Naoko Abe

How can we understand the differences between France and Japan in the growth of shared mobility services? The paradox of trust and its social construction

Keywords: carpooling, car-sharing, comparison, cooperative economy, development, new mobility, shard mobility, trust, users Round trip Zipcar, Mobizen, Okigo, Keylib, Auto Cool, Lilas, Citiz LPA, SunMOOV, AutoBleue, Auto'trement, Autopartage Provence Drivy, Ouicar, Koolicar Ubeeqo, Orange Business, ALD-Sharing, RCI mobility

This discussion paper aims to question and analyze the differences between France and Japan in the development of shared mobility service by considering the question of trust in an individual as a key to the growth of a new mobility system. In both countries, the shared mobility is booming but their developments can vary according to the shard mobility types (car-sharing or carpooling, B to C or B to B, etc.). Various factors like governmental policy, economical, social and geographical contexts of each country can have an impact on the service development. In this research, I focus particularly on social relationship with 'strangers' form a sociological standpoint. Firstly, the paper identifies existing services in France and Japan and compares its current state of development (user numbers and user profiles), then deals with the question of trust from a sociological standpoint, by comparing with carpooling service websites such as 'Blablacar' in France and 'notteco' in Japan. From this comparison, the discussion paper proposes a hypothesis to study the relationship between the using carpooling service and the trust in an individual and suggests direction for further research.

Introduction

The new mobility services based on 'sharing' (car-sharing or carpooling) are booming in both France and Japan. This phenomenon is clearly linked with an expansion of the new socio-economical style called the cooperative economy that rests on the fact that access to use prevails over property [START_REF] Rifkin | L'Age de l'accès, la nouvelle culture du capitalisme[END_REF]. One of the characteristics of shared mobility is that the service is based on sharing a car (car-sharing) or a travel (carpooling) with strangers. Car-sharing is a system of sharing a vehicle between relatives, friends, but also strangers. Carpooling is sharing a trip with strangers. The practice of service rests above all on trust in others.

Although the number of shared mobility services is increasing in France and Japan (Fig. 1), we can generally observe differences in the way these services are growing. For instance, in Japan, the car-sharing service B to C (Business to Consumer) is more developed (e.g. 846,240 subscribers and 19,717 vehicles in 2016) (Foundation for Promoting Personal Mobility and Ecological Transport, 2016) than the carpooling service, while in France both services are growing, especially the service C to C (Consumer to Consumer) is much more evolved in France than in Japan1 . We can for example observe the remarkable growth of the 'Blablacar' carpooling service in France.

Various factors like government policy, economic, social and geographical contexts can have an impact on the service development. In this research, I will analyze differences in the development of these services with a focus on social relationship, particularly the relationship with 'strangers' from a sociological standpoint.

Purpose and research questions

The research aims to understand the differences between France and Japan in the development of shared mobility service by considering the question of trust in an individual as a key to the growth of a new mobility system. For this purpose, I will focus on analyzing the service and the users in both France and Japan. What kind of service exists? Who is using the service? What is the motivation when using shared mobility? I also question the following three points: societal concerns, service strategies and the economic aspect, in order to pinpoint differences in the use of services in France and Japan.

1) Societal concerns:

The purposes when using shared mobility can be various. They can be economic reason (profitability of the use, cheaper than other travel modes, etc.), ecological concerns and social aspect (conviviality, friendly, etc.). Beyond personal interest, I question the impact of shared mobility on a community and its complementary role in existing transportation mode. Does the shared mobility contribute to a territorial development from economic or societal standpoints?

2) Service strategies:

Service strategy to attract or retain customers should be the focus in the research.

Investigating the cultural differences in the strategy is interesting to understand the different way of using the shared service.

3) Economic aspects:

The shared mobility is often practiced by young adults. For instance, the age range of the majority of users is between 30 to 49 years old in car-sharing service in France (54%) (ADEME & 6T-bureau de recherche, 2013) and in Japan (70%) (Foundation for Promoting Personal Mobility and Ecological Transport, 2013). The average age of carpooling users in France is 34 years old (ADEME & 6T-bureau de recherche, 2015). Is the use of this kind of service reserved only for limited population as like young people or economically vulnerable population? Or is it expanding to all people and becoming one of the common travel modes? How does economical aspect influence the growth of service in both countries?

Once differences in development of shared mobility are pinpointed, my focus will be on these differences and analyze the trust issue in strangers.

1) What is the key to establish trust with strangers?

The shared service is based primarily on trusting others; 'trust between strangers' [START_REF] Botsman | What's mine is yours. How collaborative consumption is changing the way we live[END_REF] and the acceptance of strangers. How is the relationship with strangers built during the use of the service? What fosters trust to be able to share car or trip with strangers? What kind of relationship is built in the practice of shared mobility?

2) Paradox of trust in France and Japan France is sometimes considered as a society of defiance; 'the French are suspicious of their citizens, public authorities and the market [START_REF] Algan | La société de défiance. Comment le model social français s'autodétruit[END_REF], while Japan would rather represent a society of trust that would nurture the culture of collectivity [START_REF] Yamagishi | Anshinsyakai kara sinraisyakai e -Nihongatashisutemu no yuku e[END_REF]. For instance, the World Values Survey indicates that to 19% (2015a) of French people answer 'yes ', compared to 37% (2015b) of Japanese to the following question: 'Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted?'. However the service of shared mobility based on trust between strangers seems less developed in Japan than in France. Why this paradox?

The research aims to understand this paradox and to investigate how we built trust in strangers within shared mobility context in both countries.

Methodology

The approach of the research are based on document analysis including academic literatures, government reports, data in each service website and interviews with experts in professional or academic fields. Regarding the trust issue, I will focus particularly on a carpooling service and compare the carpooling service websites ('Blablacar' in France and 'notteco' in Japan) in both countries. In general, there exist common elements in the C to C service in order to ensure the service such as proving user identity (by email address, mobile number, Facebook, putting a photo etc.), rating users mutually and providing insurance. However slight differences in the manner that each service Blablacar and notteco asks users to do (mandatory or optional elements) are identified. I consider these differences as analytical point to understand strategy of establishing trust in strangers. Thus I examine how each website is presented and organized, what they ask users to establish trust with strangers, and what elements can play a role and contribute to build trust between strangers. From this comparison, I propose a hypothesis to study the relationship between the use of carpooling service and the trust in an individual and suggest direction for further research.

Classification of the shared mobility

The transportation modes can generally be divided into three categories [START_REF] Jullien | Usages novateurs de la voiture et nouvelles mobilités[END_REF]: 1) public transport, 2) private transport, and 3) alternative modes (Table 1). Each category can be differentiated according to a traditional and a new mode.

The shared mobility service transport (car-sharing, car-pooling, bike-free service, etc.) can be included in a new alternative mode. The service can be distinguished in three according to actor categories (owner and renter):

1) Between professionals and consumers (B to C)

2) Between consumers (C to C)

3) Between professionals (B to B)

And it can be also categorized in three types of services:

1) Round trip: it requires to bring a car back to its original location.

