is located (Norrtälje kommun, 2019). The Stockholm region is expected to grow with as much as 450 000 new inhabitants until 2030 (Norrtälje kommun, 2013). Norrtälje municipality has a responsibility to provide a part of these people with housing, and needs to be competitive regarding both housing and work opportunities in relation to other municipalities in the region (Norrtälje kommun, 2013). In this context, Norrtälje town with its various services plays an important role in encouraging people to move to the municipality. Due to this challenge, Norrtälje town is currently growing and redeveloping on a relatively large scale. According to the municipality, the aim is for the town to double in size until 2040, while keeping sustainable development in mind in every part of the process (Norrtälje kommun, 2020a). New housing, retail and services are currently being developed in five larger ongoing planning projects in Norrtälje town, while more areas are being investigated for future development (Norrtälje kommun, 2020b). According to the comprehensive plan, Norrtälje municipality should enhance development for an environmentally sustainable society but with clear connections to both social and economic perspectives, while great demand is being put on urban areas regarding qualities that entail mixed uses, such as housing, work opportunities, retail, cultural places and other public spaces (Norrtälje kommun, 2013). 2.1.1DemographyAs of 2019, the total number of residents in Norrtälje municipality was 62 622 people, of which 20 635 lived in Norrtälje town (Norrtälje kommun, 2013). More specific population numbers for Norrtälje town has proven to be difficult to obtain from public sources, however, numbers covering the entire municipality are available. Out of the 62 622 people, about 49 % were women and 51 % were men, resulting in a very even distribution between these two genders (Norrtälje kommun, 2017). The distribution between different age groups can be found in Table 1. Table 1. Age distribution in Norrtälje municipality, based on numbers by Norrtälje kommun (2017)

Age group: Percentage: 0-15 16% 16-24 10% 25-44 21% 45-64 27% 65-79 20% 80+ 6%

12

The average income in Norrtälje municipality was 299 000 Swedish kronor in 2019, which is slightly below the national average of 318 200 Swedish kronor (SCB, 2020). However, the unemployment rate was slightly lower in Norrtälje municipality in relation to the national average, with a rate of 6,1% compared to 6,8% (SCB, 2020). 2.2Sharingeconomy:Historyandresearchoverview2.2.1HistoryA stated by Frenken & Schor (2017), sharing has been a part of human societies for a very long time, but has until recently been limited to only occur within peoples own social groups. During recent years, sharing has however been expanded with the help of digital tools to include what Schor (2014) calls “stranger sharing”, i.e. sharing with people outside of one’s own social network. Today, sharing platforms all over the world make it possible for strangers to share both items and services with each other, without the risk that previously was associated with it (Frenken & Schor, 2017). Online platforms such as eBay and Craigslist, which supported recirculation of personal belongings, were founded in the mid 90s as the first of their kind (Schor, 2014). The term “sharing economy” was, however, first mentioned by Lessig in 2008 in the book “Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy”, where he describes it as an economy regulated by social relations rather than cost (Puschmann & Alt, 2016). Although the concept of the sharing economy seem to have gained popularity over the past decade within several fields of research, many scholars, such as Skjelvik et al. (2017) and Cohen & Munoz (2017), seem to agree that both solid theoretical and empirical research is lacking within this subject. However, from 2015 and forward the field seem to have had an upswing in the amount of research being conducted. 2.2.2Literatureoverview:GeneralEarly work includes that by Botsman & Rogers (2010), who’s book has been cited in most work by other authors and therefore seem to greatly have impacted the field of collaborative consumption. Through the first review ever written about different types of sharing initiatives, the authors discuss different types of positive environmental sustainability impacts, and ultimately state how this concept might come to change the world we live in. In the same year, Latitude Research (2010) conducted a comprehensive empirical study on the (then) current state of collaborative consumption, as well as its potential for the upcoming future. Using a web-based survey, 537 participants across the globe answered questions regarding attitudes towards and usage of existing sharing platforms. Although this work hasn’t been cited in many articles, the work presents very interesting insights in how users view the concept as well as future opportunities based on this. During the following couple of years, many researchers seem to focus on the future potentials of the concept. Heinrichs (2013) discusses the concept of the sharing economy in relation to sustainability potentials, while Schor (2014) examines and debates non-profit and for-profit initiatives in order to assess both potentials and challenges for these initiatives to result in social movements centralised around authentic practices of sharing. Wosskow (2014) assesses the sharing economy in relation to the UK setting, in order to state the future potential for the country to become a centre for sharing economy initiatives and describes recommendations on how to get there. Even though this work focuses on a UK setting and some recommendations might not be applicable in other countries, other recommendations are more general and could therefore be useful also for others. Belk (2014) also debates the future potential. In his article, he discusses it in relation to the type of sharing taking place,

13

but also critiques the sharing economy for often being masked in nice vocabulary while actually only focusing on commodity exchanges. Much of the research conducted in 2015 seem to be more focused on important actors related to the concept of collaborative consumption, a topic arguably important for understanding important mechanism in relation to the practical usage of the concept. In their work, Hamari et al. (2015) uses surveying in order to assess participants motivation behind participating in collaborative consumption initiatives. The article presents the valuable insight that a gap exist between the attitude and behaviours of consumers, meaning that a positive mindset might not correlate with people actually taking action in the sharing economy. In his book, Stephany (2015) investigates actors active in the field while giving practical advise on how to start or invest in business connected to collaborative consumption, while Perren & Grauerholz (2015) give a more overarching view of the topic of collaborative consumption, covering both important actors and the concept’s relation to similar concepts as well as briefly touching on possible future effects. In recent year, scholars seem to have followed the approach of Perren & Grauerholz (2015) of not focusing their work on one specific topic, but instead on covering several topics in order to obtain a more complete picture of the field. Martin (2016) initiates his work by discussing the definition of the term sharing economy, but then moves over to critiquing the field for reframing the concept as a purely financial opportunity; similar to that of Belk (2014). Cohen & Munoz (2016) approaches the sharing economy in a different manner to most scholars, by relating it to sustainable consumption and production. The work analyses 18 different sharing economy initiatives in order to create a typology for sustainable consumption and production within so called Sharing Cities, which arguably can be very useful for analysing and understanding how various initiatives both function and relate to each other. Cohen & Munoz (2017) also released another interesting article the following year, which instead investigated various business models within the sharing economy in order to reveal a business model typology, and related this to the challenges each model presents for the actors involved. In their article, Acquier et al. (2017) relates the concept of collaborative consumption to similar concepts, while creating a more practical framework for helping initiatives overcoming challenges as well as discussing how they possibly can come across new ones. Three of the most interesting articles in relation to the topic of assessing the future potential for promoting a sharing economy in a Swedish small town, which this research is aiming to cover, have been written in the past few years by Frenken & Schor (2017), Skjelvik et al. (2017) and Acquier et al. (2019). All of these articles present a thorough discussion on the definitional issues of the concept, and relate the concept to sustainability impacts as well as to actors and future potentials and possibilities. In their work, Frenken & Schor (2017) use a conceptual framework in order to define the sharing economy as well as assessing its relation to similar concepts. Further, they discuss the sustainability impacts of different platforms and reflect on both currently existing regulations and possible alternatives. Through a four year study, Acquier et al. (2019) extensively examine the topic of collaborative consumption. In their work, they thoroughly discuss how to define the concept, analyse existing initiatives and actors, create a business model typology consisting of four different configurations and assess the sustainability impact connected to each configuration. Skjelvik et al. (2017) covers similar topics, but focus their work on Nordic initiatives. In their work, they give an overview of different types of initiatives, analyse possible change in consumer bahaviour and give a thorough assessment of the environmental impacts connected to each initiative type.

14

2.2.3Literatureoverview:SwedishauthorsIn a Swedish setting, the non-profit environmental association Naturskyddsföreningen (The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation) (Naturskyddsföreningen, n.d.) seem to be the main actor talking about and promoting the concept of collaborative consumption. Both on their website (Naturskyddsföreningen, 2019) and in their book “Ägodela“ (Naturskyddsföreningen, 2015) they explain the concept, discuss examples and explain possible positive impacts – with the aim of educating the public. There are, however, also some Swedish researchers who have explored the topic of collaborative consumption. Korobar (2013) relates the concept of the sharing economy to that of sustainability and attempts to examine changes in perception, through a case study investigating the concept of clothing libraries in Swedish cities. Although this work provides some interesting insights for other researchers, the scope of the work is rather limited. Atricles with a broader scope, which thereby are more useful for this research, are those written by Felländer et al. (2015), Hult & Bradley (2017) and Markendahl et al. (2018). Felländer et al. (2015) thoroughly investigate the Swedish context within the field of collaborative consumption and use the information gathered to present interesting possibilities for the future within this field. According to them, Sweden has a lot to gain from this concept, but could to much more in order to facilitate further progress and growth. Hult & Bradley (2017) present a very interesting article, in which they focus on non-profit initiatives and examine how local authorities can support collaborative consumption by facilitating infrastructure for sharing. The article seem to be one of very few, if not the only one, investigating the potential role of municipalities as an active stakeholder in this context, and how their work can enable and support initiatives. Markendahl et al. (2018) instead focus on investigating different types of services within the sharing economy in a Swedish context in order to identify patterns and drivers, and examine how these affect the usage by various actors. 2.2.4ThecontributionofthisthesistotheresearchfieldEven though a very large quantity of research might not exist within the field of collaborative consumption compared to several other fields, the research that does exist seem to be of reasonably high quality and can be used as a theoretical basis for further research. The existing research covers many topics related to the assessment of the possible future potential of the promotion of a sharing economy in a city or town, which is what this specific research is aspiring to cover, such as definitional issues, actors of importance, sustainability implications and future potentials of the sharing economy. There are, however, some gaps in the existing research. Most researchers seem to have focused on online platform initiatives when conducting their research, but very few take into consideration initiatives using physical infrastructure. Further, most examples cover global initiatives or initiatives in larger cities, but very few to none of them seem to have investigated the situation and potential in smaller cities. The knowledge gap regarding the local context was also brought up by Cohen & Munoz (2016), who state that “Yet we still know very little about how local conditions affect adoption and implementation of shared economy concepts in different cities, regions and continents.” (p. 96). These gaps are what this research is aiming to cover, by using Norrtälje town as a case study to answer the questions of what types of initiatives and infrastructures for sharing that exists, how the municipality currently is working with collaborative consumption and what the future potential for promoting a sharing economy in Norrtälje is. 2.3Definingtheterm“sharingeconomy”There is a myriad of definitions for the term sharing economy, and various activities that can be included in this definition depending on how boundaries are set. As stated by Skjelvik et al. (2017), Cohen and Munoz (2016), amongst others, the term sharing economy has no generally accepted

15

definition. According to Frenken & Schor (2017), there are several reasons for this uncertainty and confusion regarding the term, including the novelty of the concept as well as ignorance towards its history. As described by Acquier et al. (2019), there are generally two types of definitions: some authors choose to restrict the boundaries of the definition by making it more narrow, in order to form a “specific, restricted and workable empirical object” (p. 7), while other authors choose to define the field in a more broad sense, and thereby being able to both assess its “complexity” and “hybridity” as well as analyse how various actors interpret the field. Because there is no generally accepted definition of the term sharing economy, each existing definition is different. However, there are some themes that can be identified: while some authors only include online platforms in their definitions, others include both online platforms and physical infrastructure; some authors include only peer to peer transactions, while others include business or government to peer transactions and business to business transactions as well; while some authors think that some form of compensation, most often financial, has to be included, others state that the sharing economy include both for-profit and non-profit initiatives; finally, while some authors believe that events like swapping and buying second-hand are part of the sharing economy, others believe that these events should be excluded due to the fact that permanent access is granted rather than temporary. These differences are further illustrated and described more in detail below. 2.3.1DefinitionsbyvariousauthorsCohen and Munoz (2017), define the sharing economy as a “socio- economic system”, and states that this system is: “…enabling an intermediated set of exchanges of goods and services between individuals and organizations which aim to increase efficiency and optimization of under-utilized resources in society.” (p. 1). Further, they state that the term should not only cover sustainable consumption, but also sustainable production (Cohen & Munoz, 2016). Other authors also incorporates the statement that products or services have to be underutilised in order to fit into the definition of the sharing economy. In his book, Stephany (2015) defines the sharing economy as “the value in taking underutilized assets and making them accessible online to a to a community, leading to a reduced need for ownership of those assets.” (p. 9). Frenken & Schor (2017) also draws on this in their article, and choose to define the sharing economy as: “Consumers granting each other temporary access to under-utilized physical assets (‘idle capacity’), possibly for money.” (p. 123-124). Further, they state that selling goods is not part of the sharing economy. Instead, they suggest that this falls under another concept called “the second-hand economy” (p. 124). Similarly to Frenken & Schor (2017), Matzler et al. (2015) are also incorporating the idea of users only having temporary access by stating that “…consumers are paying to temporarily access or share products and services rather than buy or own them.” (para. 2). Perren & Grauerholz (2015) proposes a quite broad definition that covers both different types of events, compensation, transaction type and use of technology, stating that:

Collaborative consumption is also referred to as the ‘sharing economy’because individuals are sharing access to resources (for a fee or other compensation), or ‘peer-to-peer’exchange because both the service provider and recipient are individuals rather than businesses. Although exchange among individuals has taken place as long as people have been trading,

16

bartering, and swapping, these traditional face-to-face peer exchanges had limited appeal and were restricted by geographic bounds. […] With the advent of new technology, however, these traditional consumption communities have evolved from localized marketplaces with limited economic activity to collaborative global communities with significant economic, environmental, and social consequences. (Perren & Grauerholz, 2015, p. 139)

Schor (2014) also proposes quite a broad definition, stating that the sharing economy includes product recirculation, increased use of robust assets, service exchange and sharing of useful assets.

Figure 1. A model of the sharing economy, based on the definition by Skjelvik et al. (2017).

According to both Wosskow (2014) and Skjelvik et al. (2017), the sharing economy is restricted to include online platforms only. Wosskow (2014) here defines the concept as “online platforms that help people share access to assets, resources, time and skills” (p. 13), while Skjelvik et al. (2017) has a more elaborate definition, which states that “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.” (p. 13) (Figure 1). On the contrary, other authors include both online platforms and physical infrastructure or places in their definition. Heinrichs (2013) only includes peer to peer transactions in his definition, in which he states:

The concept and practice of a ‘sharing economy’ and ‘collaborative consumption’ suggest making use of market intelligence to foster a more collaborative and sustainable society.

17

Prominent examples are bike- and carsharing schemes as well as web-based peer-to-peer platforms covering a broad range of activities from renting rooms to sharing gadgets and swapping clothes. […] They elaborate the idea of collaborative consumption as a new form of peer-to-peer sharing. The concept involves individuals exchanging, redistributing, renting, sharing, and donating information, goods, and talent, either organizing themselves or via commercial organization by social media platforms. (Heinrichs, 2013, p. 2)

Similarly, Sposato et al. (2017) discuss that: “Beyond the digital services implemented by sharing platform, there are also social and physical places where communities are experimenting the potential of collaborative and innovative solutions…” (p. 1797). In Sweden, as explained in section 2.1.1, Naturskyddsföreningen (2019) is the main actor discussing the concept of the sharing economy. On their website, they describe the term as follows:

Collaborative consumption, sharing economy or to share belongings (Swedish: ägodela) is a collective name for something that has existed throughout history, namely the act of sharing resources. The basic principle is that it is the access that is important, not owning per se. We move away from private ownership and towards sharing what we need. We borrow, exchange, rent, buy second-hand and share instead of buying new – and thereby conserve the environment. (Naturskyddsföreningen, 2019, para. 1, authors translation)

Hult & Bradley (2017) are two researchers investigating Swedish examples. In their work, they include “practices of sharing, lending, repairing and remaking” (p. 597) and describe the sharing economy in the following way:

The practices described as collaborative consumption, or collaborative economy, can vary considerably. Platforms for collaborative consumption can be in the form of for-profit global operations, such as the short-term housing rental service Airbnb and vehicle-sharing services, as well as local non-profit sharing schemes such as swap markets and tool libraries. (Hult & Bradley, 2017, p. 597)

Further connecting to Swedish examples, the Nordic Council of Ministers (2016, cited in Skjelvik et al., 2017) only includes online platforms in their definition, however, they do state that although collaborative consumption most often takes place between consumers only, transactions can also happen between a business and a consumer. Further, they do include both sharing and other activities in the definition, and state that:

‘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 promoteed usage (Skjelvik et al., 2017, p. 18)

Even though most researchers agree that the sharing economy, collaborative consumption and the collaborative economy are all synonyms for the same concept, Botsman (2013) argues that these terms cannot be used as substitutes, but rather that they actually all have different meaning in an interconnected system (Figure 2). According to her, the collaborative economy encompasses four parts: collaborative finance, collaborative education, collaborative consumption and collaborative

18

production, and can be defined as: “An economy built on distributed networks of connected individuals and communities versus centralized institutions, transforming how we can produce, consume, finance, and learn.” (para. 7).