2) One way: it allows to bring a borrowed vehicle back to a different location from an initial place.

3) Free-Floating: a vehicle is available to users in a limited area in city. The users can track and reserve a vehicle via their Smartphone.

By combining these two categories, I can classify below some services existing in France. Identification) cards or smart phones, so it does not require to go to the agency to rent a car. Then, a rental car is equipped with an on-board computer and a GPS system that communicates with the rental company [START_REF] Jullien | Usages novateurs de la voiture et nouvelles mobilités[END_REF]). This service is deployed in 23 cities in France such as Bordeaux, Lille, Lyon, Nice, Paris, Strasbourg and Marseille.

One way between professionals and consumers (B to C)

One way car-sharing is deployed in Paris, Lyon, Bordeaux, Grenoble, Monaco and Rochelle. Table 3 shows us the current vehicle number, motorization, station number and number of subscribers. Most of the rental cars are electric however the round trip service uses thermal vehicle. 'Smart ForFour' cars. 11 Compared to the round trip and the one way car-sharing service, the Free-Floating service has just started.

Car-sharing between customers (C to C)

The service consists of establishing contact between owner and person renting on site web. This service can be classified in two according to a transaction mode. First, it is a classic and direct transaction, the owner and the person renting, to give the keys and to sign a contract. Secondly, it means an automatic transaction that an owner and the person renting don't need to meet, and car is available directly to the person renting thanks to a technological tool inputted in a car which allows to open a car by Smartphone. In France, there are three main companies: 'Drivy'(launched in 2010), 'Ouicar' (launched in 2007) and 'Koolicar' (launched in 2012).

Car-sharing between professionals (B to B)

The service is that the company offers car fleet services to employees for their professional and personal trips by service provider. In France, main providers are 'ALD automotive' (Société Générale), 'Alphabet France', 'Arval, MOPeasy', 'Ubeeqo' (Europcar).

Car-sharing in Japan

I use a same classification as French's one, and then existing services in Japan can be demonstrated in Table 4. In Japan, the round trip B to C car-sharing is growing since 2011(Fig. 2). In March 2016, there are 30 services. The total number of station is 10,810 then the number of car experimental stage. Parking on public roads which leads to make a car-sharing system like Autolib' is not permitted by Japanese Road Traffic Law. 12 Regarding the B to B car-sharing, some of the car-sharing B to C such as 'Times Car Plus',' Careco', 'Olix Car Share', 'Ecolocar', 'D-Share', 'Eathcar', and 'Cariteco' also offer services to professional customers. The use of car-sharing services in companies is growing in Japan. According to the survey (1,636 users) conducted by 'Times Car Plus' company, motivations of the use and the reasons why companies use the service are summarized as follows (Table 5) 13 : Regarding car-sharing between customers in Japan, three main service exist;

'Anyca', 'Gafore' and 'Green Pot'. Anyca is founded in September 2015 and offers 500 including luxury and sports cars in Tokyo. Cafore started its services since 2009 and offers 1203 cars. Green pot has been launched in 2013 and offers 155 vehicles. The C to C service in Japan is less developed than France.

I have not identified the Free-Floating service in Japan. It seems still difficult to develop this type of system because of the ban on parking on the road in Japan.

Comparison of car-sharing user's profiles between France and Japan

My observation in the previous section for the two types of service: 'Round Trip' and 'One Way' exist and car-sharing C to C is growing in France, while 'One way' exists only as an experiment in Japan, and C to C is still less developed compared to France. Carpooling can be classified according to the type of trip as follows (Table 7) [START_REF] Jullien | Usages novateurs de la voiture et nouvelles mobilités[END_REF]:

1) Inter-city; between cities, medium or long distance trip

2) Home-work; a car-pooling service for home-work trips

3) Dynamic; a real-time service for short trips in a city 4) Community; a carpooling service sets up internally for a specific community such as company, university, and community 5) Organized hitch-hiking; an informal car-sharing without a prior contract important role on the successful development of service18 but also that the social issues between users are undeniable (e.g. after three trips, the Wedrive users said that they were exhausted to find a 'talkable' topic during a trip with colleagues.). 19Regarding dynamic carpooling service, thanks to the development of ICT and Smartphone's application, users can track vehicles that are circulating in the city and order it in real time. The trip can be shared with other people. 'Uberpool' and 'Heetch'

(service only overnight from 8pm to 6am) are well known and used services. The dynamic carpooling service often encounters a conflict with taxi service and its legislative arrangements or status is controversial. In this research I will not deal with this question because the subject is quite far from my main interest.

Carpooling in Japan

are rather male; passengers (53%) and drivers (78%), young (average age 34 years), mainly workers (66%) and not students (only a quarter of users are students). 50% of users have a higher education above bachelor degree and live in urban areas (38% in the urban area of more than 200,000 inhabitants, 7% in Paris, 3% in Lyon). In an economical aspect, the users' disposable income is on average 'between 900-1500€' and it is less than the French average 2444€. 49% of users do not own a car. Users are generally traveling a lot; 10% of users make more than one trip over 80km per week, and 46% of users make more than one trip per month. The main reasons for travel are 'for leisure (91%)' and 'to visit family (85%)'. The average distance of a trip is 364km.

Regarding the Japanese user profile, I contacted directly Japanese carpooling company notteco in July 2016. According to a survey carried out by the notteco company among 27,000 subscribers, the users are rather male; 74% for passengers and 82% for drivers and young; 78% of passengers and 65% of drivers are ranked between 20 and 39 years old. Regarding the motivation of the use according an interview carried out by the same company among several users (the number of the interview is not identified), the main motivation consists of an economic dimension (the service is cheap) and a possible friendly meeting. The other reasons are that 'the notteco service enables to move after the service of the last train' and 'it is more comfortable than a coach'.

To summarize, by comparing the user profiles in both countries, common elements are that most of the users are male and young people, and that the economic dimension is main motivation of the use.

Societal concerns

How the new mobility system contributes to a territorial development? In this section, I focus on some cases in France and in Japan on the use of shard mobility in favor of strengthening a local mobility.

Shard mobility as complementary mode of local transport in France

In rural area, there are few public transport offered and sometimes they are not well adapted to the inhabitants' needs. For this solution, the shared mobility can strengthen existing offers. In rural area, the categories of population can be distinguished in their mobility standpoint, 'assignés territoriaux', 'vulnerable' and 'auto-soloist' [START_REF] Huyghe | Quelles organisations de la mobilité plus durables et moins dépendantes de la voiture dans les espaces ruraux à faible densité? L'exemple du Parc naturel régional Loire-Anjou-Touraine[END_REF]. The assignés territoriaux is a household that does not have (or hardly) an access to any mobility mode because of financial, physical, or cultural reasons. The vulnerable is a household who spends 18% of their budget on mobility. The auto-soloist has an own car and does not have any problem to move.