Figure 2. The relationship between the sharing economy, collaborative consumption and the collaborative economy, based on the work by Botsman (2013).

Further, Botsman (2013) states that collaborative consumption can be defined as: “An economic model based on sharing, swapping, trading, or renting products and services, enabling access over ownership. It is reinventing not just what we consume but how we consume.” (para. 12). According to Botsman (2013), collaborative consumption has three transaction models: business-to-consumer, peer-to-peer and business-to-business. The sharing economy is then a concept that, together with the peer economy, (partially) overlaps with collaborative consumption (Figure 2). This concept can be described as: “An economic model based on sharing underutilized assets from spaces to skills to stuff for monetary or non-monetary benefits. It is currently largely talked about in relation to P2P marketplaces but equal opportunity lies in the B2C models.” (para. 16), which differs from the peer economy that is described as “Person-to-person marketplaces that facilitate the sharing and direct trade of assets built on peer trust. It is the pure P2P slice of the sharing economy but also includes craft marketplaces… as well as peer-driven production models…” (para. 18). Even though these concepts are different, Botsman (2013) does state that they do have some aspects in common:

1. Distributed power a. From central institutions to individuals and communities

2. The role of the consumers a. From passive consumers to creators, producers, providers, collaborators and investors

3. New views on utilization of assets 4. Better coordination of what some people have and what other people need 5. Values of collaboration, enablement, sincerity and humanness.

19

2.3.2Howthisstudydefinestheterm“sharingeconomy”In this study, collaborative consumption, the sharing economy and the collaborative economy are treated as synonyms, as suggested by most authors. This study further draws on the characterizations by Naturskyddsföreningen (2019), Hult & Bradley (2017), Frenken & Schor (2017), Cohen & Munoz (2017) and Sposato et al. (2017), and defines the sharing economy as follows: A socio-economic system enabling consumers to gain access to commonly under-utilized physical assets in collaborative practices of sharing, borrowing, bartering, swapping, renting, redistributing, buying second-hand, repairing and rebuilding goods, instead of consuming new goods and/or owning privately. This takes place either via online platforms or through physical infrastructure, possibly in exchange for financial compensation. As easily noticed, it is kept rather broad. The reason for this is for the reaserch study to be able to obtain a more complete view of the situation in Norrtälje town. This definition makes clear that even though the concepts collaborative consumption, the sharing economy and the collaborative economy are treated as substitutes for the same concept in this research, the stated definition and scope best aligns with what Botsman (2013) defines as collaborative consumption. Further, this work will focus exclusively on local initiatives and infrastructure, in order to limit the work to the selected geographical boundary of Norrtälje town. 2.4ConnectiontorelatedconceptsTwo important concepts that are closely connected to the sharing economy concept are sustainable consumption and the circular economy. It is important to understand how these relate to each other in order to be able to grasp a more complete picture. As described by Sposato et al. (2017), the sharing economy concept was developed with inspiration from sustainable consumption principles. According to the Sustainable Development Goals provided by the UN, “Sustainable consumption (and production) is about doing more and better with less. It is also about decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation, increasing resource efficiency and promoting sustainable lifestyles.” (para. 5). Sustainable consumption is thus something that is desired be achieved, while the sharing economy is an economic model that provides a potential pathway towards achieving this (Mi & Coffman, 2019). Unlike the circular economy, a concept that aims to make sure that no material or resources go to waste by focusing on keeping these in closed loop systems of reusing (Ferguson, 2016), the sharing economy refers to how resources and goods are owned, used and transferred between multiple people. While the circular economy focuses on how goods are produced and taken apart, the sharing economy is rather centered around what happens to the goods during their existence (Ferguson, 2016) and is thus more linked to the consumers of products and resources. As stated by Sposato et al. (2017), the promotion of sharing models are often strongly connected with strategies promoting a circular economy, especially referring to waste prevention and reduction. However, as discussed by Ferguson (2016), even if these concepts can strongly support each other, it is highly possible to focus only on one of these without contributing to the other concept:

We can manufacture a tool which can be returned to the manufacturer and fully recycled into new tools, but the tool would need to be rented or lent from a tool library for it to be considered part of the sharing economy. If everyone owned one of these circular economy tools for themselves and it spent most of its time in storage, you would have the circular

20

economy but not sharing. Similarly, you can share tools which have no end-of-life plan, and can only be recycled in part, if at all. So the circular economy and sharing economy are not automatically created at the same time, but they can (and should) be complementary. (Ferguson, 2016, para. 5)

2.5Whatisusuallybeingshared?Even though practically anything could be shared, there are some categories of sharing opportunities that seem to be the most common. Some of these are discussed by Felländer et al. (2015): transportation (cars, bikes), co-working spaces, housing/living space, clothing, tools, money (mostly in terms of crowdfunding) and time/skills. Latitude Research (2010) adds to this list, by also including: household items, outdoor/sporting goods, food, storage space and media. Botsman (2013) summarises these categories of items that are being shared into three broader groups, in relation to how they are being shared:

1. collaborative lifestyles, i.e. sharing of assets that aren’t products, such as space and skills; 2. redistribution markets, i.e. redistribution of goods that are unwanted or underused, such as

clothing or small consumables; 3. and product service systems, meaning that the benefit of a product, such as a tool or a car, is

payed to be accessed rather than being owned. 2.6Successfulexamples2.6.1InternationalOn an international level, the concept of “sharing cities” has grown to describe cities with a multitude of sharing economy services (Agyeman et al., 2013). In the Sharing Cities Network, there are currently more than 50 cities involved (Cohen and Munoz, 2016). Sharing City Seoul is one example that seems to have gained a lot attention, much due to their ambition of converting the city to the worlds sharing capital (Cohen and Munoz, 2016). The plan included the development and implementation of programs and policies supporting sharing infrastructure, which the Seoul Metropolitan Government believed would create new opportunities for businesses, promote relationships based on trust and minimise depletion of finite resources, resolving both economic, social, and environmental issues faced by the city (Cohen and Munoz, 2016). There were several components to this strategy:

The city ́s strategy has three key components: change laws to support instead of inhibit the sharing economy, provide financial and advisory support to sharing startups, and facilitate citizen participation in the sharing economy. Furthermore the city is taking initiative to lead by example by opening up municipal buildings for public use outside of work hours providing financial support in several sharing startups, opening up more than 1,000 data sets for public use and creating book and creating tool lending libraries in different neighborhoods throughout the city. (Cohen and Munoz, 2016, p. 89)

2.6.2SwedishIn Sweden, two cities that have gained attention for their initiatives are Malmö and Göteborg. In Malmö, two successful initiatives include STPLN and Garaget, where the City of Malmö is involved in both of these initiatives (Hult & Bradley, 2017). STPLN is described as a so called multipurpose maker space, which includes do-it-yourself bike repair workspace, a co-working space, a

21

maker space including both machines and tools, a textile workshop, a centre for creative remaking, and tech crafts workshop (STPLN, 2015, cited in Hult & Bradley, 2017). Garaget is similar, but is instead described as a sort of citizen living room, including book and magazine lending, tools and sewing machines lending, laptop lending, spaces to meet or arranging events, and more (Malmö stad, 2014, cited in Hult & Bradley, 2017). In Göteborg, the Fixoteket concept has proven to be successful. These are repair spaces with working staff where you can borrow tools to repair items, but also exchange items you no longer want, leave hazardous waste and attend “reuse” workshops (Göteborgs Stad, 2019).

22

3TheoreticalframeworkIn this chapter, a theoretical framework is formed that later is used for interpreting the collected data, drawing on the work of existing scholars. Two themes are discussed in this framework: first, conditions for success and important stakeholders; then, drivers and possible benefits of implementing a sharing economy.

3.1ConditionsforsuccessandimportantstakeholdersNot many authors seem to focus on more than one to two types of stakeholders in their work when discussing them in relation to collaborative consumption, but when combining all scholars found covering the topic, the stakeholders being discussed can be divided into the following categories: the local authority, the local government, the municipality or “the city”; businesses, initiators or workers; and users, contributors or peers. 3.1.1GeneralconditionsandthesmalltowncontextAccording to Agyemen et al. (2013, p. 29, cited from Cohen & Munoz, 2016), “Building a sharing infrastructure and culture is quite simply one of the most important things cities can do to contribute to a fair and sustainable world”. How to make a sharing economy stable and successful, as well as which stakeholders that are important in this context, will most likely differ slightly depending on the circumstances in which it is promoteed. These topics are, however, important to look into in order to investigate the potential of promoting collaborative consumption in a city or town, and have been discussed by several authors. Reviewing the work of existing authors, there are some general pointers for how to make collaborative consumption succeed. According to Schor (2014), the sharing economy is far from being only about economics. In her study, she states that sharing platforms can provide many benefits, however, they are only as good as the context - both social and political - that they are active in, which clearly shows that these contexts really do matter for the potential success of the sharing economy. Further, Schor (2014) states that in order to make this type of economy socially fair, connecting to the concept of social sustainability, a clear “politics of sharing” has to be highlighted and combined with collective practices of sharing. Hult & Bradley (2017) found in their work that a need for systems thinking is vital in order to create a successful sharing economy and understanding how small projects can be scaled up and become an incorporated part of the city that they are active in. However, they additionally found that many officials stated this to also be one of the main challenges in the context of collaborative consumption. In another study, Bradley (2015) found that online sharing often facilitates practices of offline sharing and vice versa, sowing that these two types of practices can empower each other. Lastly, Hult & Bradley (2017, p. 609) state in their study various concrete factors that according to them are “crucial for these types of sharing initiatives to become more influential and stable”:

1. Both continous financial backing and actual involvement of the municipality is a key factor for making this happen.

2. A clear framework for how citizens can get involved have to exist. 3. Sites for collaborative consumption activities actually benefit from having the ability to

change with time as well as accommodate different types of activities. 4. Political stability and support is utterly important.

When discussing conditions of success from a small town perspective, the work by Ostrom (1990) becomes relevant. Ostrom (1990) discusses common-pool resources, stating that the societies that

23

have been able to sustain the common resources are those with self-organised and local ways of governing their resources, rather than larger entities. Since local sharing economy initiatives partially can be understood as commons (Bradley & Pargman, 2016), such as community gardens and social/cultural spaces, it is assumable that Ostroms statement also is true for sharing economy initiatives. However, as her work suggests, the small town size might not be enough for sharing economy initiatives to function well, as it is rather a context with established local initiatives, a willingness to start initiatives and an established sense of community that is needed. 3.1.2LocalauthoritiesThe local authority (local government, municipal or city) level is by far the category that is the most covered among existing scholars. According to Voytenko Palgan (2019a), there are several ways in which a municipality can respond to the sharing economy concept:

1. Regulating. Municipalities can use tools such as laws and taxes to regulate and govern sharing economy initiatives (Voytenko Palgan, 2019b).

2. Self-govern. Municipalities can govern their own activities, by implementing sharing practices in their own operations or share units with other municipal organisations (Voytenko Palgan, 2019c).

3. Providing. Municipalities can support sharing economy initiatives by providing material and infrastructure (Voytenko Palgan, 2019d). This can be done by co-owning, providing funding or hosting these initiatives on municipal premises.

4. Enabling. Municipalities can enable sharing economy initiatives by facilitating collaboration, market initiatives and argument for them (Voytenko Palgan, 2019e).

5. Collaborating. Municipalities can collaborate with existing initiatives by negotiating on common rules or actually engaging in the initiative itself (Voytenko Palgan, 2019f).

It is also important to note that the municipality can either deliberately or involuntarily disable or ignore to provide for sharing economy initiatives (Voytenko Palgan, 2019d). Schor (2014) states in her study that if sharing economy activities are included in municipal level actions, rather than only on a peer level, there is a larger likehood that goals and benefits connected to the sharing economy (Chapter 3.2.2) are achieved. In their work, Hult & Bradley (2017) extensively discuss the role local authorities have when it comes to providing sharing infrastructure and platforms. In their study, they state that this in fact is a core task for the municipality in several topics such as transportation, technical infrastructure, information facilities, recycling facilities, public WiFi and, according to them, also facilities for creating and repairing. However, they also state that one must specify what activities are in question as well as the purpose of these when discussing the role of local authorities in relation to collaborative consumption. Hult & Bradley (2017) also found that several local authority officials stated that within Malmö there is a total political support when it comes to working with infrastructure for collaborative consumption, and that the aim of working with this even is specified in in Malmö municipality’s “Action Plan for the Environmental Programme”. Another reason why Malmö municipality is able to successfully work with sharing infrastructure is the fact that they have been “active and quite successful in acquiring national and European external funding“ (Hult & Bradley, 2017, p. 608). Even though the role of local authorities evidently is important, Hult & Bradley (2017) found in their study that officials stated that a municipality cannot on its own facilitate activities for sharing, but should instead be a part of shaping systems for sharing through actions such as running information campaigns, providing internet services and responding to projects initiated by citizens in an effective manner. According to one official, the city cannot choose to meet

24

or not meet initiatives by the citizens, but rather have to have a set strategy on how they will do so (Hult & Bradley, 2017). This goes in line with the study by Wosskow (2014), where she states that local governments should support sharing economy start-ups as well as overall embrace the various opportunities presented by the sharing economy. Wosskow (2014) further brings up the fact that governments, in her opinion, should pilot so called sharing cities, “ – where transport, shared office space, accommodation and skills networks are joined together and residents are encouraged to share as part of their daily lives.” (p. 38). This goes in line with the Sharing City Seoul project, in which the city implemented the following strategies in order to make the project successful: changing laws, to support the development of a sharing economy; granting both advisory and financial support for collaborative consumption start-ups; ensuring citizen participation in the context of the development of a sharing economy; making municipal buildings open and available for public use after work hours; and opening up libraries for books and tools in various city neighbourhoods (Cohen & Munoz, 2016). As described by Markendahl et al. (2018), which goes in line with the statements above by Wosskow (2014) and Cohen & Munoz (2016), the city should map their own resources so that idle capacity can be unlocked. As discussed in the work by Hult & Bradley (2017), sharing economy sites could function not only for their intended purpose, but also as public spaces that go beyond consumerism. Further, they state that it is important for local authorities to provide infrastructure for the citizens where they are able to share, make and repair things instead of just consuming, since acquiring these skills might become increasingly important in relation to a future with very limited resources. According to Cohen & Munoz (2016), bringing communities of users together in this sense might “…transform local economies in innovative and more sustainable ways.” (p. 96). 3.1.3BusinessesIn their work, Acquier et al. (2019) identified a lack of a complete picture of sharing economy businesses/initiators. They therefore developed a comprehensive model including four groups of actors working as initiators of sharing economy initiatives, or so called “business model configurations”, including their respective motives. This model provides an easy way of understanding what types of businesses or initiators exist within the sharing economy, as well as what the goal of each groups of actors is, and therefore provides very helpful insights in the context of this study. According to Acquier et al. (2019), each business model configuration either focuses on peer-to-peer intermediation or centralized pooling of resources as mechanisms for creating value within the sharing economy. Further, each business model configuration either focuses on creating economic values or on extended value creation as an end result. The four business model configurations include : “shared infrastructure providers, commoners, mission-driven platforms, and matchmakers” (Acquier et al., 2019, p. 10) (Figure 3).

25

Figure 3. Diagram of the four business model structures and how they function, based on the work by Acquier et al. (2019).

Acquier et al. (2019) describe these business models (Table 2) in the following ways: Shared infrastructure providers are for-profit initiatives that create value by providing monetized, temporary access to a centralized pool of proprietary resources (machine tools for DIYers, cars, bike, etc.). Individuals and professional clients can use the service as fee-paying members or on a pay-per-use basis. […] To scale, they require a sufficient level of activity to ensure operational profitability, as well as significant financial resources. (Acquier et al., 2019, p. 10) Commoners create and provide free access to public goods. They are mostly non-profit initiatives that pool resources and skills in order to make them available to the greatest number. […] Through their initiatives, they promote an ideology based on alternative and non-market values, such as open-knowledge, do it yourself (DIY), and the democratization of resources enabling decentralized production, repair, free contribution, and free access. In such initiatives, value is created by and for the community or the initiative’s ecosystem. (Acquier et al., 2019, p. 12) Mission-driven platforms intermediate between peers to promote a societal cause. Like commoners, they pursue a mission to transform the economy and to engender new practices in the areas of consumption, exchange, and relationships. They may promote various societal causes, such as reducing waste, cutting out supply chain intermediaries, or recreating social links among strangers or neighbours. In spite of these commonalities, the central mechanism they use to make a social impact differs from commoners: instead of creating a centralized pool of resources accessible to anyone, they create value by organizing local decentralized exchanges among individuals, harnessing the power of local peer-to-peer inter- actions. Mission-driven platforms may take the form of non-profit, for-profit, or hybrid structures. (Acquier et al., 2019, p. 13)

26

Matchmakers intermediate between peers to develop decentralized market transactions. They are for-profit commercial platforms that build networks of individuals who can conduct transactions for goods or services on a peer-to-peer basis in the physical world (Evans & Schmalensee, 2016). They begin by identifying a re- source that is dispersed, under-exploited, and has a high sharing value. Instead of owning the productive assets needed for the service, they outsource most productive assets from peers, acting as a broker and taking a commission from the market exchanges they enable. (Acquier et al., 2019, p. 15)

Table 2. Mechanisms for creating and capturing value related to each business model structure, based on the work by Acquier et al. (2019)

Shared

infrastructure providers

Commoners Mission-driven platforms Matchmakers

Mechanisms for creating value

Offering monetized access to a central pool of exclusive resources

Providing free of charge access to public goods

Intermediating between peers in order to promote a communal cause

Intermediating between peers in order to develop dispersed market transactions

Mechanisms for capturing value

Subsidies by the public, membership fees or pay per use

Voluntary community work, donations or for-profit activities acting as complement

Non-monetary contributions or introduction of market mechanisms (such as advertising)

Commissions, the freemium or the two-sided business model

3.1.4UsersThe users (contributors or peers) refer to all of those who participate in sharing economy initiatives. For this group, relationship building and trust are important factors, both in relation to the platform and other participants (Wosskow, 2014; Hult & Bradley, 2017). Relating this to the small town context, Sorensen (2016) suggests that bonding social capital, i.e. social ties in connected groups, is indeed stronger in smaller towns and rural areas, while in a larger city residents know many more people but are more loosely connected to these. According to Andersson et al. (2017), a strong bonding social capital is indeed most likely confirmed with local trust. Further, Torége (2018) has created a social capital measure for Swedish municipalities, including trust among other factors. According to this study, commuter municipalities close to one of the largest cities have the highest social capital, followed by: small towns, medium sized cities, rural municipalities with many visitors, low commuting municipalities close to medium sized cities, commuter municipalities close to medium sized cities, commuter municipalities close to smaller town, rural municipalities and last larger cities. In his study, Torége (2018) further states that:

It is perhaps the case that social capital thrives in slightly smaller cities. Big enough to uphold a certain pluralism and that those who deviate from the majority norms do not end up in exclusion, but not so great that the positive side of social control disappears completely - that one actually cares about the people in their environment. (Torége, 2018, para. 5)

27

According to Schor (2014), users should organise and unionise if larger aims of redistributing capital and fostering participation, environmental protection and social relations are to be realised. In their work, Hult & Bradley (2017) points out that citizens should not only be seen as consumers, but that the future role of citizens include “…practical skills and knowledge of how to live a good convivial life, even on a tight budget, and together with others make, repair and share things” (p. 611), emphasizing citizens as “…makers and producers, rather than as mere consumers” (p. 598). Relating to the work of Acquier et al. (2019), their model does not only make it clear how different types of initiatives work and what their respective motives are (Table 2), but it also shows how the role of the individual taking part in the sharing economy activity changes depending on what type of initiative is discussed: within the Shared infrastructure provider configuration, the individual is referred to as a user who uses the service; within the Commoner configuration, the individual is referred to as a contributor; and within both the Mission-driven platform configuration and the Matchmaker configuration, individuals are referred to as peers who actively are participating and managing the activity. 3.2Driversandpossiblebenefitsofimplementingasharingeconomy3.2.1DriversforinitiatingorparticipatingUnderstanding what drives people to starting or participating in sharing economy initiatives is most likely important when assessing the potential of promoting a sharing economy or these types of initiatives, since it shows what motivates people to actually engage in collaborative consumption activities and why they exist in the first place. There seem to be some common themes that can be found among existing scholars. Environmental factors seem to be one of the main drivers, specifically for the reasons of using fewer resources and increasing circular flows of resources (Hult & Bradley, 2017; Schor, 2014; Botsman, 2013). Another important driver seem to be the economic factor, especially in terms of saving money (Hult & Bradley, 2017; Schor, 2014), allowing people to earn money (Schor, 2014), creating jobs (Hult & Bradley, 2017) and economic value change, i.e. considering that ‘growth’ should be measured in a more meaningful way compared to existing economic models (Botsman, 2013; Schor, 2014). In the study by Latitude Research (2010), it was found that 69% of the people who participated in the study expressed that they are more interested in participating in sharing economy activities if they can earn money from it. Social or societal drivers have also been brought up by several authors, including societal integration, fair access to existing resources, increased trust (Hult & Bradley, 2017), increased social connections (Schor, 2014) and value shifts in terms of rethinking the meaning of ownership (Botsman, 2013). Other drivers include technological innovation (Botsman, 2013) and the trendiness of using sharing platforms (Schor, 2014). However, as discovered in the study by Hamari et al. (2015), there might be a discrepancy between attitudes towards sharing platforms or initiatives and the actual behavior of people when it comes to taking action. In their study they found that:

Perceived sustainability is an important factor in the formation of positive attitudes towards CC, but economic benefits are a stronger motivator for intentions to participate in CC. […] Furthermore, the results suggest that in CC an attitude behavior gap might exist; people perceive the activity positively and say good things about it, but this good attitude does not necessary translate into action. (Hamari et al., 2015, p. 2055)

28

These facts are important to keep in mind when evaluating the future potential for sharing economy initiatives, since how the way people act differs from their attitudes might have a large impact on the success of future initiatives. 3.2.2ThepromisesofthesharingeconomyEven though some scholars seem to be critical to the sharing economy, any several of them discuss potential downsides such as inequalities and exclusionary effects (Acquier et al., 2017; Schor & Attwood-Charles, 2016; Hult & Bradley, 2017), most scholars seem to argue that the sharing economy can result in both environmental, social and economic benefits (e.g. Acquier et al., 2017; Cohen & Munoz, 2016) and seem to share the view that the sharing economy is a large step towards sustainable living (Schor, 2014; Belk, 2010; Botsman and Rogers, 2010). In many ways, and for obvious reasons, the drivers that are making people want to participate in sharing economy initiatives largely overlap with the potential benefits, however, many scholars seem to be more detailed when discussing the potential benefits compared to the drivers. The potential benefits are also discussed by notably more authors, providing a more comprehensive picture of the potential of the sharing economy. However, it should be mentioned that there isn’t much scientific proof for most effects; even though many scholars discuss the potential outcomes there are only a very small amount of authors who actually scientifically assess the impacts. As discussed by Frenken & Schor (2017), most impacts are very complex and “…can only be assessed with careful studies of particular effects. These studies are now long overdue.” (p. 128), resulting in a significant gap in the research field. In terms of environmental effects, the possibly most obvious benefits of the sharing economy are the fact that resources are used in more sustainable ways and that access to resources is favoured over ownership (Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Heinrichs, 2013; Martin, 2016). This comes from a value shift away from excessive consumption towards more sparing ways of finding solutions to problems (Prothero et al., 2011). These effects are further discussed by Botsman and Rogers (2010), who describe that these collaborative systems provided by the sharing economy result in environmental benefits by directly increasing the use of objects that usually can be seen as unproductive, reducing waste created by otherwise unwanted items, encouraging development of longer lifespans in goods, and absorbing the typical surplus that normally is generated by societal overproduction and overconsumption. From a larger social-environmental perspective, sharing economy initiatives can lead to a paradigm shift away from materialism and towards more sparing ways of living by changing the relations consumers have with material items (Parguel et al., 2017). According to Schor (2014) there seem to exist a widespread belief that sharing economy initiatives also can reduce carbon emissions, however, the study by Skjelvik et al. (2017) seem to be the only one that actually assess what environmental impacts collaborative consumption can have in terms of reduced CO2. In their study, they state 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 CO2-equivalent (CO2e) emissions reductions from reduced driving of private cars and reduced car production, and reduced impacts on local air pollution, noise, traffic congestion etc.… (Skjelvik et al., 2017, p. 8)

More specifically, they found that carpooling and car hailing initiatives could reduce CO2 emissions by 40-140 kg/member household and year, compared to people owning or driving their own car, and potentially up to as much as 1 000 kg/member household and year if also considering the reduced need

29

for producing new cars. Similarly, they found that a piece of clothing that is recycled 10-25 times can save between 144 and 684 kg CO2 emissions from reduced purchase of new clothing items. However, as stated by both Skjelvik et al. (2017) and Schor (2014), the ecological impacts are very much dependent on how behaviors are changed and savings from using sharing economy initiatives are spent, meaning that rebound effects could reduce the environmental benefits. From a societal perspective, sharing economy initiatives have the potential to foster new ways of social bonding and collaborating between individuals, as well as nurture a sense of community (Belk, 2010). In their study, Frenken & Schor (2017) found that these initiatives actually provide participants with the opportunity of meeting new people they never would have met otherwise and help build reliable social networks. However, they also stated that there is a chance that these initiative could be uninclusive. Further, sharing economy initiatives have an opportunity of creating businesses that are more democratic and that allocate value in ways that are more fair (Schor, 2014), as well as changing consumer attitudes and needs (Sposato et al., 2017). From an economic perspective, the direct effects are positive according to Frenken & Schor (2017), who state that:

People who voluntarily enter into a transaction in the sharing economy only do so if it is beneficial to both parties. Even in the case of goods lending there is a benefit: there are few costs for the lender because the person did not need the product during the lending period, whereas the borrower gains access to the product without charge. (Frenken & Schor, 2017, p. 126)

Further, the sharing economy supports and encourages new kinds of organisations and new ways of exchanging, providing an opportunity for breaking through the existing limitations of economic institutions (Acquier et al., 2017). According to Felländer et al. (2015), the sharing economy will have mixed implications when looking from an economic perspective. In their study, they argue that inflation will be pushed down in a sharing economy, by stating that:

New pricing mechanisms will push inflation downward as transaction and marginal costs are reduced. Additionally, transparency, an increased matching of supply and demand, and the cutting out of middlemen through digital platforms will further drive prices down – and with them, inflation. (Felländer et al., 2015, p. 8)

As discussed by McMahon (2009), lowered inflation will encourage people to become financially responsible, but “…low but stable inflation (or even deflation) is also good for the long term economy, because it allows producers to know their costs. This predictability allows producers to generate reliable profits which will eventually result in a strong healthy economy.” (para. 13). Felländer et al. (2015) also state in their study that due to more efficient use of resources the demand for capital might be lowered in a sharing economy, and that prices might be decreased due to increased competition both among sharing businesses and between sharing businesses and traditional businesses. Further, sharing economy markets will most likely have an effect on other markets (Frenken & Schor, 2017), meaning that a shift in the labour market might happen: while productivity is increased for some as a result of the sharing economy, it will lower the productivity for others, ultimately removing some job opportunities while at the same time creating new ones (Felländer et al., 2015). However, as argued by Felländer et al. (2015), there is a chance that this will aggravate the income inequalities among workers. Even though promoteed businesses and organisations might be effected by these newer

30

sharing initiatives, Acquier et al. (2019) bring up the fact that it is important for these promoteed businesses to actually respond to sharing economy initiatives by adapting their own business model in order to be able to compete, indicating that the introduction of sharing economy initiatives doesn’t necessarily have to mean the end for promoteed companies. There are also other economic effects brought by the sharing economy that might be more indirect, but that most likely will be very important in relation to sustainability. In their study, Cohen & Munoz (2016) bring up the important fact that the sharing economy:

…has already had a lasting impact on society in the sense that it has helped generate meaningful discussion regarding the role of the economy in society, peer to peer business models and alternatives to traditional capitalism. Some voices in mainstream media have even argued that the post-capitalist era has already begun (e.g. Mason, 2015), and that the modern sharing models are a driving factor of this transformation. The prevailing take- make-waste society is being challenged by many sharing economy activities, which in their purest form could assist our global economy to reshape itself in a more sustainable manner by leveraging technology (artifacts) to connect underutilized resources with those in need of access to them, instead of ownership of them. (Cohen & Munoz, 2016, p. 96)

31

4ResearchmethodologyIn this chapter, the research methodology is presented. First, the choice of study area and important study limitations are discussed. Then, the data is presented, followed by descriptions of how the data was collected and analysed as well as an evaluation of the chosen methods. Last, ethical considerations are discussed. In this study, both existing collaborative consumption initiatives and future potential and challenges for further promotion have empirically been investigated in a small town context. In order to explore this topic, the town of Norrtälje has served a case study, using both qualitative and quantitative methods for data collection. As described by McLeod (2019), “Case studies are in-depth investigations of a single person, group, event or community. […] The case study is not itself a research method, but researchers select methods of data collection and analysis that will generate material suitable for case studies.” (para. 1). The methods used in this study are described in Chapter 3.4 below. 4.1ChoiceofstudyareaIn order to investigate the topic of future potential and challenges for the promotion of a sharing economy in a small town context, a limited study area had to be chosen. Norrtälje is a town that currently is facing several challenges, such as a focus on consumption through existing retail and car dependency, but that also has sustainability goals such as decreasing the dependency on non-renewable energy resources (Norrtälje kommun, 2013) and improving cycles of materials, nutrients and energy. Further, the town is currently in an expansion phase, with the aim of doubling in size until 2040 (Norrtälje kommun, 2013). This will most likely result in several challenges, but also many possibilities regarding changes of current structures, trends and habits, where promoting a sharing economy could help changing behaviors related to problems such as excessive consumption and resource use as well as likely providing other benefits. Due to both its history, its current situation and its size, Norrtälje has in this study been viewed as a representative Swedish town for investigating the chosen topic. Furthermore, the town is closely located to Stockholm where this study has been conducted, making it easily accessible for investigation compared to other Swedish towns. However, it should be mentioned that the socio-economic situation, among other things, in small towns differs, meaning that the result from Norrtälje town might not entirely relate to the situation in another small town. Though, this study can offer a good start to understanding the small town context in relation to the sharing economy. 4.2StudylimitationsDuring the entire timeframe in which this study has been conducted, the COVID-19 pandemic has been present, meaning that any personal contact had to be eliminated. This meant that all data had to be collected over the phone or online. There also hasn’t been any internal or external economic funding present in this study. Both of these factors limited what research methods that could be chosen. In Sweden, there are many national and international online sharing platforms being used. Due to the limited timeframe of this study, it was not possible to focus both on these kinds of larger platforms and local initiatives. Further, since the work partially focuses on the role of the municipality, these sharing platforms were seen as less relevant in this study due to the fact that the municipality most often has no power to affect them. Also, due to the fact that it is nearly impossible to find all online sharing

32

platforms that are being used, it was seen as a hard task to include these in this study. Therefore, the study instead focused only on local initiatives. However, it should be acknowledged that these online sharing platforms exist and that they most likely are used in Norrtälje as well as other smaller cities. 4.3DataanddataqualityThe data collected an used for this study correspond to both primary data and secondary data. An overview of the data is presented in Table 3 below, and further explained in Chapters 3.4.1-3.4.3. Table 3. An overview of the data used in this study, including the type and how it has been collected

Type Data Source

Primary and secondary data

Qualitative information regarding currently existing collaborative consumption initiatives and services in Norrtälje town

Four interviews with people who currently work with or for different local collaborative consumption initiatives and online information or websites of the existing initiatives

Primary data

Qualitative information regarding both current work and the possibility of further promotion of a sharing economy in Norrtälje town, based on the own experiences and thoughts of local collaborative consumption initiatives

Four interviews with people who currently work with or for different local collaborative consumption initiatives

Primary data

Qualitative information regarding the current municipal work and the possibility of further promotion of a sharing economy in Norrtälje town from a municipal perspective

One interview with an official working for Norrtälje municipality

Secondary data

Qualitative information regarding regarding how the municipality currently works with collaborative consumption initiatives or services

Official documents related to both current projects and current work

Primary data

Quantitative data on how citizens in Norrtälje currently use sharing economy services as well as how willing they are to use it in the future

Online questionnaire posted in two of the largest Norrtälje Facebook groups

The acquired data fits for its intended purpose of using the Norrtälje town as a case study in order to assess the future potential and possible barriers of promoting a sharing economy in a small town. Further, due to reliable (official) sources, the data seem to be trustworthy and thereby correctly represent the real world, assuming that these official sources provide legitimate data. However, since most primary data is based on experiences of the participants, some data might be hard to generalize beyond this study. At the same time, assuming that small town municipalities, initiatives and citizens work in similar ways and experience similar challenges due to likenesses in town size, history and current situation, other data could be used to generalize to some extent. All data was collected within the same geographical limitation, ensuring consistency.

33

4.4DatacollectionThe questions that were intended to be answered in this study were:

1. What types of initiatives and infrastructures for sharing and other related activities exist in Norrtälje town today and how are they used?