Some local cities participate in the development of shared mobility system. I focus on two services in France: in the case of the 'Rézo Pouce' and the 'Covoit'ici'. The Réso Pouce service has been launched in 2012 in Moissac which is a town of 20,000 inhabitants in the Tarn-et-Garonne department. The service is categorized as 'organized hitch-hike' carpooling service. The users need to register beforehand on the website and then they receive a user ID card. In 2015, there were 1585 subscribers (60% drivers and 40% hitchhikers/passengers) and 250 stops. 21 The Rézo Pouce service is operated free of charge, and hitchhiker can pay a fee optionally to a driver. The aim of the service is to enhance mobility service in the small city where the public transportation is not well developed. The Covoit'ici is an experiment to organize hitchhike carpooling that started in 2016 and is organized by a star-up company Ecov in Val d'Oise and Yvelines department for 3 years. The service proposes a short trip inside a city for activities such as shopping and going to work or a school. The passenger needs to register (set his destination and pay) at the terminal and then drivers who are driving near the terminal can be informed by a billboard on the road that indicates a destination of the passenger and the driver may decide to pick up the passenger. This service is inspired by a hitchhike, and does not require any prior registration that is often the brake of the development of carpooling service in a short distance. Economically, 'Covoit'ici' is less expensive than other transportation modes. The fee is calculated automatically according to distance (0.12€ per km) and users need to pay a registration fee 1.99€ which allows to use the service for 31 days. According to the Ecov website, the service can provide 5 to 30 times cheaper trip than a bus service and owning a car (0.5€ per km for owing a car including costs of gasoline, insurance, vehicle purchase, maintenance, etc.). 22 The shard mobility can allow modest-income households to move more frequently and to enhance countryside mobility where the public transport is not well served. To develop this kind of new service it needs to focus and overcome organizational and psychological aspect [START_REF] Huyghe | Quelles organisations de la mobilité plus durables et moins dépendantes de la voiture dans les espaces ruraux à faible densité? L'exemple du Parc naturel régional Loire-Anjou-Touraine[END_REF]. The first is to enable a trip or a trajectory corresponding to the need of users and the second is to find a better management regarding fear or suspicions to a stranger with who the users share a trip.

Regarding the second aspect, although both services are operating for a short distance in a city, it does not mean that the users know each other. In the case of Covoit'ici, the service proposes optionally users to take a photo of license plate of the car and to send the photo to a dedicate number in order to identify which car they took. It is a kind of solution to avoid a potential conflict between driver and hitchhiker.

Car-sharing service for helping people with mobility difficulties in Japan

The car-sharing service is operated in order to help people with mobility difficulties in Japan. Here is the case of the Ishinomaki city where mobility system is in difficulty after the Fukushima disaster in 2011. An association called 'Japan car-sharing association' started the service after the disaster. The association holds 84 cars and helps to create a community of car-sharing in a small group by offering their cars.

Because of the aging population (27% of population is over 65 years old) and the decreasing public transportation offers (33 train lines, meaning 634.6 km have been removed since 2000 and 8598 km of bus lines have been removed since 2006 in Japan.), the car-sharing service draws more and more attention as an alternative transportation [START_REF] Masuda | Chihotoshiniokeru kashearinguno fukyuno sokusin ni tsuite [On the promotion of the development of car-sharing in provincial cities[END_REF].

Service strategies: trust issue in general in France and Japan

22 https://covoitici.fr/

Establishing trust between users (suppliers and consumers) is a key to success of the service. In general, there are common elements that the C to C service employs in order to ensure the service which can consist of three points as follows.

1. Identification. The user's identity is verified in service website by email address, mobile number and profile photo. Social network service such as Facebook and LinkedIn can also be inputted on user's account.

2. The C to C service employs a reviewing system between users. Users can give their comments after using the service. The comments would be useful for new users to know personal reliability and what happens during previous usage.

3. Offering insurance. Insurance issue is widely covered in the C to C services.

In this section, I will overview French and Japanese tendencies in general on trust in an individual.

Overview on surveys on trust

According the World Values Survey 19% of French people answer 'yes' to the following question: 'Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted' and 81 % (World Values Survey, 2015a) of them say 'need to be very careful in dealing with people', while in Japan, 37% people say 'yes' to the first question, and 57% say 'need to be very careful in dealing with people' (World Values Survey, 2015b). Regarding the question 'who do you trust?'(Table 9), we can observe differences between France and Japan in 'Neighborhood', 'People you meet for the first time', 'People of another religion' and 'People of another nationality'. Regarding 'Neighborhood', French trust them (81%) more than Japanese (56%). 45% of French answer, 'they trust people they meet for the first time' against only 9% of Japanese. Regarding 'people of another religion' and 'people of another nationality', although we can observe a big gap in both countries, it is difficult to compare between Japanese and France because of differences in cultural and social context. It should be noted that 39% ('people of another religion') and 46%

('people of another nationality') of Japanese respond to these question 'I don't know'. It is true that the religion and its practice are not very visible in Japan. For instance, according to the survey, only 6.8% of the Japanese participate in a religious community against 93% and 28% say that they have a faith against 72% [START_REF] Ishii | Yoryonchosaniyoru nipponjinno syukyouseino chyosa kenkyu[END_REF]. There is also a strong mistrust in new religious communities funded in modern time, that is say after Edo period, 19 th century. The survey shows that 70% of Japanese people are suspicious of new religious communities [START_REF] Ishii | Yoryonchosaniyoru nipponjinno syukyouseino chyosa kenkyu[END_REF]. Regarding trust in people of another nationality, there are 2,688,288 foreign nationals in 2015 in Japan. This accounts for only 2% of the Japanese population 23 , while in France, 8.9% of the population are immigrants 24 . We might consider that the Japanese are not used to the presence of foreigners, thus this could increase the mistrust in them. In social psychology, [START_REF] Yamagishi | Trust and Commitment in the United States and Japan[END_REF] investigate trust issue by comparing between Japan and the United States. According their study, American trust more other people in general than Japanese. In their study, they distinguish trust from assurance.

Trust means an expectation of goodwill and benign intent in a social uncertain situation where the actor does not have the capacity of correctly detecting the partner's intentions, on the other hand assurance is defined as an expectation of benign behavior for reasons other than goodwill of the partner. Their study shows that in Japanese social and business context, human relationship is actually mutual assurance based on the nature of the relationship (e.g. the prominence of networks of committed relations) rather than mutual trust on the belief in human benevolence. [START_REF] Igarashi | Culture, trust, and social networks[END_REF] examine the role of the trust in social network and its cultural differences between Westerns (Australia, Germany and the United Kingdom) and East Asian countries (Japan and South Korea). They use the notion of general trust and relationism. General trust may encourage people to seek new social relationship, however once contacts are made and relationships are initiated, stronger relationships are maintained by relationism.