2. How is Norrtälje municipality currently working with collaborative consumption and infrastructures for sharing and other related activities?

3. What is the future potential for promoting a sharing economy in Norrtälje, including both possible benefits and potential challenges, and how can this be reached?

In order to address these questions, both quantitative data regarding data on how citizens in Norrtälje currently use sharing economy services as well as how willing they are to use it in the future and qualitative data regarding current work of initiatives and the municipality and the possibility of further promotion of a sharing economy in Norrtälje town had to be collected, meaning that a mixed method approach where both qualitative and quantitative methods are used (Shorten & Smith, 2017) seemed to be the most appropriate. The methods used in this study included a desk-based study, five interviews and an online survey, and are further presented below. 4.4.1Desk-basedstudyA qualitative desk-based study was initially conducted, in order to obtain an overview of currently existing collaborative consumption initiatives and services in Norrtälje town. For this part of the study, an online search engine was used in order to find information or websites of the existing initiatives, using the following search words (followed by “Norrtälje”):

• Återbruk • Second hand • Återanvända • Återanvändning • Bilpool • Byta kläder • Co-working • Dela saker • Ägodela • Lämna kläder • Klädinsamling • Dela • Delningsekonomi • Laga själv • Reparera • Fixotek • Hyra • Hyra verktyg • Bibliotek • Verktygsbiliotek • Prylbibliotek

The qualitative desk-based study was continued later on in the study, in order to find information regarding how the municipality currently works with collaborative consumption initiatives or services, as an addition to the interview with the Norrtälje municipality Sustainability strategist (Chapter 4.4.2).

34

In this part of the study, official documents related to both current projects and current work were reviewed. These included:

• Programs and accompanying documents for current development projects • Goals and budget 2020 for Norrtälje municipality • Norrtälje municipality Climate and Environmental Program from 2018

4.4.2InterviewsFor this study, five interviews were conducted. The purpose of the interviews was to collect qualitative information regarding both current work and the possibility of further promotion of a sharing economy in Norrtälje town, based on the own experiences and thoughts of the participants. This means that all interviewees were selected using purposeful sampling. The participants were initially contacted over email, where the purpose of this study and the potential interview were clarified. The interviewees can be divided into two groups. The first group of interviewees consisted of people who currently work with or for local collaborative consumption initiatives. This group of people will be referred to as initiators in this study. Four initiators were interviewed for this study, connected to the following initiatives:

• Fritidsbanken: Sport and leisure equipment lending service • Klädbytardag: Clothing swap day • Roden Recyclingboden: Clothing redistribution • Norrtälje bilpool: Carpool service

One of the interviewees has wished to be anonymous in this study, and will therefore only be referred to as an “initiator” of the initiative the person is connected to. These initiatives were chosen due to their differences in structure, how they work and the items being handled, providing a good variety of perspectives for this study. These interviews concerned the role of the interviewee, information about the current work and current usage of each initiative, as well as the future potential and challenges from the perspective of each interviewee and their respective initiative. For the full list of questions, see Appendix A. The second group of interviewees consisted of one official working for Norrtälje municipality, namely the municipal Sustainability strategist. This person was interviewed due to her expertise in how the municipality works with sustainable development, providing the municipal perspective also needed in this study in order to answer the stated research questions. Due to the coverage of the answers she provided, it wasn’t considered as necessary to conduct interviews with any other officials working for the municipality. For the full list of questions that were asked, see Appendix B. All interviews were semi-structured, where predetermined key questions primarily were asked but follow-up questions were included where necessary to clarify or to know more about the topic being discussed. Due to the current pandemic, all interviews had to be conducted over the phone. Each interview was recorded using the built in voice recorder existing in the computer, after consent had been provided by each participant. 4.4.3SurveyFor this study, the survey methodology was used in the form of an online questionnaire. The aim of the questionnaire was to obtain quantitative data on how citizens in Norrtälje currently use sharing economy services as well as how willing they are to use it in the future. Even though both topics were

35

touched upon, the focus of the survey was on the latter rather than the former, in order to meet the aim of the study. The questionnaire was available for 10 days, and was shared to two of the largest Norrtälje Facebook groups that could be found: “Norrtälje – Vad händer på byn?” (14 390 members 2020-05-22) and “Håll Norrtälje levande” (2 361 members 2020-05-22). In order to create the survey, the free of charge webservice EasyQuest was used. The questionnaire itself consisted of three parts, using the conditional branching tool: an initial part where the participants had to clarify their current usage and their willingness to use collaborative consumption services in the future; a second part for those who answered positively on the future willingness to use collaborative consumption services, asking questions regarding thinkable drivers as well as what types of items and how the participants would like to share, swap etc.; and a third part for those who answered negatively on the future willingness to use collaborative consumption services, clarifying why they felt this way. In order to create a study where the results easily could be analysed, participants could only choose between predetermined answer options. For all of the questions that only had two answer options to choose from, as well as the questions where the participants were asked to choose which alternative that best suited their preferences, only one option could be chosen, in order to be able to more easily draw conclusions from the results. However, for the question asking about thinkable drivers and the question asking what types of items the participants would like to share, swap etc., multiple answers s could be chosen, since in reality one might have more than one driver to why they want to use collaborative consumption services and/or would like to share, swap etc. more than one type of item. Several of the questions and answer options were inspired by the result from the empirical study conducted by Latitude Research (2010), which similarly investigated the current state of collaborative consumption and its potential for the upcoming future but on a larger (global) scale (Chapter 2.2.2). For the full list of questions, see Appendix C. All participants participated anonymously, but had to clarify their gender and age. For this part, predetermined categories of answers provided by EasyQuest were used, due to the fact that these provided a good coverage of answers for the participants to choose from as well as simplified the process of creating the survey. During the 10 days that the questionnaire was available 127 responses were collected, which was considered to be a sufficient sample for this study. Out of the participants, the vast majority (85%) turned out to be women (Figure 4). When comparing this to the gender division in the municipality where 49% are women and 51%, it becomes clear that women are overrepresented in this study. One explaining factor could be that women in Norrtälje generally are more willing to answer an online questionnaire. Another reason could be the fact that women are over represented in the groups where the questionnaire was posted, which then is mirrored in the answers of this study.

36

Figure 4. The gender distribution of those who participated in the survey.

When looking at division between different age groups, the largest groups of participants belong to the age groups 25-34 years, 35-44 years, 45-54 years and 55-64 years, which all are rather equally represented (24%, 23%, 17% and 20% respectively), while the age groups 16-24 years, 65-74 years, 75-84 years and 85+ years are significantly smaller (4%, 9%, 2% and 1% respectively) (Figure 5). When comparing these to the actual age division in the municipality, it becomes clear that the age group 16-24 years is underrepresented (4% compared to 10%), the age group 25-44 years is overrepresented (47% compared to 21%), the age group 45-64 years is overrepresented (37% compared to 27%), and people over the age of 65 are underrepresented (12% compared to 26%). Overall, the municipality does have a large amount of elderly citizens (age 65 and over), however, many of these might not have access to social media platforms, the knowledge of how to use them or the willingness to use them. Same goes for people age 16-24, who might not have the same interest to be a part of the group where the questionnaire was posted as people age 25-64. Even though the age division represented in this study doesn’t completely match that of reality, one can still conclude that there is a relatively good spread of people from different age groups who participated in the study.

Male15%

Female85%

Other0%

Gender

37

Figure 5. The age distribution of those who participated in the survey.

4.5Dataprocessingandanalysis4.5.1Desk-basedstudyUsing the material collected in the desk-based study, a content analysis was conducted where the documents and websites were reviewed in relation to the stated research questions and definition of a sharing economy. All materials that were considered to be of importance for this study were then used as sources for information. 4.5.2InterviewsAfter all interviews had been conducted, the interviews were carefully transcribed using the recorded material. All participants who wished to read though their respective quotes used in this study were allowed to do so. A thematic analysis (Nowell et al., 2017) was then conducted, where four themes were identified and reviewed, corresponding to the stated research questions: general information; actors and roles; potential and benefits; and possible challenges. All transcribed data was carefully examined before separated into sections corresponding to each theme. Since the interviews were held in Swedish, all quotes were translated to English by the author. 4.5.3SurveyAfter collecting the results from the online questionnaire, the data was overlooked using the results tool provided by the webservice in order to check for missing data and obtain an overview of the answers. Using the webservice, all data was then moved to Microsoft Excel for further processing and creating diagrams. In order to compare answers from different groups of participants regarding both current use and future willingness to use collaborative consumption initiatives, the method of cross-tabulation

16-244%

25-3424%

35-4423%

45-5417%

55-6420%

65-749%

75-842%

85+1%

Age

38

(Aprameya, 2016) was used through the Excel tool Pivot Table. The groups analysed were Age and Gender. When using the tool, the group that was being analysed was chosen as columns, the answer options connected to the question that was being analysed were chosen as rows and the number of each answer option that was collected was chosen as values. 4.6Evaluationofmethods4.6.1Desk-basedstudyDue to the current pandemic, the collection of information used to obtain an overview of currently existing collaborative consumption initiatives and services in Norrtälje town was limited to only use information that could be found online. It should be stated that this potentially limited the number of findings since all initiatives might not exist online or have websites connected to them, providing an incomplete image of the current situation. However, due to the fact that most information is available online in the current time and age, it is still believed that a comprehensive image of the existing collaborative consumption initiatives and services was obtained using this method. 4.6.2InterviewsFor this study, interviewing was seen as a useful method since very detailed and meaningful information valuable in the context of this topic, which otherwise would have been nearly impossible to obtain, was able to be collected. Even though some of the answers cannot be used to generalized beyond this study, the structure that was chosen provided an opportunity to get to know more about some answers that were provided by the interviewees, and uncertainties could easily be clarified. The flexibility that the interview method provides (Bryman, 2008) made the method easy to use even in the situation of the current pandemic. However, the fact that the interviews had to be conducted over the phone did complicate data collection to some extent, both regarding the fact that the personal connection was limited during the actual interview and the fact that transcribing from a phone recording was more difficult than what transcribing from a real life voice recording would have been. The fact that the interviews had to be held over the phone did, however, provide the advantage of increased flexibility in meeting times and the fact that the interviewee could position themselves wherever they felt comfortable for participating in the interview. Even though there is a possibility the interviewer can bias the results during an interview (Gill et al., 2008), intentionally or unintentionally, the goal for both the interviews and the analysis in this study was for these to be kept as objective as possible. Similarly, there is a chance during interviews that the interviewer misunderstands the meaning of something stated by the interviewee (Gill et al., 2008). However, in this study it was made sure that any unclarities were clarified before moving on to the next question or topic when needed. 4.6.3SurveyFor this study, the survey method proved to work well for the purpose of finding out the perceptions and thoughts of the Norrtälje town citizens in the context of collaborative consumption, and a large amount of responses were able to be collected during a relatively short time frame. The method proved to be very time efficient; both in regards to people’s ability to respond and regarding the fact that other tasks could be worked on while responses were collected. In the study, participants could only select from pre-determined answers. On one hand this meant that people were not able to provide extra information or own answers that could have been very interesting for the results of the study, but on the other hand it simplified the analysis making it easier to compare the answers. Similarly, a

39

comment was provided by one of the participants stating that this person would have liked to answer both answer options on some questions where they were asked to select the one that they preferred, such as the question regarding if they would prefer using collaborative consumption services via online platforms or physical facilities. Here, making people choose one makes it easier to draw conclusions from the results, however, it does limit people in the way they are able to answer making it not completely represent reality of how they truly feel or think. Just as for the other methods used in this study, the survey had to be conducted online due to the current pandemic. This provided the benefits of participants being able to answer at a time that suited their preference and being able to reach people who might not have been willing to participate in a face-to-face study (Evans & Mathur, 2005). However, there is a possibility that some groups of people, such as elderly, lack the experience needed to complete an online survey (Evans & Mathur, 2005). Further, it is likely that the Facebook groups where the questionnaire was shared have some groups of people being overrepresented, which additionally could have affected the accuracy of the sample group. This could be one explanation to why so many more women answered the survey compared to the other gender(s), as well as why most people answering seemed to be between the ages of 25 and 55. It also has to be mentioned that although these free webservices provide effective and easy to use tools for conducting questionnaires, errors can appear. In this study, it was realised after all of the answers had been collected that an error had occurred, making two answer options missing for the participants for the question “Belongings in which of the categories below would you be interested in sharing, borrowing, swapping, renting, reusing, buying second-hand, repairing or rebuilding instead of buying new or owning privately?”. Although this was a question where multiple answers could be chosen, meaning that having these extra answer options most likely wouldn’t have changed peoples choices for the existing options, there is unfortunately now no way of knowing how many participants would have selected the missing options. 4.7EthicalconsiderationsIn this study, respect for the dignity of participants has been a priority. Further, the privacy of participants in the study has been protected and confidentiality of the research data has been prioritized throughout the study. No personal or sensitive information about a participant has been shared with anyone within or outside this study, and anonymity has been ensured for all interview participants who wished to be anonymous. For the online survey, full anonymity was ensured for all participants and individual answers could not in any way be traced back to the partakers. All participants in all parts of the study were well informed about the aim of the study as well as how the collected information would be used in the study prior to partaking, in order to ensure transparency. Participation in any part of the study was fully voluntary. Those interviewees who wished to read through their transcribed quotes before they were used in this study were allowed to do so. Bias in the representation of primary data findings and subjectivity in discussions and analyses were aimed to be fully avoided.

40

5Findings,analysisandreflectionsIn this chapter, the findings of the study are presented, analysed and reflected upon. First, existing sharing infrastructures and initiatives in Norrtälje town, including current municipal work, is presented. Then, actors of importance and their roles in a small town context are discussed, followed by an analysis regarding the future potential for further promotion in Norrtälje town and possible challenges. Last, reflections on how to move forward and implications for future work and studies are included. 5.1ExistingsharinginfrastructuresandinitiativesinNorrtäljetownWhen examining the existing infrastructures and initiatives in Norrtälje town, both the current usage and the actual services or initiatives were investigated. The services or initiatives that currently exist in Norrtälje town are described below. In order to present the findings in a comprehensive way, the existing initiatives have been divided into the following categories, based on the stated definition of collaborative consumption: borrowing and renting; swapping and redistributing; buying second-hand; sharing; and repairing and rebuilding. An overview of the existing initiatives within each category is presented in Table 4, including their respective business model structure according to the work by Acquier et al. (2019). Bytesbodar, Stora klädbytardagarna and second-hand services are here seen as a sort of mission-driven platform, but where the “exchange” doesn’t happen in the same moment. Table 4. Overview of the existing initiatives and their respective business model structure.

Category Initiative Business model structure

Borrowing and renting

Fritidsbanken Commoner

Norrtälje Stadsbibliotek Commoner

Bicycle rental service (No longer available) Shared infrastructure provider

Swapping and redistributing

Klädbytardag Mission-driven platform

Roden Recyclingboden Commoner

Bytesbodar (Closed February 2020) Mission-driven platform

Stora klädbytardagarna Mission-driven platform

Buying second-hand

Roslagskrafterna Mission-driven platform

Pingstkyrkan second hand Mission-driven platform

Röda korset second hand Mission-driven platform

Returskänken Mission-driven platform

Norrtälje begagnade hem AB Mission-driven platform

Sharing Elbilspool Shared infrastructure provider

Norrtälje bilpool (Closed March 2020) Shared infrastructure provider

Repairing and rebuilding - -

41

5.1.1BorrowingandrentingIn the category of lending and renting, there are three (currently two) initiatives that can be found: Fritidsbanken, Norrtälje City Library and bicycle rental service. FritidsbankenFritidsbanken is a lending service for sport and leisure equipment by the municipality. It is a concept that exist in over 60 Swedish municipalities (Norrtälje kommun, 2020c), where equipment for sport and leisure is collected from citizens of the town where it exist, to then free of charge be borrowed by other citizens (Ryan Tucker, personal communication, May 5, 2020). For a long time, it was talked about that the municipality wanted a service where people could rent or borrow items. They then found the Fritidsbanken concept and used support money from the Government from other projects in order to make it happen. According to Tucker,

…the business itself is not really tied to anything other than having things that you can lend -for free. That is the concept basically. Then what things you have that you lend, that is determined based on what you [currently] have or what you receive. (Ryan Tucker, personal communication, May 5, 2020)

The service is usually more popular during the winter months, where up to 50-60 items per day are borrowed, while sometimes no one is using the service during the summer months. NorrtäljeStadsbibliotek(NorrtäljeCityLibrary)At the Norrtälje City Library, it is possible to borrow books, electronic books, magazines, movies and CDs free of charge (Norrtälje kommun, 2020d). It also offers a reading corner for books and new papers, computer lending, printers, study rooms and free public WiFi. There is no membership fee, and borrowing items with the card works both at the physical facility and online. The Norrtälje City Library is also connected to all of the other 10 libraries in the municipality, meaning that it is possible to borrow items from one of the libraries to then return to it to another library. BicyclerentalserviceA bicycle rental service seemed to be available in Norrtälje earlier this year, however, it is no longer possible to find any information about this from the previous website. Whether the service is closed down or not is unclear, but according to the findings of this study, the service currently is unavailable. 5.1.2SwappingandredistributingIn the category of swapping and redistributing, there are four (currently three) initiatives that can be found: Klädbytardag, Roden Recyclingboden and bytesbodar. KlädbytardagKlädbytardag is a clothes swapping day initiated and run by Naturskyddsföreningen (The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation) together with Studiefrämjandet in Norrtälje where people can swap clothes with each other for free (Naturskyddsföreningen, 2020). The municipality used to be a part of the initiative, however, for this year’s day they chose to back out (The Klädbytardag initiator, personal communication, March 17, 2020). The initiative is locally driven, but also exist in other Swedish cities. During the swap, each participant can bring up to 10 pieces of clothing. Participants are then allowed to take up to as many pieces of clothing as they brought with them, and whatever is left over

42

is donated to charities. The aim of this initiative is to lower consumption and decrease the environmental impact. However, the social aspect has grown to be important as well. The initiative has usually had about 200-300 participants, though, last year they had approximately 400 participants. RodenRecyclingbodenRoden Recyclingboden is an initiative existing at the local high school in Norrtälje, started and run mainly by the school counselors for students who need clothing items. The initiative is based on redistribution of clothing items, where whoever that wants to hand in clothes are allowed to do so. Students at the school can then come and pick however many items they want for free during the opening hours every week. According to Lina Uggla Hedqvist (personal communication, April 16, 2020), although all students are welcome, students who come from economically difficult conditions are prioritized. The initiative started because there was a student who needed a specific clothing item for a certain event, however, the initiative has grown since then. Today, it doesn’t only exist to help students, but also to increase the reuse of items in order to lower consumption and decrease the impact on the environment that comes with excess consumption. According to Uggla Hedqvist, it is important to think about the fact that:

…things don’t turn shabby, just because I don’t want them anymore doesn’t mean that they are bad. It actually is useful for someone else. I think that is a really important thought. As I said, we consume so much today, and then people just throw things away, without considering that these things actually are really good for someone else who, additionally, doesn’t have money. (Lina Uggla Hedqvist, personal communication, April 16, 2020)

The initiative seem to be well welcomed by the students, since the room where the items are kept is always full during opening hours. Bytesbodar(SwapSheds)At the recycling station right outside of Norrtälje town, unmanned swap sheds used to exist where people were allowed to leave and pick up items. However, due to threatening situations that occurred when people visited these sheds, as well as people leaving things that didn’t belong in the sheds, they closed down in February 2020. The municipality is now looking for an organization or association who are willing to run these together with the municipality (Norrtälje kommun, 2020e). StoraklädbytardagarnaStora klädbytardagarna is an initiative that works as a redistributing middle hand for people who would like to sell unwanted items and people who would like buy them (Stora klädbytardagarna, 2020). The service takes place in a physical location and occurs about twice a year. Anything that isn’t sold is donated to charities. 5.1.3Buyingsecond-handThere are several second-hand services available in Norrtälje town: Roslagskrafterna, Pingstkyrkan second hand, Röda korset second hand, Returskänken and Norrtälje begagnade hem AB. As mentioned before, sharing apps and other online platforms have not been investigated, due to the fact that it was considered as both too time consuming and very difficult to do in the context of the study. However, it should still be mentioned that there do exist some local online second-hand platforms, where the biggest ones that were found were the Facebook groups “Köp Och Sälj I Norrtälje

43

Kommun” (17 986 members, 2020-06-03) and “Köp och Sälj, Inget gnäll. Norrtälje” (17 743 members, 2020-06-03). RoslagskrafternaRoslagskrafterna is a work integrating initiative that offers second-hand, but also multiservice and a café (Roslagskrafterna, 2020). The initiative welcomes different types of items from people who would like to hand in what they no longer want, including tableware, clothes, furniture, bikes, electronics and garden machines. Any profit is reinvested in the company or used for charitable purposes. Othersecond-handsevicesThe rest of the services from this category are all regular second-hand services, where people can come to a set store and buy things that previously were owned by someone else. In Norrtälje, these include: Pingstkyrkan second hand, Röda korset second hand, Returskänken and Norrtälje begagnade hem AB. 5.1.4SharingWhen it comes to actual sharing services, two (currently one) could be found: Elbilspool and Norrtälje bilpool. Both of them are car sharing services. Elbilspool(Electricalcarpool)In 2017, Norrtälje municipality started an electrical carpool to be used by those who work for the municipality, in order to lower their carbon footprint (Gunnarsson, 2017). However, after work hours the cars can be used by anyone. Those who want to use the service book the car and state how many kilometers they want to go, and then receive a car that is charged and adapted according to the amount of driving the person will do. The pool currently exist of three cars. NorrtäljebilpoolNorrtälje bilpool was a car sharing service run by Robert Klingvall as a small start-up company in 2014. It started due to Robert thinking there is a better way to travel within cities that everyone owning a private car. However, the company had to close down in March 2020 due to the initiative being too expensive to run and the concept of carpooling not growing as much in Sweden and Norrtälje as he had hoped for (personal communication, April 1, 2020). The service gained 35 customers during the first year, but only grew to about 45 customers at its peak. Klingvall stated during his interview that:

One reason could be that I worked full time with it the first year […], but then I had to go in and work part time and spent less time on [the carpool] and that resulted in me not being able to work with sales. So that could be one reason for why it didn’t grow. Another reason could be the fact that the market in Norrtälje isn’t bigger than it being about 40 people for who this was really good, and that I reached them. (Robert Klingvall, personal communication, April 1, 2020)

According to Klingvall, each customer signed an agreement with the company, where they then without a binding period could use the cars in the carpool.

44

5.1.5ReparingandrebuildingCurrently, there seem to be no services where people can repair or rebuild their own items in Norrtälje town. 5.1.6Currentusage Out of the people participating in the survey (n=127), almost ¾ (72%) claim to have used services or participated in initiatives that can be categorized as collaborative consumption in the past year (Figure 6) . These initiatives could include those covered in this study, but it could also be either local, national or global online platforms that weren’t covered in this study. Even though it is unclear exactly what that services have been used, the results do show that a majority of the participants already are familiar with these types of services and initiatives.

Figure 6. The number of people who have used collaborative consumption services or participated in these initiatives during the past year in Norrtälje.

When looking at the results from men and women separately, it becomes clear that a larger percentage of the women who participated in the study have used these types of services or initiatives in the past year compared to men (Table 5).

72%

28%

Have you during the past year used services or participated in initiatives with the aim of sharing, borrowing, swapping, renting, reusing, buying

second-hand, repairing or rebuilding belongings instead of buying new or owning privately?

Yes

No

45

Table 5. The number of people who have used collaborative consumption services or participated in these initiatives based on gender

Have you during the past year used services or participated in initiatives with the aim of sharing, exchanging, swapping, renting, reusing, fixing or rebuilding belongings instead of

buying new or owning privately?

Yes No Total sum

Gender:

Female 81 27 108 75% 25% 100%

Male 11 8 19 58% 42% 100%

Total 92 35 127 72% 28% 100%

When looking at the results from different age groups separately, it is evident that people ages 16-24, 35-44, 45-54 and 55-64 are the same as or above the collective result for the whole participant group, while people ages 25-34, 65-74 and 75-84 are below the collective result (Table 6). Among people age 85+ who participated, 100% state that they have used these type of services during the past year, however, only one person participated from this age group meaning that it is difficult to draw any valid conclusions from these results. Table 6. The number of people who have used collaborative consumption services or participated in these initiatives based on age

Have you during the past year used services or participated in initiatives with the aim of sharing, exchanging, swapping, renting, reusing, fixing or rebuilding belongings instead of

buying new or owning privately?

Ja Nej Total sum

Age:

16-24 4 1 5 80% 20% 100%

25-34 21 10 31 68% 32% 100%

35-44 21 8 29 72% 28% 100%

45-54 18 3 21 86% 14% 100%

55-64 19 7 26 73% 27% 100%

65-74 7 4 11 64% 36% 100%

75-84 1 2 3 33% 67% 100%

85+ 1 0 1 100% 0% 100%

Total 92 35 127 72% 28% 100%

46

5.2Norrtäljemunicipality’scurrentworkwithinfrastructuresforcollaborativeconsumption5.2.1OverallworkIn her role as a Sustainability strategist, Hanna Leife is mainly focusing on environmental sustainability, however, she does believe that the municipality as a whole rather focuses on social sustainability. In November of 2019, the Norrtälje municipality political government decided on new goals related to climate and environment. When asked about this work, the Sustainability strategist explained that:

It has been decided overall that Norrtälje Municipality should be managed and developed in a sustainable way in regard to environment and climate, with the ambition that by 2030 we will be a municipality that lies at the national forefront in the environment and the climate area. It has been specifically pointed out that in the next decade, i.e. in 2020, we will work to reduce the use of fossil fuels with the aim of phasing them out fully by 2030, but also that we will work to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in general… Also in 2020, we will specifically work to improve the cycles of materials, nutrients and energy. We will also work to conserve and promote biodiversity in municipal nature and water areas. So they are the focus areas for 2020. (Hanna Leife, personal communication, March 17, 2020)

She further explained that the municipality additionally already has a Climate and Environmental Program from 2018, decided by the former political majority in the council. However, with the decision on the development of new goals made in November, the City Council also commissioned to develop an Environment and Climate Strategy that will aim to guide the environment and climate work until 2030. According to the Sustainability strategist, Norrtälje municipality is not actively working with collaborative consumption. During her interview, the Sustainability strategist stated that:

…in this Climate and Environmental Program, [the municipality] has goals under a title named circular economy. The thing is, that all [of these goals] are not really related to circular economy… For this climate and the environmental program that was developed under the latest political government, I know that ... I was not involved in that process because I had a different role in the municipality then, but I know that they wanted to add this the title of circular economy; they wanted to lift [the subject]. On the other hand, I have, or I feel, that they have slightly lost what this term means, because what they have written under [the title] circular economy is very far from how I view circular economy. So they kind of missed the target there, I would say. I think they have talked about it but maybe not really known what we as a municipality can do. That’s how I interpret it. (Hanna Leife, personal communication, March 17, 2020)

However, the municipality has worked with a few sharing economy activities, such as Fritidsbanken, the electrical carpool, Klädbytardag (not anymore) and the swap sheds (currently closed) (Chapter 5.1). In her interview, the Sustainability strategist explained about these projects that “…[the municipality] might not think in terms of contributing to a sharing economy, but that's what [they] actually do.”. Drawing on the work by Voytenko Palgan (2019a-f), it is evident that Norrtälje municipality has governed these initiatives in different ways; from self-governing the electrical carpool to enabling the Klädbytardag initiative and actually initiating the Fritidsbanken initiative.

47

It should also be mentioned that the Sustainability strategist stated in her interview that she sees sharing economy models as strongly connected with circular economy models in a way very similar to the connection presented by Ferguson (2016) (Chapter 2.4). However, during the interview it seemed like these two models often were used as synonyms, and when asked about something related to a potential sharing economy, the circular economy model was often discussed in its place. It is important here that the municipality understands and remembers that even though these concepts can be complementary, they are not inevitably generated at the same time. 5.2.1IncurrentdevelopmentprojectsThere are currently five larger ongoing development projects in Norrtälje town: Närheten, Norrtälje Hamn, Busstorget, Övre Bryggårdsgärdet and Lommarstranden (Norrtälje kommun, n.d.) (Figure 7).

Figure 7. The five current development projects in Norrtälje town: Närheten in orange, Norrtälje Hamn in blue, Busstorget in red, Övre Bryggårdsgärdet in yellow and Lommarstranden in green. Map collected from Norrtälje kommun (n.d.).

Except for a planned mobility house including a carpool in the project “Närheten” (Norrtälje kommun, 2020f), it seems like the “Norrtälje Hamn” project is the only one that incorporates infrastructure for sharing in the plans. For the future residents of one of the larger buildings in this project, a service will be include where certain sharing activities can be reached by an app (Index Residence, 2020). These include bikepool, carpool, boatpool and a Work Lounge. According to the findings of this study, these services will, however, not be available for anyone who is not a resident in the building.

48

5.3Actorsofimportanceandtheirrolesinasmalltowncontext5.3.1ThemunicipalityThe role of the municipality was discussed during all interviews conducted for this project. In the interview with the municipal Sustainability strategist, it became clear that the role of the municipality in this context often is very unclear for those working within the municipality (personal communication, March 17, 2020). She explained that some sharing functions, such as a library, should very obviously be run by the municipality, people don’t often disagree with that. However, regarding other questions and functions connected to the sharing economy, it is not as obvious that the responsibility lies with the municipality. The Sustainability strategist further explained that, from a municipal perspective, everything is always about economic prioritisation. She stated that:

For example, when talking about a library, then nobody is questioning whether we should have a municipal library or not. On the one hand, it is very promoteed, but it also contributes to people's education and to valuable leisure time for the inhabitants, and thus has a lot of positive effects. When talking about a new function, however, well then it becomes much more dependent on whether we can spend money on it or not... new things then have to be included in the [municipal] economic activities, and what the municipal responsibility actually is gets questioned. I mean, according to the [Swedish] municipal law, the municipality has quite a, so to say... it’s a pretty ‘square’ responsibility that the municipality has on paper. And whatever [the municipality] chooses to do beyond that is considered a service, meaning that whether you can afford that service or not has to be considered. (Hanna Leife, personal communication, March 17, 2020)

The Sustainability strategist further stated that she often thinks of sharing initiatives as being positive from a municipal perspective, however, recalls that this only is an opinion. One could also argue that this doesn’t fall under the scope of what the municipality should do; the municipality does currently provide the city with larger “recycling centrals” in order for people to not throw materials such as textile in the household garbage, and doing this is what actually is included in role of the municipality. However, she also added that “If [the situation] was like, no this doesn't cost us anything, well then you could say that the municipality can work with everything. But in practice, everything costs.”. It is evident that for a smaller municipality like Norrtälje it can be unclear whether it is actually included in the role of the municipality to promote and work with sharing economy initiatives, as became apparent in the interview with The Sustainability strategist. However, many scholars seem to be very certain that the involvement of the municipality indeed is a key factor for the attainment of sharing economy initiatives. As stated by Hult & Bradley (2017), both involvement of the municipality and political support are crucial for making sharing economy initiatives stable and successful, which goes in line with the discussion by Schor (2014), who states that these initiatives only ever will be as good as their social and political context, indicating that appropriate backing from both the municipality and its politicians as well as the society as a whole actually is fundamental in this context. Hult & Bradley (2017) also seem to be certain that providing sharing infrastructures within matters such as transportation, information, recycling, creating and repairing actually is a core task for the municipality, further indicating the importance of municipal backing. Additionally, if these activities truly are included in municipal level actions, the chances of achieving goals and benefits connected to the sharing economy is increased (Schor, 2014). These goals and benefits, as presented in Chapter 3.2.2, could support and profit Norrtälje municipality and their work with sustainable development in many ways.