Relationism is grounded in a sense of relating to well-known persons. People with strong relationism may act to maintain social relationships once they are formed. Thus relationism acts to strengthen the commitment to social relationships, it may not encourage people to seek new social opportunities. For instance, compared to Korean that show high generalized trust and relationism, while Japanese were lower on both.

Regarding social network, the authors argue that in Japan there is a strong norm to form friendship ties with those who are in the same setting and have similar attitudes, and in this kind of situation, generalized trust may be irrelevant for friendship formation.

According to the survey among 2000 French consumers conducted by DGE, PICOM Nomadéis, and TNS Sofres (2014) with regard to collaborative consumption, French people have a positive image on collaborative consumption (Figure 3). The main interest in the use of the C to C service is 'the earning and saving money (43%)', 'societal values like sharing (35%)' or 'solidarity (34%)'. Only less than 10% persons answer with negative opinions. The lack of trust can be a brake on the use of the C to C service.

61% of respondents say that worrying factors linked to the C to C services consist of the safety issues as scam, lack of guarantee, do not trust in individual service, etc. According to the World Values Survey (2015a; 2015b), we can observe that Japanese tend to trust familiar people as family but not so much individuals as neighborhood or people who they meet for the first time, while French responses show that they trust more broadly than Japanese. However, regarding the question; 'Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted', Japanese answer more positively than

French. So, it is difficult to interpret this paradox. In the next section, I investigate a service strategy, particularly a carpooling service ('Blablacar' in France and 'notteco' in Japan) in both countries, and examine how each website is presented and organized and what they ask users to establish trust with strangers. From this approach, I would like to analyze what is the key element of establishing trust between individuals and to compare differences in France and Japan.

Comparison of C to C service websites

I focus on a carpooling service in both countries to investigate trust issue. By comparing website of the carpooling service; 'Blablacar' in France and 'notteco' in Japan, I examine how each website is presented and organized and what they ask users to order to establish trust with strangers.

As I already mentioned previously, in general, common elements which the C to C service employs in order to ensure the service consist of proving user identity (by email address, mobile number, Facebook, putting a photo etc.), rating users mutually and providing insurance. We can observe theses common factors in both websites (Fig. 4). I identified slight differences in the manner that each service Blablacar and notteco asks users to do (mandatory or optional elements). I analyze below these differences (Table 10). Lyon. By observing the content of both website, the notteco service looks more like a meeting site, while Blabalcar looks more like a booking trip website (for example, the price is already fixed on the site in Blablacar but in notteco even if an estimated fee is posted, the users can negotiate a fee.

Referring to the Yamagishi's theory [START_REF] Yamagishi | Anshinsyakai kara sinraisyakai e -Nihongatashisutemu no yuku e[END_REF]Yamagishi et al. 1994), we can analyze that Japanese notteco service tries to establish an 'assurance' of the service by asking to the users a photocopy of ID card and driver's license that can identify surely users identity, while the Blablacar website look likes less exigent in them of the identity verification requirement and let users establish a trust by themselves. However, it is still very difficult to justify establishing-trust strategy. I think it is necessary to interview each user and which factors play a role to build trust considering also users motivations of the use (e.g. the carpooling service is cheaper than other transportation mode, section 3.3).

Economic aspects in France

In this section, I would like to make clear a profitability of the shard mobility service and some perspective regarding the development of the service in France such as the questions: the service is an ephemeral phenomenon or is becoming a common travel mode?

Overview of economical advantage compared to other transport mode in

France

Comparing the cost of other transportation modes and the shared mobility, it is quite obvious that the latter allows users to save money. For instance, the use of a car ). As I mentioned in the sections 5.3 and 6.3 that the motivation of using the shared mobility are on an economical aspect, it is obvious that the use of the shared mobility cost less than an owing car and allows to make a trip economically.

Shared mobility as an ephemeral phenomenon or enduring service in France

As I identified the user's profile of the new mobility service, the population of the user's is still limited to the young and male users. However, the range of the user's age is expanding. For instance, the Autolib' users age is shifting from 38 to 40 years old for annual subscribers and from 33 to 35 years old for occasional subscribers, and the proportion of female users is increasing from 33% to 36% for annual subscribers and from 33% to 35% for occasional subscribers.28 Thus, it is no doubt that a certain type of the shard mobility is becoming a common travel mode. However even if we can observe the big growth of the shard mobility, an estimation of the car-sharing fleet is 0,015% in France (e.g. 0.0003% in Japan) of the total vehicle fleet.

It is careful to say that the new mobility service is a danger for carmakers or train companies who are worried about loosing their customers. And also according to the Jullien and Rivollet's research (2015), they argue that the C to C business type in both car-sharing and carpooling is still a fragile service because the companies are seeking foreign investment rather than expanding services at a national level or to certain hardto-reach populations. However, this argument is questionable because sometimes the key to success could be to develop a service first and dominate a market before competitors arrive. The shared mobility service is quite new phenomenon, so it is still difficult to determine the development tendency, therefore a further research is necessary to clarify the phenomenon.

Conclusion

This working paper overviews the service of the shared mobility; car-sharing and carpooling in Japan and France. In terms of the development of the service in general, I created a visual chart below (Fig. 5). In conclusion, generally in Japan the 'round-trip, B to C' car-sharing service is growing, but 'C to C' service in both car-sharing and carpooling is still less developed or just started to service, while in France, carpooling, 'C to C' car-sharing service are growing and 'one-way' car-sharing service has also been developing in cities (e.g. Paris, Lyon, Bordeaux, etc.). Regarding the analysis of the use, we observed common points of the motivation and the user profile between Japan and France. The users of the shared mobility are mostly male and the motivation of use is an economical aspect. I also observed slight differences in the motivational use of the car-sharing service; in Japan, regarding the motivation, a practical aspect is more important than an economical aspect. The carsharing B to B service is also growing in Japan.

The differences in the development of the new shared mobility service between France and Japan is quite clear. These differences are due to multiples reasons such as transport mode, traffic regulation, economical situation, activities that are different in

Car-sharing

Carpooling

France and Japan. My interest in this research is to focus the difference in the development of the shared mobility from a sociological standpoint, especially focusing on social relationship with 'strangers'. For this purpose, I evoked the question of the trust. In this research stage, it is difficult to say that French trust stranger more than Japanese. Considering the Yamagishi's social psychological theory (1999), Japanese do not build their social relationship based on trust but rather on assurance that has less risks, that is to say, there is no risk to be betrayed and left disappointed, I can make hypothesis about the relationship between the development of the new shared mobility service and the trust issue as following.

-Regarding the choice of using the shard service, French chose the shared service if their effort to trust stranger and the price of the service or economical situation of the users encounter a certain equilibrium. It means that if they have enough money and they don't need to save the money, or if they need to make lots of effort to trust stranger (for example, in the case where the website does not make sure an identity of users, or the services make lots of problems, etc.), they would not use the service.

If the price that is cheap enough to make an effort (take a risk) in order to trust stranger, French would use the service.

-On the other hand, Japanese need a reassurance regarding the use of the service, so if the no-risk of the service is not evident, they would not use the service even if the price is cheap.

The present discussion paper overviews the current state of the shared mobility service in Japan and France and allows us to observe generally differences in the development of the service. The paper is a first step of a research, which allows me to lead a hypothesis to analyze a relationship between the development of the shard service and the trust issue.

Future Prospect

Next step of the research is to do a theoretical framework research and find a method to justify the hypothesis. Regarding the theoretical framework, I can rely on social psychologist research on the relationship between strangers. For instance, the theory of a 'familiar stranger' studied firstly by Stanley Milgram (1977)

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1: Evolution of the number of car-sharing subscribers in different countries 2

  Figure 2: Evolution of the number of vehicles and subscribers of car-sharing in Japan

Figure 3 :

 3 Figure 3: Perception of collaborative consumption by the French 'What are three words that define collaborative consumption for you?'

Figure 4 :

 4 Figure 4: Example of Dashboard of 'Blablacar' and 'notteco'

(

  maintenance, assurance and purchase included) costs between 6000€-8000€ per year in 2015 25 and the use of public transportation in Paris and its urban area costs about 800€ per year in 2016 according to the Navigo website 26 . Regarding the shared mobility, in the case of the car-sharing service Autolib', the service costs between 900€-1000€ per year in 2014 according to the 6t-bureau's research (ADEME et 6t-Bureau de recherche, 2014). Another car-sharing service C to C, Drivy allows to earn 672€ per year according to the website of Drivy in 2015 27 . Regarding the carpooling service, Blablacar allows users to save 0,1€/kilometer (ADEME & 6T-bureau de recherche, 2015

Figure 5 :

 5 Figure 5: Overview of the comparison of the shared mobility service between France and Japan

  would be interesting to understand the relationship between individuals. Milgram defined a familiar stranger as an individual who is known from regular activities, but with whom one does not interact. In the case of the home-work carpooling called 'Slug-line' in USA, we can observe anonymous relationship which can be understood by the familiar stranger theory. A 'Slug-line' is a carpooling service which has developed in 70 th around Washington D.C. for a short distance and everyday, especially for a home-work trip. The service is free and both driver and passenger can gain the time by taking a highoccupancy vehicle lane. What is interesting in the service is its code of conduct regarding drivers and passengers. For example, a passenger should not start a conversation in the car as long as a driver does not start it or a passenger should not ask to change a radio channel or the temperature in the car, etc., if a driver does not ask to a passenger. This code actually allows both to maintain an anonymous relationship during the trip with avoiding communication and interaction. Thus the users of the Slug-line can continue to be a stranger even if they know each other because they use daily the service. It is essential to investigate what kind of relationship we can create in the case of the new mobility service, especially C to C service, because this question of social relationship between users could be linked to the question of the trust. Regarding a method, it is fruitful to do a sociological qualitative and quantitative survey to measure the hypothesis.The research is still in its exploratory stage, and further investment is expected because the development of sharing economy is booming, not only in the automobile field but any field, and the question of trust is the key point to understand our social phenomenon.13. BiographyADEME. (2014). Leviers d'actions pour favoriser le covoiturage de courte distance, évaluation de l'impact sur les polluants atmosphériques et le CO2. Interim report, April 2014.

Table 1 :

 1 Typology of the mobility offers in France

			Public transport	Private transport	Alternative modes
		Classical offers	subway, train Bus, tramway,	Car, motorbike	Taxis, walk, bicycle
	Transportation		Bus Rapid Transit, Demand Responsive	Hybrids car, Electric car	Car-sharing, Carpooling, VTC
	mode	New offers	Transport		(Voiture de Transport avec
					Chauffeur), Bicycle-
					sharing system
			Transport operator,	Cities, Car	Cities, Taxi
			Transport	manufacturers,	companies, ICT
	Key stakeholders	organizing authorities	Parking managers	stakeholders, Transport operator,
					renters, private
					stakeholders
	5. Car-sharing
	5.1 Car-sharing services in France
	Car-sharing is defined as a short-term (hourly or daily) vehicle rental service. The
	vehicles are owned by a company, an organization or individuals and shared with
	different consumer. According to French law, it is defined as 'la mise en commun d'un
	véhicule ou d'une flotte de véhicules de transport terrestre à moteur au profit d'utilisateurs
	abonnés ou habilités par l'organisme ou la personne gestionnaire des véhicules. Chaque
	abonné ou utilisateur habilité peut accéder à un véhicule sans conducteur pour le trajet de
	son choix et pour une durée limitée. (the pooling of a vehicle or a fleet of motorized land

Table 2 : Example of car-sharing service in France Actors Services B to C C to C B to B One way

 2

		Autolib', Bluely,
		Bluecub, Cité Lib by
		Ha:mo, Mobee,
		Yélomobile
	Free -Floating	Twizy way (2012-2014)
	Estimated number	153,000 (2014)	1,100,000 (2015)
	of users
	Estimated number	3,900 (2014)	600,000 (2015)
	of vehicles
	5.1

.1 Round trip between professionals and consumers (B to C) car-sharing service

	Round trip and B to C car-sharing is a new car rental service base on the use of a new
	technological transaction. The reservation will be done by a mobile phone application,
	internet or telephone. The door opening is done by RFID (Radio Frequency

Table 3 :

 3 Overview of the one way car-sharing service in France

	Service name	City	Vehicle number	Motorization	Station number	Number of Subscribers

.3 Free-Floating car-sharing

	An experiment was conducted in Saint-Quentin en Yvelines by using 50 Twizy cars from
	September 2012 to 2014. 10 The service was initially managed by Renault and then
	Keemoov, a sustainable mobility services company. The city of Strasbourg and Toulouse
	began this service in May 2015 called 'Yea!' proposed by the operator Citiz Alsace by
	using

Table 4 :

 4 Example of car-sharing service in Japan

	Actors
		B to C	C to C	B to B
	Services
	Round trip	Times Car Plus, Orix Carshare, Careco, …	Anyca, Cafore, Green Pot	Times Car Plus, …
		Choimobi	(2013-2016),
	One way	Times Car PLUS TOYOTA i-
		ROAD Drive
	Estimated number	84,6240 (2016)	N/R
	of users
	Estimated number	19,717(2016)		870 (2015)
	of vehicles

Table 5 :

 5 Motivation of the use of car-sharing for a company

	Motivations	%
	To enhance the efficiency of the business trip	37.4
	To reduce trip cost	35.5
	To stop the use of a company fleet	23.4
	Company fleet is insufficient	22.8
	Difficulty to park a car	19
	To reduce a company fleet	12.7
	Others	11.7

Table 7 :