49

The importance of municipal backing and involvement with sharing economy initiatives in the context of Norrtälje town became evident in the interviews with initiators, since 3 out of 4 of those who were interviewed thought that the municipality has an important role in the promotion of a sharing economy in Norrtälje town. According to the Klädbytardag initiator, the most important task of the municipality in this context is to make sure that both collaborative consumption initiatives and the nonprofit enthusiasm that exist among the citizens in Norrtälje are fully supported. The Klädbytardag initiator further thought that initiatives should exist in collaboration with the municipality, and that the municipality should give support to initiatives by subsidizing collaborative consumption businesses that would like to be promoteed in Norrtälje town. “Othwerwise […] it will be a lot more hard work for those who will [wan to] start [these types of initiatives].”, the Klädbytardag initiator added. This interviewee also stated that the municipal sustainability strategist should have a larger support from higher up within the municipality when it comes to working with these types of questions and supporting these types of initiatives. Both the Roden Recyclingboden initiator and the Fritidsbanken initiator stated during their interviews that the municipality should support collaborative consumption initiatives by employing workers, since most people aren’t able to work full time without compensation, in order to make sure that the initiative actually can stay open for the hours needed for it to be able to exist in an optimal manner. The Fritidsbanken initiator also mentioned the importance of marketing existing initiatives, and stated that “…it is up to the municipality to market [the initiatives] in a good way in order to get across to people, and that requires financial support, but also knowledge about communication and how to reach out.”. However, during the interview with the Norrtälje bilpool initiator it was stated that the municipality should stay out of sharing businesses run by small companies. In his experience, the municipality as a large organization works better with larger companies and doesn’t really understand the needs of smaller companies. The Norrtälje bilpool initiator further stated that “…[small businesses] compete better in a fair market where the municipality doesn’t try to interfere.”, and that the municipality should let the market rule in order to make it better for them. However, he does think that the municipality can help the market by speeding up the process of making the carpool an promoteed concept in Norrtälje. It is clear that for many initiatives, also in a small town context, the support and involvement of the municipality is important in many ways. This statement is supported by the study by Hult & Bradley (2017), in which city officials from Malmö municipality state that they consider municipal involvement not as a debatable choice, but instead as something the municipality has to do. However, it is also important in this context for initiators to understand that municipalities are unable to on their own facilitate activities for sharing, which also was found in the study by Hult & Bradley (2017). Instead, they should assist in shaping systems for sharing through actions such as information campaigns, providing accessible internet services and responding to initiated projects in efficient ways (Hult & Bradley, 2017). This goes in line with what initiators stated during their interviews that they expect from the municipality, as described in the paragraph above. However, the interviews also highlighted other possibly important duties for the municipalities in order for sharing economy initiatives to become successful and stable, such as subsidizing collaborative consumption businesses and employing workers. This might, though, become challenging in a small town context due to the municipality not having the economic means to do so, as discussed by The Sustainability strategist. However, it also became evident in this study that municipal support might not be beneficial for all sharing initiatives; especially not from the perspective of small businesses, as discusses during the interview with the Norrtälje bilpool initiator. The reason for this was stated to be that the municipality doesn’t understand the needs of these companies. This indicates that there is a need for the

50

municipality to make an effort to understand how different types of initiatives work and in what ways the municipality effectively can support each one of them. Relating to the work by Voytenko Palgan (2019a-f), there are many different ways that the municipality can govern sharing economy initiatives. While collaboration might be the most beneficial solution for some initiatives, other initiatives might just need to be enabled trough e.g. marketing. For some initiatives it might even be the most beneficial if the municipality doesn’t engage at all (Voytenko Palgan, 2019d), but the municipality could still benefit from understanding why this is the situation from the perspective of the initiative. 5.3.2InitiativeworkersandbusinessesAnother important group of actors that was brought up in all of the interviews with initiators, is that of the people working for the initiative and that are making sure it is moving forward and functioning as it should. However, exactly what this role is and what form it takes seem to very much depend on the type of collaborative consumption initiative that is discussed. For initiatives like Klädbytardagen, this role was discussed as nonprofit workers. For initiatives such as Roden Recyclingboden and Fritidsbanken, the role was rather discussed as being paid workers. Lastly, for the initiative Norrtälje bilpool the role instead took form as a small company consisting of one (or possibly a few) employee(s). Still, no matter what form this role takes, all interviewees discussed the same types of responsibilities for this role. According to the conducted interviews, people in this role are responsible for making sure that the initiative is started in the first place, and it is important that this happens in some kind of collaboration with (or by) the municipality. Further, this role includes the important task of making sure that the initiative is functioning properly. This can include responsibilities such as sorting through items, putting them in the right places, assisting users etc., but also to be available during the hours needed for it to actually be beneficial and offering a good service to the users. The Roden Recyclingboden initiator also mentioned that it is important that people in this role has the energy needed to keep the initiative alive, by stating that “After all, it takes someone who can handle it and keep the ball rolling.”. Another important aspect of this role that was brought up in several interviews was that of marketing, in order to make sure that possible users know that the initiative actually exist, and that if this doesn’t happen properly there is a chance that the initiative will have to close down due to inactivity. In this context, it was also mentioned by the Fritidsbanken initiator that “…we also have to reach out to more people to understand what the demand is, so that we don’t just manage and build up a giant business without actually having someone who wants to use it.”. A shown in Table 4, these initiatives can be identified as being of different business model structures: Fritidsbanken and Roden Recyclingboden are according to this model commoners, while Klädbytardag is a mission-driven platform and Norrtälje bilpool was a shared infrastructure provider. The fact that both commoners and mission-driven platforms are driven by extended value creation, while shared infrastructure providers are driven by economic value creation might be why these initiators have different opinions on e.g. the importance of municipal backing and involvement. It is, however, interesting that even though thee structures work in different ways, they all discussed very similar types of responsibilities for this role. 5.3.3UsersandcontributorsThis group of stakeholders was not actively mentioned in any of the interviews, however, it is obviously implied in the context that they are important, since it is with and for users (contributors or peers) that these initiatives exist. It is important that users understand that their role might not only involve simple participation, but also organisation, unionisation (Schor, 2014) and development of practical skills and knowledge (Hult & Bradley, 2017) in order to realise larger societal aims.

51

5.4ThefuturepotentialforfurtherpromotioninNorrtäljetown5.4.1ThepotentialbasedontheviewsofthecitizensAs many as 96% of the people participating in the survey stated that they are positive towards the idea of using collaborative consumption services or initiatives (Figure 8). Out of the 4% of people who stated that they aren’t as interested, all of them answered that they probably aren’t interested in using these types of services or initiatives, meaning that no one in this study answered that they definitely aren’t interested. Even though only a small part of the actual population answered the survey, this points towards a positive future from a citizen participation perspective.

Figure 8. Citizens perceptions towards using collaborative consumption services or participating in these initiatives.

When looking at the results from men and women separately (Table 7), it is evident that the majority of women answered that they absolutely would consider using collaborative consumption services or initiatives, while the majority of men answered that they partially would consider using collaborative consumption services or initiatives. Further, a larger part of the men are negative towards using collaborative consumption services or initiatives compared to women. Thus, it appears that the women who answered the study generally are more positive towards using these types of services or initiatives.

Yes, absolutely62%

Yes, partially34%

No, probably not4%

No, not at all0%

Would you consider using services or participating in initiatives with the aim of sharing, borrowing, swapping, renting, reusing, buying second-

hand, repairing or rebuilding belongings instead of buying new or owning privately?

52

Table 7. Citizens perceptions towards using collaborative consumption services or participating in these initiatives, based on gender

Would you consider using these types of services or

participate in these types of initiatives?

Yes, absolutely

Yes, partially

No, probably

not

No, not at all Total sum

Gender:

Female 72 33 3 0 108 67% 31% 3% 100%

Male 7 10 2 0 19 37% 53% 11% 100%

Total 79 43 5 0 127 62% 34% 4% 100%

When looking at the results from different age groups separately (Table 8), the answers appear to be very similar between people from different ages. The one age group that stands out compared to the others is people age 65-74. In this age group, significantly less people answered that they absolutely would consider using collaborative consumption services or initiatives, and as much as 18% of people answered that they probably aren’t interested in these services or initiatives (compared to 0-4% in the other age groups). Table 8. Citizens perceptions towards using collaborative consumption services or participating in these initiatives, based on age

Would you consider using these types of services or

participate in these types of initiatives?

Yes, absolutely

Yes, partially

No, probably

not

No, not at all Total sum

Age:

16-24 3 2 0 0 5 60% 40% 0% 0% 100%

25-34 18 12 1 0 31 58% 39% 3% 0% 100%

35-44 20 8 1 0 29 69% 28% 3% 0% 100%

45-54 14 7 0 0 21 67% 33% 0% 0% 100%

55-64 16 9 1 0 26 62% 35% 4% 0% 100%

65-74 5 4 2 0 11 45% 36% 18% 0% 100%

75-84 2 1 0 0 3 67% 33% 0% 0% 100%

85+ 1 0 0 0 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Total 79 43 5 0 127 62% 34% 4% 0% 100%

53

Out of the people who said they aren’t interested in using collaborative consumption services or initiatives, 60% answered that it was because they prefer buying new or owning privately, while the remaining 40% answered that it was because it is harder to find that they want/ because the range of items is more limited. Thus, no one answered that is was because they don’t trust the quality, because it is seen as less fancy/glamorous/exclusive or some other reason. Among the people who said they are interest in using collaborative consumption services or initiatives, the two biggest drivers were environmental reasons (45%) and saving money (31%) (Figure 9). However, social reasons and earning money also seem to of some importance (11% each). This goes in line with existing scholars, where environmental factors often is presented as one of the main drivers, followed by economic factors (e.g. Schor, 2014; Botsman, 2013).

Figure 9. The drivers of Norrtälje citizens for using collaborative consumption services or initiatives.

The categories of belongings most interesting for sharing, borrowing, swapping, renting, reusing, buying second-hand, repairing or rebuilding to those who said they are interested in using collaborative consumption services or initiatives turned out to be tools (18%), clothing (16%) and transport (15%), followed by sport and outdoor gear (13%) and food (9%) (Figure 10). Living space and media seem to be of less interest (5% each). However, it is important to note again that two possibly important categories are missing from the results of this study, due to a fault in the online software used for conducting this survey: work space and time/skills. It is unclear how the results would differ compared to the current results if these would have been correctly included in the survey.

45%

11%

11%

31%

2%

For what reason(s) would you like using these types of services or participate in these types of initiatives?

Save the environment/environmentalreasons

Meet people/social and societalreasons

Earn money/economic compensation

Save money

Other

54

Figure 10. The categories of belongings most interesting for sharing, borrowing etc. to those who said they are interested in using collaborative consumption services or initiatives in Norrtälje.

Out of the people who said they are interested in using collaborative consumption services or initiatives, 69% of the participants stated that they would be more interested in using collaborative consumption services or initiatives if they could earn money from it. This in fact completely matches the result from the global study by Latitude Research (2010), where also 69% of the participants expressed this. Further, out of the people who said they are interested in using collaborative consumption services or initiatives, 57% of the participants stated that they would prefer using these types of services or initiatives via online platforms, while 43% stated that they would prefer using physical facilities. However, it was stated by a participant that they wished they could have selected both of these, indicating that there might be more participants who feel the same. 5.4.2ThepotentialfromamunicipalperspectiveFrom a municipal perspective, it is important to be able to not have to choose between focusing on growth or the environment. According to the Sustainability strategist, “…it is a key issue in this to highlight examples that contribute to both growth and the environment. You should not have to choose one of them.”, and she implied that it is more likely that the municipality is able to work with sharing economy initiatives if they “…succeeded in combining these two maybe the opposite poles” (personal communication, March 17, 2020). As stated by Bascom (2016), economic welfare is not only about growth, and in order to achieve sustainability the focus must be on investments that are feasible to sustain themselves and create jobs, while at the same time protecting the environment. Implementing concepts like the sharing economy is one possible path to take in order to realise this. However, the Sustainability strategist did acknowledge the fact that these types of initiatives might also be “innovation driving” in the sense that new businesses and functions might have to be developed as a result of the societal shift that happens when focusing more on sharing economy services. Relating to

Transport15%

Household items/appliances

8%

Tools18%

Clothing16%Living space

5%

Food (co-op/community

gardens)9%

Storage space7%

Sport and outdoor gear

13%

Media5%

Other4%

Belongings in which of the categories below would you be interested in sharing, borrowing, swapping, renting, reusing, buying second-hand, repairing or rebuilding instead of buying new or owning privately?

55

the study by Frenken & Schor (2017), where it is stated that a shift in the labour market might happen when promoting sharing economy initiatives, this is valid. As discussed by Acquier et al. (2019), the introduction of sharing economy initiatives doesn’t automatically have to mean the end for already existing companies, which also is important for various stakeholders to keep in mind in these contexts. It should also be mentioned here that a shift to an economy that includes more sharing indeed contributes to the discussion of role of the economy in our society and alternatives to established capitalism, as discussed by Cohen & Munoz (2016), indicating that value can be created in other terms than growth. During her interview, the Sustainability strategist stated about the future possibilities that everything that is easy to understand and that is close to the ordinary municipal activities becomes a natural connection for the municipality to work with, and her guess was that the probable future focus of the municipality:

…will mostly be regarding waste, that it is about reducing waste by seeing waste as a resource. That may be the most natural [for the municipality]. This is my guess since we in this focus have a connection to the municipal economy as well, since… the less you have to collect household waste, the less cost. So I would guess that it would be more about working with, as well as seeing, waste as a resource, rather than sharing economy. (Hanna Leife, personal communication, March 17, 2020)

The fact that there already seem to be a focus within the municipality on waste reduction, although this is maybe more directly connected to a circular economy model, might actually be beneficial from a sharing economy point of view as well. As discussed by existing scholars, the value shift away from excessive consumption and the favouring of access over ownership that comes with sharing economy initiatives will in fact reduce excess resource use (Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Heinrichs, 2013; Martin, 2016), reduce waste created by otherwise unwanted items and encourage the production of goods with longer lifespans (Botsman & Rogers, 2010). Thus, promoting sharing economy initiatives can in fact work as a complement and ease the municipal work with waste reduction. Further, when focusing on sharing economy initiatives as a complement to municipal work with waste reduction, various social benefits can arise, which the Sustainability strategist also identified in her discussion about libraries. Since recycling materials and using waste to create new products most likely will require more energy compared to just reallocating existing goods, a focus on sharing economy initiatives also complies with one of the larger municipal goal stated by the Sustainability strategist of decreasing the use of energy within the municipality. She further stated that it might be easier from a municipal perspective if you would “sneak it in” to already promoteed services, such as the library where you already have staff, a physical place to be and an promoteed loan system, by expanding these municipal activities. Another alternative that she discussed to possibly be successful is utilising the municipal recycling centrals, by making the staff ask people if they have any functioning items that they no longer want, so that individuals themselves don’t have to decide whether they want to sell their items further. The Sustainability strategist concluded that the possibilities for sharing economy activities are greater “…if you manage to connect [these] to ordinary municipal activities, without having to pay anything extra.”. Though, the Sustainability strategist also did acknowledge the fact that it most likely is easier for a larger municipality to work with these initiatives, due to the larger sizes of businesses, the probable better financial situation, the larger tax revenue and the higher density that exist there. In a smaller

56

municipality it is more difficult to make uncomfortable or unfamiliar decision and to risk the future of existing businesses, especially when the actual future effects are unclear. However, it might be easier for a smaller municipality if a larger one leads the way, according to the Sustainability strategist. She explained that officials often are given a lot of indications that they should monitor the world to know how those do it that do it the best and what has worked well in other places. This means that Norrtälje municipality does not have to take the risks themselves, but instead someone else has taken the risks before them, giving Norrtälje municipality an opportunity to learn. At the same time, scholars suggest that towns like Norrtälje indeed could have more potential than larger cities, due to probable high social capital, including trust (Andersson et al., 2017) and positive social control (Torége, 2018). Relating to the work by Torége (2018), Norrtälje municipality can be seen as a rural municipalities with many visitors, putting it fairly high on the list. However, if only looking at Norrtälje town, it can be seen as either a commuter town close to one of Sweden’s largest cities or a small town, which according to Torége (2018) have the highest social capital. Further, relating to the work by Ostrom (1990), sharing economy initiatives function better where there are established local initiatives and a willingness to start initiatives, which this study suggest exist in Norrtälje town. Ostrom’s (1990) work also suggests that an established sense of community is necessary. Even though this matter hasn’t explicitly been examined in this study, the findings from interviews with initiators and the existing online communities found when collecting answers for the survey suggests that this is present in Norrtälje town. 5.4.3ThepotentialfromtheperspectiveofinitiatorsOut of the initiators interviewed, everyone seemed to think that the future looks bright for both their specific initiative and collaborative consumption initiatives over all, pointing towards a possible optimistic future for the sharing economy concept in Norrtälje town. As stated by the Fritidsbanken initiator, “…I mean, the possibilities are endless as long as there are people who are prepared to participate… and there will always be people who will want to do that.”. However, marketing and reaching possible users seem to be important for this to happen. According to the Klädbytardag initiator, the willingness, dedication and knowledge absolutely exist in Norrtälje for further promotion to be possible. The interviewee stated that the future looks “fantastic“ for these types of initiatives, much due to the positive feedback they have recieved. The Roden Recyclingboden initiator stated during her interview that redistribution services where people can pick up items for free should be able to work on a bigger scale due to the fact that (in her experience) the outflow of items actually most often is of the same size as the inflow and, contrary to what many may believe, users don’t just take and take. Although his business is no longer active, the Norrtälje bilpool initiator was convinced that car sharing will be standard in the future and points out that “…it's on its way in with the construction and development projects.”. He further stated that these types of projects usually become more popular during times of financial challenge, and stated that right now might actually be a good time to introduce a carpool. However, he also mentioned that there are various ways in which this type of sharing service can be successful. It might happen through smaller companies, but it is also possible that larger more promoteed companies find their way to Norrtälje. Further, the Norrtälje bilpool initiator stated that it will either look more like a traditional sharing service when a pool of cars is shared, or it might take the form of peers privately lending their cars to other peers, as can be seen with the service SnappCar. The re-introduction of a, or several, car sharing initiative may in fact be very beneficial for Norrtälje, since according to the study by Skjelvik et al. (2017), the transport sector is the sector with the largest direct potential for CO2-equivalent emissions reductions.