 7 Types of carpooling and example of the service in FranceThe home-work carpooling service represents 3% of the home-work travel and is organized mainly with people who work in a same company and have a difficulty to find a parking at work or at home place, whose journeys are more than 20 kilometers(ADEME, 2014). One of the most famous home-work carpooling services is 'Wayz-up' which was launched in 2014. Wayz up proposes to connect persons of the same company or the same activity area to make a daily trip together. According to its website, the average distance of a trip is 29km, 3000 users are registered in France and 1000 trips are proposed. 17 There are also services such as 'Weepil', 'La Roue Verte', 'Carjob', 'Trajet à la carte'. Then the social network platforms like Fracebook, is also used to create a group of daily carpooling.[START_REF] Jullien | Usages novateurs de la voiture et nouvelles mobilités[END_REF] Despite these numerous services, the home-work car-pooling is still under development and quite unstable. Some startups are created but disappear quickly such as the case of 'Padam' and 'Sharette'. The closure of 'Wedrive', despite 1.25 million investments from PSA Peugeot Citroën, shows not only that company's strategy plays an

	Trip type	Description	Examples in France
	Inter-city	Carpooling for a medium or long distance trip between different cities	Blablacar (25milions members) iDvroom (90,000 members)
			Wayz-up
	Home-Work	Carpooling for a home-work trip	iDvroom Karos
			Carjob
	Dynamic	Carpooling managed in real-time for a short trip in a city	Covivo (30,000 members) Uberpool (160,000 members) Heetch
		Carpooling service stets up	Covivo
		internally for a specific	Ecolutis
	Community	community such as in	Mobigo (Bourgogne
		company, university,	University)
		community
	Organized hitch-	Informal car-sharing service	Rezo Pouce
	hiking	without a prior contract	Covoiturons sur le pouce
	In France, 'Blablaccar' and 'iDvroom' are main carpooling companies. Blablacar is
	a French startup founded in 2006, has a great success. Its service is deployed in 22
	countries and 25 million members have been registered. 15 iDvroom which are initially
	called 'Ecoulutis' started the service in 1999, then combined with 'Easycovoiturage' and
	'123envoiture' in 2013. They merged with the SNCF in 2014, and became iDvoom.
	900,000 users are registered. 16

Table 9 :

 9 Comparison of answers to a question 'who do you trust' between France and Japan

		(World Values Survey, 2015a; 2015b)
		France (1001 persons)	Japan (2443 persons)
	Who do you trust?	Trust completely and somewhat	Not very much and not at all	Trust completely and somewhat	Not very much and not at all
	Family	95%	4.5%	97%	1%
	Neighborhood	81%	18%	56%	35%
	People you know personally	95%	5%	81%	15%
	People you meet for the first time	45%	55%	9%	72%
	People of another religion	75%	21%	10%	51% * 39% 'I don't know.'
	People of				46%
	another	77%	21%	14%	* 40% 'I don't
	nationality				know.'

Table 10

 10 Comparison of different elements in the website of Blablacar and notteco

		Blablacar	notteco
		Optional. Only clear photo of the face.	Optional. User can put any photo.
	Photo	The photo needs to be checked by the
		website.
	Payment	By card via the website	On site
	Service fee	The website takes a service fee.	The website does not take a service fee at the moment.
		No need to send a photocopy of ID	Need to send a photocopy of ID card
	Identity check	card (but recommended) or driver's	and driver's license.
		license to the website.
	Additional	Answering time	-Trip purpose
	filter when		-Number of friends on Facebook
	searching trips
	It should be noted that notteco is still developing service compared to Blablacar
	which is now very well used service in France. For instance, the number of trips offered
	by notteco is very few. By comparing the number of ads on August 25, 2016, notteco has
	249 proposed trips in Japan while Blablacar has 1107 trip ads only between Paris and

There are over

millions Blablacar subscribers according to Blablacar website accessed on the

June 2016, while notteco, equivalent to Blablacar in Japan, counts only

subscribers according to the notteco company's survey in 2006, exchanged by email with notteco company in August 2016.

Quebec: http://www.communauto.com/images/usagers.html; Switzerland: /www.mobility.ch/fr/medias/communiques-de-presse/ ; France: CERTU, 2008, L'auto-partage en France et en Europe -état des lieux et perspectives ; Japan: Ecomo Foundation ; USA: Shaheen and Cohen, 2012, cited in Yveline Lecler, Bruno Faivre D'Arcier B., 2014, « Carsharing in cities : will electric vehicles change the business ? A comparison between France and Japan », paper presented at the 22nd International Colloquium of GERPISA, Kyoto, 4-6 June 2014.

Transport Code, Article L1231-14, LOI n°2015-992 du 17 août 2015 -art. 34 https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do;jsessionid=60C50B8CADA1CDC0DD6F43E85AEA95 C8.tpdila19v_2?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000023086525&idSectionTA=LEGISCTA000028530313&dat eTexte=20170314&categorieLien=id#LEGISCTA000028530313

Autolib' Métropole. 2016. Tableau de bord Autolib'. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8MFxB5YvOOkd3VYZm54cDJJS0U/view, July 3rd 2016.

MobiliCités. 2015. Lyon : le service d'autopartage Bluely passe la seconde. http://www.mobilicites.com/Dossier-12-L-autopartage-surfe-sur-la-mobilite-collaborative/011-3632-Lyon-le-service-d-autopartage-Bluely-passe-la-seconde.html, September10th 2015.

 6 Communauté urbaine de Bordeaux. 2013. Bluecub, dossier de Press. https://www.bluecub.eu/fr/footer/presse/, June 21st 2013

.7 Toyota Europe. 2016. Premier bilan Cité Lib by Ha:mo : plus de 1 000 adhérents, 92 % de satisfaction. http://newsroom.toyota.eu/newsrelease, May 26th

2016. 8 Gouvernement Princier, Principauté de Monaco. 2015. Mobee: le service se développe », communique de presse. http://www.gouv.mc/Action-Gouvernementale/L-Environnement/Actualites/MOBEE-le-service-se-developpe, March

18th 2015. 9 Proxiway. 2017. Yélomobile, mode d'emploi ». http://www.proxiway larochelle.fr/yelomobilemode-demploi/, accessed on

March 14th 2017. 10 Le Parisien. 2014. L'autopartage électrique débranché. http://www.leparisien.fr/espacepremium/yvelines-78/l-autopartage-electrique-debranche-12-07-2014-

3995503.php, July12th 2014. 11 http://yea.citiz.coop/

Transport Code, Loi n°2015-992 du 17 août 2015 -article.52. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000031044385&categorieLien=i d

Blablacar. 2016. Blablacar, qui sommes nous ? https://www.blablacar.fr/blog/qui-sommes-nous, accessed on June 26th 2016..

iDvroom. 2016. iDvroom, qui sommes nous ? https://www.idvroom.com/qui-sommes-nous, accessed on June 26th 2016.