57

The topic of benefits connected to the different dimensions of sustainability often came up during the conducted interviews, and many stated that there is an awareness present in society today that didn’t use to exist about a decade ago. As stated by Tucker: “Sustainability is at the forefront now in society; that fact that you don’t have to buy new things all the time and that there is a value in reusing, not only economically but environmentally as well.“. The Roden Recyclingboden initiator stated that this environmental awareness that now exist also can be seen among the students of the high school where she works, and that many of them are completely onboard with the fact that things don’t just turn bad just because someone doesn’t want it anymore. This environmental awareness that was discussed during the interviews might be a strong reason for this being found to be the biggest driver according to those to participated in the survey. The Klädbytardag initiator also stated in their interview that “…this way of thinking, it has become more and more substantiated in society. I think that there are so many young people today who are conscious, and who can join and support these kinds of initiatives.“. The Klädbytardag initiator further brought up the social aspect, expressing that they have seen that these types of initiatives result in a sense of community among those who participate:

I think this results in a social impact as well. […] To feel that one is contributing with something to someone else. That it creates a community. Because that’s how I’ve experienced the atmosphere in our clothing swaps, that people think this is really fun and that everyone are really positive and help each other… (The Klädbytardag initiator, personal communication, March 17, 2020)

Which goes in line with was has been found by existing scholars (Belk, 2010; Frenken & Schor, 2017). Another important social aspect, which wasn’t found in any discussions by existing authors, was brought up by the Roden Recyclingboden initiator, who stated that “Unfortunately, there are currently many people in Sweden who live in extreme poverty… and when I mean poor I mean very poor, where you don't even have money to get food on the table.”, and meant that these types of initiatives are able to offer help to those who live in these conditions. It is safe to say that initiators in Norrtälje seem aware of many of the direct or potential benefits related to the promotion of sharing economy initiatives, and that existing or potential users also seem fairly aware of these. These benefits include both direct or local benefits, such as community creation (Belk, 2010), more fair allocation of value (Schor, 2014), more sustainable use of resources (Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Heinrichs, 2013; Martin, 2016), decreased prices (Felländer et al., 2015) and the creation of new jobs (Frenken & Schor, 2017), but also larger scale effects, such as a paradigm shift away from materialism (Parguel et al., 2017), CO2-equivalent emissions reductions (Skjelvik et al., 2017), the fostering of new ways of social bonding and collaborating (Belk, 2010), lowered inflation (Felländer et al., 2015) and the generation of important discussion about the role of the economy in our society and possible alternatives to traditional capitalism Cohen & Munoz (2016). Even though it might seem for a smaller municipality or local initiatives that their contribution to these changes might not be that impactful, it is important to remember that every initiative that is created is a (small) step forward towards larger societal changes and benefits.

58

5.4.4ProbablechallengesFrom the perspective of the municipality, there seem to be three distinctive challenges that can be identified in relation to working with sharing economy initiatives:

1. The current political situation. As explained by the Sustainability strategist, it is hard for officials to work with questions and initiatives related to collaborative consumption if it is not politically prioritized within the municipality to do so. She further explained that it might be hard for politicians to take uncomfortable long term decisions that might not show immediate benefits, since they also have to focus in their role on being reelected, and thought that the question whether promoiting initiatives in order to promote a sharing economy actually lies within the duty of the municipality.

2. The economic situation of the municipality. The Sustainability strategist also brought up the fact that a major challenge from a municipal perspective is to not be able to prioritise these sorts of initiatives and solutions from an economic perspective. Another risk she brought up in this context is not being able to show that these actually are economic models, and that these also can contribute to economic growth. She also discussed the goal conflict of promoting services that aim to lower consumption, since this could be seen as creating a kind of “competitive situation” between the municipally led sharing initiatives and existing businesses, while the municipality actually should support existing businesses.

3. Difficulties in understanding the concept. The Sustainability strategist further discussed in her interview that she often feels like other municipal officials don’t really understand concepts such as “circular economy” and “sharing economy”, and that she finds that the concepts can be seen as “elitist” or “socialist”, giving some people negative connotations. She stated that is hard in a municipal context to encourage concepts that aren’t naturally easy to understand, and that it can be a major challenge to find ways of talking about concepts where everyone can agree regardless of their personal opinions or political ideology.

In the context of challenges, two main topics were brought up by the initiators that were interviewed: negative mindsets and funding. Within the topic of mindsets, the Klädbytardag initiator brought up the fact that in their experience municipality officials too often have a negative mindsets when it comes to new possibilities, and stated that “I think this is dangerous if they are to dare to run new and distinctive projects, and dare to stand out.”. They further stated that the municipality in their eyes are quite far behind when it comes to sustainable thinking, and that actions often take too long. According to the interviewee, “[The municipality] needs a little wakeup call in this, because they are not part of the game. It feels like [the municipality] is lagging behind in this kind of thinking. That there is a demand but that they are not there to listen.”. One reason for this could be the difficulties in understanding the concept among municipal officials, as discussed by the Sustainability strategist, further highlighting the importance of this challenge. The Roden Recyclingboden initiator stated in her interview that in her own experience the mindsets of citizens in Norrtälje might become a challenge in making collaborative consumption initiatives grow, stating: “Now I am being prejudiced, but the Norrtälje residents are often quite boring and I feel that [the attitude among residents] here in Norrtälje is pretty much just to buy things that are new.”. The Klädbytardag initiator also mentioned the fact that age might matter when it comes to mindsets, stating that “It is usually more difficult for the older generations to change, to go from one thing to another.”.

59

The challenge of funding was mainly brought up by the Fritidsbanken initiator. According to him, Fritidsbanken works moderately without any funding, however, it does not work well. In order for the initiative to become a really good one, financial means have to be supplied, either as funding from the municipality or from the state. Otherwise, the initiative becomes very limited in the service they are able to offer. He explained that:

Things have to be prioritized and you have a limited budget […], and if something works perfectly okay then it is difficult to say that ’yes, we will give even more funds there to make it even better’. But if you do you will have to remove it from somewhere else, so it might not be a good idea. It is always a difficult thing to solve, and therefore in the beginning when we had state funds from higher up it was extra money that had not existed before. Then you could make a pretty big investment […]. But then when that money ran out, it was hard to do things as well as before. (Ryan Tucker, personal communication, May 5, 2020)

Other challenges brought up by initiators were the facts that initiatives are dependent on having enough people who want to participate, and that costs can become higher than expected if initiatives or businesses try to grow too fast. 5.5ReflectionsonhowtomoveforwardBased on the theoretical formwork set in this study, the collected results and the analysis above, the following steps have been identified in order for the municipality to move forward with the promotion of a sharing economy in Norrtälje town:

1. Understand and learn. The municipality is evidently playing an important role in the context of promoting a sharing economy, as discussed by both initiators and scholars. It is therefore important that officials within the municipality learn about the sharing economy concept and how it relates to other concepts, as well as understand how this can benefit the municipality in relation to existing and future goals, in order to turn negative mindsets and see new possibilities. They should also educate themselves on how negative consequences, such as exclusionary effects, can be prohibited. Further, they should clearly define, or possibly redefine, how they view their role. Providing sharing infrastructures is indeed is a core task for the municipality according to the study by Hult & Bradley (2017), but the confusion regarding this matter seem to somewhat hinder Norrtälje municipality from actively working with sharing initiatives. Officials should also aim to understand why they play an important part in this, from different perspectives, since understanding this likely will benefit their future work and the success of possible sharing economy initiatives. If the municipality decides to work with sharing economy initiatives, this aim should also be specified in official documents, as Malmö municipality did in their “Action Plan for the Environmental Programme” (Hult & Bradley, 2017).

2. The need for increased political support. Even though the work of officials is important, it is the politicians within the municipality who actually make the decisions. It was found in the study by Hult & Bradley (2017) that in Malmö, where these initiatives are very successful, local authority officials stated that there is a total political support when it comes to working with infrastructure for sharing. Within issues like this, there might be a need to look beyond political ideologies and instead collectively focus on the benefits these initiatives can bring for the city or town. In this work, the officials might have to lead the way.

60

3. Be inspired by existing functioning initiatives. Since it might be hard for a smaller city or town to be adventurous with trying new uncertain solutions, and there are many existing and well-functioning sharing initiatives and global sharing cities out there, the municipality should carefully look into these existing initiatives in order to find inspiration. This way, the potential effects and benefits are already well known, and mistakes that might be dangerous for a smaller city or town to make can be avoided. If known initiatives and existing scientific work can lead the way, it might be easier for the municipality to take the risk of running new projects and being more innovative.

4. Overview the financial situation and identify potentials. Economic funds seem to equally be of importance for initiatives to receive as it is a challenge for the municipality to provide. It is therefore of importance that the municipality looks over their financial situation to understand if and how they can support initiatives, as well as thoroughly look into economic potentials in the promotion of sharing economy initiatives. Further, both the municipality and initiators should look into other ways of funding initiatives, such as public subsidies, membership fees, donations, voluntary community work etc., or apply for additional national or European external funding to support their work.

5. Overview existing resources and what is missing. The municipality should map their resources in order to unlock potential idle capacity. According to the participants in this study, tools, clothing and transport are the three categories of items that the citizens are most interested in sharing. At the same time, there are no services where people can repair or rebuild items, there are no permanent and city wide clothing swap or redistribution initiatives, and both Norrtälje bilpool and the bicycle rental service are closed. This potential should be looked into and utilized. Further, these sharing initiatives can also function as public spaces that go beyond consumerism (Hult & Bradley, 2017).

6. Develop a strategy for what existing and future initiatives to support and how. As found in several of the interviews with initiators conducted in this study, both municipal support and involvement is important. The municipality should further understand how different types of initiatives work, in order to be able to provide the right support where it is needed, and develop a strategy on how this can be done. When advertising existing initiatives, the municipality should not only explain to potential users that these initiatives exist, but also why they exist and what benefits they can contribute with, to educate about the context and thereby increase overall societal understanding.

7. Involve citizens and understand their perspective. It is important that the municipality not only map their resources, but also that they reach out to people to thoroughly investigate and understand the demand among the citizens, as suggested by one of the initiators, and foster citizen participation. Further, this study suggests that some groups of potential users might be more positive towards the idea of using sharing economy initiatives, while others, such as men and people age 65-74, might be more hesitant. Some groups of people might therefore need more convincing in order to actually participate. It should also be considered that attitudes towards sharing initiatives and the actual behavior of people might differ, as suggested by Hamari et al. (2015). If users successfully are brought together in this context, the local economy has a potential to be transformed in an innovative and sustainable way, as stated in the study by Cohen & Munoz (2016).

61

5.6ImplicationsforfurtherworkandstudiesDue to the widespread scope of this study, Norrtälje municipality could use it as an indicator for both the current situation regarding sharing economy initiatives in Norrtälje town and which possibilities and challenges they should keep in mind. However, complementary studies could be made if this is considered to be necessary from a municipal perspective. First, a more thorough investigation of existing initiatives could be conducted. Fort this study, online initiatives were excluded and the time and resources available to find existing initiatives weren’t enough to be able to find initiatives connected to for example the sharing of intangible resources such as time and skills. This might mean that these initiatives actually don’t exist in Norrtälje town, but it might also be that they exist but just couldn’t be find through the method used in this study. Second, the views of more initiators should be included. Even though several initiators connected to different types of initiatives were interviewed in this study, there are still some, such as second-hand services, who’s perspectives haven’t been included, which might bring interesting additional information to the situation. Last, the survey should be shared again though more official platforms, in order to collect more responses and thereby obtain a more representative sample. Further, one should be more aware of potential flaws in tools that are used so that these can be limited, and communication should happen in a context when more personal interactions are allowed, since the online and phone methods used in this study felt rather impersonal.

62

6Conclusionsandsuggestionsforfutureresearch6.1ConcludingremarksEven though the topic of the sharing economy has been investigated and discussed by many scholars, some gaps can be identified in the existing research. Most researchers seem to have focused on online platform initiatives when conducting their research, but very few take into consideration initiatives using physical infrastructure. Further, most examples cover global initiatives or initiatives in larger cities, but studies investigating the situation and potential in smaller cities could be found. These gaps are what this research is aiming to cover, by using Norrtälje town as a case study to investigate the potential for a small town to promote a sharing economy. Empirically, both existing initiatives and work with collaborative consumption as well as the future potential and possible challenges for the future have been studied. Knowing this information could help both the municipality and other actors in improving their work towards becoming more sustainable, as well as supporting possibilities to promote new systems that could be beneficial for both inhabitants and the city as a whole. Analysing Norrtälje town’s potential and possible challenges also contributes to the visibly limited research field of sharing economies from a small town perspective. In this study, 14 sharing economy initiatives were found in Norrtälje town, not considering online initiatives. Though, three of these have recently closed down. Almost ¾ (72%) out of the Norrtälje citizens participating in the survey for this study (n=127) claimed that they have used collaborative consumption services during the past year. According to the Norrtälje municipality Sustainability strategist, the municipality is not actively working with collaborative consumption. However, despite not thinking in terms of contributing to a sharing economy, the municipality has been, and still is, involved in a few sharing economy activities. The findings of this study contribute to discussions on the actual role of the municipality in a sharing economy context. Both scholars and most initiators in Norrtälje seem to be very certain that the involvement of the municipality indeed is a key factor for the success of sharing economy initiatives. However, it was found in this study that it has sometimes been unclear from a municipal perspective what their role is in relation to these initiatives and whether it is actually included in the role of the municipality to promote and work with sharing economy initiatives. Two other important roles found in this study include that of the people working for sharing economy initiatives who make sure they are functioning as they should, and that of users who participate, contribute, organisase, unionise (Schor, 2014) and develop important practical skills and knowledge (Hult & Bradley, 2017). Several challenges were found through this study in relation to sharing economy initiatives in the Norrtälje town context, including the current political situation not prioritising municipal involvement, the economic situation of the municipality not being able to prioritise municipal involvement, difficulties in understanding the concept among those who work for the municipality, negative mindsets among municipal workers, and lack of funding to existing and possible future initiatives. Even though these challenges may not be explicit for small towns, it was found that it is believed from a small town municipal perspective it most likely is easier for a larger city to work with sharing initiatives, due to larger sizes of businesses, a probable better financial situation, larger tax revenues and a higher density. It was also found that it is more difficult for a small town municipality to make uncomfortable or unfamiliar decision and to risk the future of existing businesses, especially when the actual future effects of sharing economy initiatives in a small town context are unclear. This should, however, be related to works of existing scholars, which on the contrary suggests that the small town context might indeed be more beneficial for these types of initiatives than a larger city context, due to

63

a probable established sense of community and higher social capital, including trust and positive social control. Although some of the challenges discussed above must be overcome in order for sharing economy initiatives to grow and thrive, the future for sharing economy initiatives in Norrtälje town looks bright. As many as 96% of the people participating in the survey for this study stated that they are positive towards the idea of using collaborative consumption services or initiatives, with the key drivers being environmental reasons (45%) and saving money (31%). Further, 69% of the participants stated that they would be more interested in using collaborative consumption services or initiatives if they could earn money from it, and 57% of the participants stated that they would prefer using these types of services or initiatives via online platforms, compared to 43% who stated that they would prefer using physical facilities. The findings of this paper also contribute to an understanding of how sharing economy initiatives can be beneficial to a town like Norrtälje. Promoting sharing economy initiatives can in fact ease the existing municipal work with waste reduction and work as a complement to their apparent aims of implementing a more circular economy. As discussed by existing scholars, the value shift away from excessive consumption and the favouring of access over ownership that comes with sharing economy initiatives will reduce excess resource use (Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Heinrichs, 2013; Martin, 2016), reduce waste and encourage the production of goods with longer lifespans (Botsman & Rogers, 2010). Further, promoting sharing economy initiatives can support and strengthen municipal work with social suitability, e.g. by contributing to local work with social challenges such as poverty and strengthen the local community, as well as contributing with positive economic effects such as the creation of new jobs (Frenken & Schor, 2017). This study finally identifies seven steps in order for a municipality like Norrtälje to move forward with the promotion of a sharing economy in a small town: understand and learn about the sharing economy concept and how this can benefit the municipality in relation to existing and future goals; increase political support, by collectively focus on the benefits these initiatives can bring for the city or town; be inspired by existing functioning initiatives in other cities; overview the financial situation and identify potentials, including new ways of funding initiatives; overview existing resources and what is missing, in order to unlock potential idle capacity; develop a strategy for what existing and future initiatives to support and how; and involve citizens in the work and understand their perspective.