Mobivia Groupe. 2016. Wayz-up. http://www.mobiviagroupe.com/fr/activites/nouvelles-mobilitesvia-id/wayz-up/, accessed on June 26th 2016.

18 Challenges. 2015. Covoiturage: Wedrive met la clé sous la porte malgré l'investissement de PSA. http://www.challenges.fr/entreprise/20150317.CHA3929/covoiturage-wedrive-met-la-cle-sous-laporte-malgre-l-investissement-de-psa.html, March 17th

2015. 19

 Chronos. 2016. Covoiturage : petit lexique de la confiance. Entretien avec la doctorante Lisa Creno. http://www.groupechronos.org/publications/entretiens/covoiturage-petit-lexique-de-la-confiance.entretien-avec-la-doctorante-lisa-creno, June 2nd 2016.

Mobicité. 2015. Rézo pouce : l'auto-stop organisé en complément des transports en commun. http://www.mobilicites.com/011-4248-Rezo-pouce-l-autostop-organise-en-complement-destransports-en-commun.html, October 15th 2015.

Automobile Club Association. Budget ACA de l'Automobiliste, May 2016. https://www.automobile-club.org/actualites/la-vie-de-l-aca/budget-aca-de-l-automobiliste-mai-2016.

Navigo. http://www.navigo.fr/titres/le-forfait-navigo-mois-tarifs-et-zones/

Drivy. https://blog.drivy.com/2015/12/18/imposition-revenus-issus-de-la-location-de-voiture-entreparticuliers/, December 12th 2015.

 28 Autolib'. Autolib' business review in 2014, file:///Users/nabe/Downloads/Rapport%20d'activit%C3%A9%202014%20Fasicule%203-3.pdf.

Regarding the user's profiles (Table 6), in both countries, the main user is male; this tendency is stronger in Japan (82% user are male) than France (55%). The age range of the majority of users is same in both 'between 30 to 49' years old in France (54%) and in Japan (70%). The main motivation of the use in France is an economical aspect (51%): 'Car-sharing is cheaper than a personal car', while the practical aspect (80%) prevails economical motivation (38%) in Japan. Leisure (shopping, visiting family, etc.) is a main trip purpose in both. Most users use the service occasionally: '2-3 per month' in France (32%) and '1-2 per month' in Japan (31%). Carpooling services are not well developed in Japan. 'notteco' which is an inter-city service began its service in 2008. 27,000 people are registered. The system of service is almost the same as a French service 'Blablacar' in term of finding a destination, booking a trip, contacting a driver via the website, evaluating the service, etc. On the other hand, I found also some differences in both services. I will discuss this point in the section 8.2 with liking to the trust issue.

Comparison of carpooling user's profiles between France and Japan


Keywords: Innovation, Disruptive Innovation, Value Proposition, Diffusion of Innovation, Automotive Industry, Innovative Power Train, Fuel Efficiency, Driving Range, Electric Vehicle, Urban Mobility

.

Using the statistics provided by official data of Japan, author estimated the average of actual maximum driving range of ICE vehicle currently sold. The analysis revealed that the actual fuel efficiency and maximum driving range of ICE vehicles is much lower than nominal one published by OEMs. After that, citing two cases of Japan, author examines the fit between the usage pattern and the choice of power train.

Discussing these cases and analysis, the author conclude that that the driving range of BEV dose not solely matter for optimal choice of powertrain. Rather, the driving range and the fit between usage patterns and the availability of "charging place" jointly affect to the optimal choice.

Introduction and Research Motivation

Seven years have passed since the first practical electric vehicle launched in the market. In addition, it has passed more than 15 years since the car using an electric motor for hybrid power train introduced by Toyota. These facts suggest that it is appropriate timing to examine the impact and effect of the electrical power train as a "disruptive" technology for the automotive industry.

On the other hand, when we see the current situation of the automotive industry, it is doubtful that a specific disruptive technology will establish a dominant position in the future. In fact, the market share of EVs in Europe, USA, and Japan are only less than 1% as Table 1 shows. This data implies that the diffusion of vehicles with electric powertrain struggles all over the world. Source: ACEA (Europe), EDTA (USA), JADA (Japan Vehicle), and CEV-PC (Japan EV)

What is the major obstacle of BEV diffusion? There is some discourse on this issue, such as purchasing price, number of charging stations, and driving distance.

Deloitte Tohmatsu Consulting, LLC. ( 2015) pointed out that the biggest concern of BEVs was the price, and the next was the driving range. At the same time, the report pointed out that more than 80 per cent of consumers demands BEVs to have 320 km or more of maximum driving range. In this article, the author focuses on the issue of driving range to examine the performance gap between ICE vehicles and BEVs as a disruptive innovation.

Though, the maximum driving range itself has been less mentioned in the sales and marketing of ICE vehicles, as we can hardly find the figure on the catalogue. This is the initial motivation of the research. This research tries to calculate the actual performance gap between ICE vehicle and BEV in terms of driving range and propose the decision model of optimal powertrain mentioning the usage pattern of cars. In this paper, the author explore the potent new value proposition analyzing the cases in Japan. At the same time, revisiting the key performance indicator of existing value proposition, the author give more precision into the analysis of the performance gap between incumbents and new innovation.

The structure of this article is as below. At first, the author surveys the prior literature on innovation and diffusion of Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AFVs) to align the current situation of BEV innovation. Assessing the technological change of BEVs according to the concept of "Architectural Innovation [START_REF] Henderson | Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms[END_REF])" and applies the concept of "Disruptive Innovation [START_REF] Christensen | The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail[END_REF])" into the BEVs. Then, the author analyses the data official data on fuel consumption by vehicles to grasp the actual performance gap of driving range between ICE vehicles and BEVs. Subsequently, the author proposes two short cases to propose the unfit between usage pattern and selection of the power train. Using the case and data, the author discusses selection model of an optimal power train of vehicles.

Literature review

Prior research on innovation and technological change

There are several types of axis to distinct the patterns of innovation and technological change, such as radical / incremental [START_REF] Dewar | The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis[END_REF], competence-enhancing / competence-destroying [START_REF] Tushman | Technological discontinuities and organizational environments[END_REF], modular / architectural [START_REF] Henderson | Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms[END_REF], and sustaining / disruptive [START_REF] Christensen | The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail[END_REF]. The author focuses the latter two concept to define the innovation of BEVs in this article, since prior research define the BEVs as radical or disruptive innovation [START_REF] Barkenbus | Our electric automotive future: CO 2 savings through a disruptive technology[END_REF][START_REF] Midler | Project-based learning patterns for dominant design renewal: The case of Electric Vehicle[END_REF][START_REF] Pohl | Radical innovation in a small firm: a hybrid electric vehicle development project at Volvo Cars[END_REF] without close investigation.