6.2SuggestedquestionsforfutureresearchSome topics of uncertainties have been identified in the process of conducting this study. First, the apparent uncertainty regarding how to define the sharing economy evidently both challenges the scientific work of researchers and hinders the practical work of municipalities. How the concept can, and possibly should, be interpreted by various actors depending on the aim (e.g. scientific or practical) should be further studied, in order to ease future work. Second, apparent benefits connected to existing initiatives should be more thoroughly investigated. Today, most scholars discuss the possible effects, but very few show the actual effects based on existing initiatives. Knowing this could profit both researchers discussing the subject and municipalities who are looking into working with these initiatives. Third, more studies should be conducted investigating challenges in relation to promoting sharing economy initiatives. Not many studies seem to currently exist that investigate this topic, but knowing this information could benefit all types of actors interested in working with sharing economy initiatives.

64

ReferencelistAcquier, A., Carbone, V. & Massé, D. (2019). How to create value(s) in the sharing economy: business models. Technology Innovation Management Review, vol. 9(2), pp. 5-24. Acquier, A., Daudigeos, T. & Pinkse, J. (2017). Promises and paradoxes of the sharing economy: An organizing framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Agyeman, J., McLaren, D. & Schaefer-Borrego, A. (2013). Sharing cities. Friends of the Earth. Briefing. [online]. Accessed at https://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/agyeman_sharing_cities.pdf on 14 April 2020. Andersson, M., Larsson, J., Wernberg, J. & Westlund, H. (2017). Social Capital and the Economics of Cities. Sweden: Swedish Entrepreneurship Forum. Aprameya, A. (2016). Cross Tabulation: How It Works and Why You Should Use It. [online]. Accessed at https://humansofdata.atlan.com/2016/01/cross-tabulation-how-why/ on 17 May 2020. Bascom, C.R. (2016). From Economic Growth To Sustainable Development. [online]. Accessed at https://sustainabilityx.co/economic-growth-to-sustainable-development-5d441e9a595e on 25 June 2020. Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 36, pp. 715-734. Botsman, R. (2013). The Sharing Economy Lacks A Shared Definition. Fast Company, November 21, 2013. [online]. Accessed at http://www.fastcompany.com/3022028/the-sharing-economy- lacks-a-shared-definition/ on 14 April 2020. Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2011). What's mine is yours: How collaborative consumption is changing the way we live. London: Collins. Bradley, K. (2015). Open-Source Urbanism: Creating, Multiplying and Managing Urban Commons. Commoning as Differentiated Publicness, pp. 91-108. Bradley, K. & Pargman, D. (2016). The sharing economy as the commons of the 21st century. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, vol. 10, pp. 231–247. Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods. Third Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cohen, B. & Kietzmann, J. (2014). Ride on! Mobility business models for the sharing economy. Organ. Environ., vol. 27 (3), pp. 279-296. Cohen, B. & Munoz, P. (2016). Sharing Cities and Sustainable Consumption and Production: Towards an Integrated Framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 87-97. Cohen, B. & Munoz, P. (2017). Mapping out the Sharing Economy: A Configurational Approach to Sharing Business Modeling. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Dauvergne, P. (2010). The Problem of Consumption. Global Environmental Politics, vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 1-10. Evans, J. & Mathur, A. (2005). The Value of Online Surveys. Internet Research, vol. 15, pp. 195-219. Felländer, A., Ingram, C. & Teigland, R. (2015). The Sharing Economy: Embracing Change With Caution. Örebro: Entreprenörskapsforum.

65

Ferguson, S. (2016). The difference between the sharing economy and the circular economy. [online]. Accessed at http://www.theideatree.ca/the-difference-between-the-sharing-economy-and-the-circular-economy/ on 30 March 2020. Fredriksson, C., Anselmsson, J., Aslan, D., Fuentes, C., Källström, L. & Thufvesson, O. (2019). Retail Destination: Centrum för Handelsforskning vid Lunds Universitet. Stockholm: Handelsrådet. Frenken, K. & Schor, J. (2017). Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, vol. 23, pp. 3–10. Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E. & Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal, vol. 204, pp. 291–295. Göteborgs Stad (2019). Fixoteket. [online]. Accessed at https://goteborg.se/wps/portal/enhetssida/tips-fran-kretslopp-och-vatten/fixoteket/!ut/p/z1/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfIjo8ziTYzcDQy9TAy9LSwCTQwC3X2NfD3D3I1NPE30wwkpiAJKG-AAjgb6BbmhigB5knNh/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/ on 15 May 2020. Grunwald, A. and Kopfmüller, J. (2006). Nachhaltigkeit. Frankfurt on Main River: Campus. Gunnarsson, C. (2017, 21 Sept.). Kommunen startar elbilspool – som också norrtäljeborna ska kunna använda. Norrtälje Tidning. Accessed at https://www.norrteljetidning.se/artikel/kommunen-startar-elbilspool-som-ocksa-norrtaljeborna-ska-kunna-anvanda Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M. & Ukkonen, A. (2015). The Sharing Economy: Why People Participate in Collaborative Consumption. Journal Of The Association For Information Science And Technology, vol. 67(9), pp. 2047–2059. Heinrichs, H. (2013). Sharing Economy: A Potential New Pathway to Sustainability. Gaia, vol. 22(4), pp. 228-231. Huber, J. (2011). Allgemeine Umweltsoziologie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Hult, A. & Bradley, K. (2017). Planning for Sharing – Providing Infrastructure for Citizens to be Makers and Sharers. Planning Theory & Practice, vol. 18(4), pp. 597–615. Index Residence (2020). Frihet att leva som du vill. [online]. Accessed at https://indexresidence.se/investerare/frihet-att-leva-som-du-vill/ on 2 May 2020. IRC (2017). Assessing global resource use. [online]. Accessed at https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/assessing-global-resource-use on 2 March 2020. Izzo, M., Myhr, A. & Wiklund, M. (2015). Peak car i sikte? Statistik och analys över Sveriges personbilsflotta och dess användning. Stockholm: Trafikanalys. Korobar, V. (2013). The Interconnection of Sustainability and Collaborative Consumption. Department Of Human Geography. Lund: Lund University. Latitude Research (2010). The New Sharing Economy. [online]. Accessed at https://www.shareable.net/this-week-in-sharing-71/ on 28 April 2020.

66

Markendahl, J., Hossain, M.I., Mccormick, K., Lund, T., Möller, J. & Näslund, P. (2018). Analysis of Sharing Economy Services: Initial Findings from Sharing Cities Sweden. Nordic and Baltic Journal of Information and Communications Technologies, vol. 2018(1), pp. 239-260. Matzler, K., Veider. V. & Kathan, W. (2014). Adapting to the Sharing Economy. [online]. Accessed at https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/adapting-to-the-sharing-economy/?social_token=0ab0d9cff7006319ea281ac570836e52&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sm-direct/ on 28 April 2020. McLeod, S. (2019). Case Study Method. [online]. Accessed at https://www.simplypsychology.org/case-study.html/ on 20 May 2020. McMahon, T. (2009). Which is Better: High or Low Inflation? [online]. Accessed at https://inflationdata.com/articles/2009/11/25/which-is-better-high-or-low-inflation/ on 20 May 2020. Mi, Z. & Coffman, D. (2019). The sharing economy promotes sustainable societies. Nat Commun, vol. 10, p. 1214. Naturskyddsföreningen (2015). Ägodela: köp mindre - få tillgång till mer (1 ed.). Stockholm: Bonnier Fakta. Naturskyddsföreningen (2019). Ägodela. [online]. Accessed at https://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/agodela/ on 16 April 2020. Naturskyddsföreningen (2020). Sveriges största klädbytardag. [online]. Accessed at https://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/nyheter/sveriges-storsta-kladbytardag/ on 12 April 2020. Naturskyddsföreningen (n.d.). Information in English. [online]. Accessed at https://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/in-english/ on 16 April 2020. Naturvårdsverket (2018). Generationsmålet. [online]. Accessed at http://www.sverigesmiljomal.se/miljomalen/generationsmalet/ on 2 March 2020. Norrtälje kommun (2013). Översiktsplan 2040. Norrtälje: Stadsbyggnadskontoret. Norrtälje kommun (2017). Norrtälje fakta. [online]. Accessed at https://www.norrtalje.se/globalassets/naringsliv-och-arbete/norrtalje-fakta.pdf on 20 May 2020. Norrtälje kommun (2019). Befolkningsstatistik. [online]. Accessed at https://www.norrtalje.se/info/kommun-och-politik/fakta-om-norrtalje-kommun/kommunfakta/befolkningsstatistik/ on 2 March 2020. Norrtälje kommun (2020a). Hållbar stad. [online]. Accessed at https://www.norrtalje.se/info/stad-och-trafik/norrtalje-vaxer/hallbar-stad/ on 2 March 2020. Norrtälje kommun (2020b). Norrtälje växer. [online]. Accessed at https://www.norrtalje.se/info/stad-och-trafik/norrtalje-vaxer/ on 2 March 2020. Norrtälje kommun (2020c). Fritidsbanken. [online]. Accessed at https://www.norrtalje.se/fritidsbanken/ on 28 April 2020. Norrtälje kommun (2020d). Bibliotek. [online]. Accessed at https://kultur.norrtalje.se/web/arena/bibliotek?_ga=2.227071262.2097252357.1583766208-1407189374.1568115697 on 12 April 2020.

67

Norrtälje kommun (2020e). Återbruk. [online]. Accessed at https://www.norrtalje.se/info/bo-och-miljo/Avfall-och-atervinning/atervinning-och-aterbruk/aterbruk/ on 28 April 2020. Norrtälje kommun (2020f). Om stadsprojekt Närheten. [online]. Accessed at https://www.norrtalje.se/info/stad-och-trafik/norrtalje-vaxer/norrtalje-stad/narheten/om-motormannen/ on 12 April 2020. Norrtälje kommun (n.d.). Norrtäljekarta. [online]. Accessed at https://norrtaljekarta.norrtalje.se/?&_ga=2.190304364.651819596.1591532363-1407189374.1568115697#m=Invanarkarta,c=188504.9215369619;6626839.92669019,l=18e72cc8,b=1,r=2.908230726750889/ on 18 May 2020. Nowell, S., Norris, J., White, D. & Moules, N. (2017). Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol. 16, pp. 1-13. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Owyang, J., Tran, C. & Silva, C. (2013). The collaborative economy. Altimeter, pp. 1-51. Parguel, B., Lunardo, R. & Benoit-Moreau, F. (2017). Sustainability of the sharing economy in question: When second-hand peer-to-peer platforms stimulate indulgent consumption. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 125, pp. 48-57. Perren, R. & Grauerholz, L. (2015). Collaborative Consumption. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, vol. 4, pp. 139-144. Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, W., Luchs, M.G., Ozanne L.K. & Thogersen, J. (2011). Sustainable consumption: opportunities for consumer research and public policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, vol. 30 (1), pp. 31-38. Puschmann, T. & Alt, R. (2016). Sharing Economy. Bus Inf Syst Eng, vol. 58(1), pp. 93–99. Roslagskrafterna (2020). Second-hand. [online]. Accessed at https://roslagskrafterna.se/second-hand/ on 2 April 2020. SCB (2020). Kommuner I siffror. [online]. Accessed at https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/sverige-i-siffror/kommuner-i-siffror/#?region1=0188&region2=00/ on 28 April 2020. Schor, J. (2014). Debating the Sharing Economy. Great Transition Initiative. Schor, J. & Attwood-Charles, W. (2016). The Sharing Economy: labor, inequality and sociability on for-profit platforms. [online]. Accessed at https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/cas_sites/sociology/pdf/SocCompass%20Sharing%20Economy%20v3.pdf/ on 20 May 2020. Shorten, A. & Smith, J. (2017). Mixed methods research: expanding the evidence base. Evid Based Nurs., vol. 20(3), pp. 74‐75. Skjelvik, J.M., Erlandsen, A.M. & Haavardsholm, O. (2017). Environmental impacts and potential of the sharing economy. Denmark: Nordic Council of Ministers. Sorensen, J.F.L. (2016). Rural–Urban Differences in Bonding and Bridging Social Capital. Regional Studies, vol. 50 (3), pp. 391-410.

68

Sposato, P., Preka, R., Cappellaro, F. & Cutaia, L. (2017). Sharing economy and circular economy: How technology and collaborative consumption innovations boost closing the loop strategies. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, vol. 16, pp. 1797-1806. Stephany, A. (2015). The Business of Sharing: Making It in the New Sharing Economy. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Stora klädbytardagarna, 2020. Stora klädbytardagarna i Norrtälje. [online]. Accessed at http://storakladbytardagarna.se/ on 2 April 2020. Torége, J. (2018). Högt socialt kapital i mellanstora städer. [online]. Accessed at http://www.socialtkapital.nu/tag/generell-tillit/ on 25 June 2020. UN (n.d.). Sustainable consumption and production. [online]. Accessed at https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumption-production/ on 2 May 2020. Voytenko Palgan, Y. (2019a). The roles of city governments in the sharing economy. [online]. Accessed at https://www.shareable.net/the-roles-of-city-governments-in-the-sharing-economy/ on 25 June 2020. Voytenko Palgan, Y. (2019b). Regulating the sharing economy in cities. [online]. Accessed at https://www.shareable.net/regulating-the-sharing-economy-in-cities/ on 25 June 2020. Voytenko Palgan, Y. (2019c). How municipalities self-govern in the sharing economy. [online]. Accessed at https://www.shareable.net/how-municipalities-self-govern-in-the-sharing-economy/ on 25 June 2020. Voytenko Palgan, Y. (2019d). How municipalities provide for the sharing economy. [online]. Accessed at https://www.shareable.net/how-municipalities-provide-for-the-sharing-economy/ on 25 June 2020. Voytenko Palgan, Y. (2019e). How municipalities enable or disable the sharing economy. [online]. Accessed at https://www.shareable.net/how-municipalities-enable-or-disable-the-sharing-economy/ on 25 June 2020. Voytenko Palgan, Y. (2019f). How municipalities govern the sharing economy through collaboration. [online]. Accessed at https://www.shareable.net/how-municipalities-govern-the-sharing-economy-through-collaboration/ 25 June 2020. Wosskow, D. (2014). Unlocking the sharing economy: An independent review. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Öner, Ö. (2015). Retail City: The Relationship between Place Attractiveness and Accessibility to Shop. Stockholm: Research Institute of Industrial Economics.

69

AppendixA Questions for the interviews with initiators.

1. Vad går detta initiativ går ut på? - Hur fungerar det? 2. Vad är din roll? 3. Varför startade det? - Vad var motivet? 4. Hur många brukar delta/har deltagit varje år? 5. Vet du om liknande initiativ (eller företag med liknande syfte) finns i Norrtälje stad? 6. Hur tror du att framtiden skulle kunna se ut för detta initiativ? 7. Tror du att det finns möjlighet för främjning i större skala för denna typ av initiativ

(dela/låna/byta/hyra samt återanvändning/återbruk) i Norrtälje stad? o Vilka möjligheter och hinder ser du i detta? o Vad krävs för att detta ska bli möjligt? o Vad krävs enligt dig i form av stöd eller satsningar från kommunen?

70

AppendixB Questions for the interview with the municipality.

1. Vad är din roll och vilka frågor arbetar du specifikt med inom kommunen? 2. Vilka områden inom hållbar utveckling prioriteras i Norrtälje kommuns hållbarhetsarbete? 3. Hur skulle du/ni definiera begreppen delningsekonomi och kollaborativ konsumtion? Hur ser

du i din roll. på dessa begrepp och hur skulle du definiera dem? 4. Är att arbeta med infrastruktur eller initiativ för att invånarna i Norrtälje stad ska kunna:

o dela/låna/byta/hyra, o återanvända/återbruka, samt o laga/göra om/bygga om

istället för att äga privat/köpa nytt någonting som Norrtälje kommun arbetar med i nuläget? 5. Är att arbeta med infrastruktur eller initiativ för att invånarna i Norrtälje stad ska kunna:

o dela/låna/byta/hyra, o återanvända/återbruka, samt o laga/göra om/bygga om

istället för att äga privat/köpa nytt någonting som är en del av kommunens handlingsplaner för framtiden?

6. Hur tror du/ni att kommunen i så fall skulle arbeta med detta? - Vad är/blir kommunens roll? 7. Vad finns det för möjligheter/risker med främjningen av initiativ och infrastruktur för att

invånarna i Norrtälje stad ska kunna dela/låna/byta/hyra/ återanvända/återbruka/laga/göra om från ett kommunalt perspektiv?

8. Ser du några målkonflikter i kommunens verksamhet vad gäller att satsa på ökad infrastruktur för att invånarna i Norrtälje stad ska kunna dela/låna/byta/hyra/ återanvända/återbruka/laga/göra om i förhållande till andra mål i kommunen (både relaterade till hållbar utveckling och annat)?

71

AppendixC Questions for the online survey.

72

73

TRITA -ABE-MBT-20621

www.kth.se