Through analyzing the change of knowledge of components and architecture, innovations can be classified into four patterns as incremental, modular, architectural, and radical [START_REF] Henderson | Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms[END_REF]. This data shows that the categorization of technological change of BEVs is yet unsettled since each company attempts the different types of the technological solution to develop BEVs. Even in some case, it would not be defined "Radical,"

Regarding the technological characteristics of

unlike the exiting literature.

Prior research on "Disruptive Innovation" [START_REF] Christensen | The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail[END_REF] pointed out that the "Disruptive Innovation" is the innovation with cheaper price and lower performance than the existing product. The logic of the disruption is that the "Introducing New Value proposition." Citing the case of the hard disk drive industry, it revealed that the defeat of the existing champion company occurs when the new and smaller form of drive introduced.

The new and smaller disk drives perform less than the existing one in terms of capacity and access speed. And counter-intuitively the existing companies do not elaborate to develop this type of disk drives, since the customer of existing companies have no interests in such a less-performed products. Subsequently, the new disk drives find the new market and diffuse into it, thanks to the cheaper price and smaller form, which new market highly valued as a new value proposition.

Finally, the disruptive innovation gets the rapid improvement of it performance using the "Sustaining Innovation" and capture the market of existing company after all.

There is some controversy on the concept of "Disruptive Innovation." [START_REF] Markides | Disruptive innovation: In need of better theory[END_REF] states that it should be distinct among radical product innovations, business-model innovations, and technological innovations. [START_REF] Gans | The Disruption Dilemma[END_REF] pointed out that there are many cases of the problematic overusing of the disruptive innovation theory and its narrow source of theory as problem. However, the significance of the theory and its logic mentioning the organizational behavior against the technological change is useful to examine the potential of new innovation.

Hereafter, there is a question whether BEVs is "Disruptive" or not. Though [START_REF] Christensen | The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail[END_REF] itself discussed about the issue of BEV, the data and circumstances has been changed at all during this decade. Thereafter, the author attempts to apply this theory onto the automotive industry.

i-MiEV, the first practical mass produced BEV was introduced from MMC, which is the existing ICE vehicle producer, in 2009. And it was followed by Nissan Leaf in 2010. On the new entrant side, Tesla Motors began to sell Model S, its first self-developed practical vehicle, in 2012. As of 2016, the BEVs are sold from both of existing companies and new entrants, however, some of existing ICE producers such as Toyota and Mercedes-Benz hasn't sold BEVs yet.

The sales growth rate of BEVs is much higher than that of ICE vehicles, even though the price is higher and the performance of driving range is lower than ICE vehicles. Therefore, evaluating the innovation of BEVs in terms of "disruptiveness" is yet too early as well since no incumbent OEMs has exit from the industry and the market share of BEVs is still small. However, with analyzing the characteristics of innovation through case study, its extent of potential "disruptiveness" can be assessed.

The question to distinct the disruptiveness of the innovation is "what is "New

Value Proposition" of BEVs?" In the following section, the author hypothetically proposes the new value proposition of BEVs as the "new pattern of charging" using the "charging base" located locally in the home of users.

Prior research on the diffusion of AFVs

When assessing the "disruptiveness" of innovation, it can be useful to examine the driver of diffusion to evaluate the value proposition of innovations. Prior researches on the diffusion of AFV, such as NGV, BEV, PHEV, and FCEV, have revealed the factors stimulating or preventing the diffusion of AFVs using agent-based modelling and descriptive analysis.

A case of PHEV shows that the "mainstream" market bias becomes an obstacle of diffusion of AFVs and it can be overcome with more efficient policy to cultivate niche markets, which accelerates the diffusion of complementary assets of the AFVs [START_REF] Green | Increasing electric vehicle policy efficiency and effectiveness by reducing mainstream market bias[END_REF].

The failure of NGV diffusion in Germany was caused by coordination failure in complementary markets, legal regulations, bounded rationality of consumers, information asymmetry, and principle-agent problem between OEMs and government [START_REF] Von Rosenstiel | Why has the introduction of natural gas vehicles failed in Germany?-Lessons on the role of market failure in markets for alternative fuel vehicles[END_REF].

In the first decade of 21st century, the number of companies that develop BEVs was hugely increased. Though both of large incumbent and new entrant develop EVs, there is a difference of targeted market and diffusion strategy [START_REF] Sierzchula | The competitive environment of electric vehicles: An analysis of prototype and production models[END_REF][START_REF] Dijk | A socio-technical perspective on the electrification of the automobile: niche and regime interaction[END_REF]. Descriptive analysis shows that financial incentives and number of charging stations per capita affects the adoption late of BEVs in a certain country [START_REF] Shafiei | An agent-based modeling approach to predict the evolution of market share of electric vehicles: A case study from Iceland[END_REF][START_REF] Sierzchula | The influence of financial incentives and other socio-economic factors on electric vehicle adoption[END_REF]. Additionally, awareness campaigns and word of mouth would effective for short to medium term, and vehicle abandon policy should be employed [START_REF] Zhang | A Study of the Diffusion of Alternative Fuel Vehicles: An Agent-Based Modeling Approach[END_REF][START_REF] Browne | How should barriers to alternative fuels and vehicles be classified and potential policies to promote innovative technologies be evaluated?[END_REF] An agent based model analysis using the data of Berlin shows that the BEV-exclusive zoning for city center and tailored incentives for each heterogeneous customer needs [START_REF] Wolf | Changing minds about electric cars: An empirically grounded agent-based modeling approach[END_REF].

One of the problem of these prior research is that they focus only the existing value proposition of vehicles. Foster (1986) pointed out that comparing the performance indicators used for incumbent products, innovative products performs less than incumbent ones. Therefore, it is intuitive to be resulted that BEVs should enhance its performance of driving range and charging time to accelerate the diffusion regarding prior research. At the same time, prior research pay more attention to "public" charging stations meanwhile pays less attention to "personal" charging station [START_REF] Bae | Spatial and Temporal Model of Electric Vehicle Charging Demand[END_REF], since there is no concept of "personal" gas station historically. Thereafter, these kind of research can hardly distinct the "new customer value proposition," which drives a company into new market with new architectural technologies (Christensen 1992).

Comparison of driving range between ICE vehicles and BEVs

In this section, the author analyzes the performance gap between the existing product and potentially "disruptive" product in terms of driving range, which can be the biggest justifier not to buy BEVs by customers.

It is easy to find the driving range of a BEV from its catalogue and the OEMs emphasize the improvement of this performance indicator. On the other hand, we can hardly find the driving range of ICE vehicles from their catalogues. Usually

OEMs emphasize fuel efficiency as their performance indicator and the competition of the performance is very serious.

Thus, here arise one question. "People emphasize BEVs incompetency citing its shorter driving range, but is there any precise information about the driving range of ICE vehicles?" One of the possible answer of it is "We don't need to take care of it, because the maximum driving range of ICE vehicles should be long enough citing the fuel efficiency data."

How can we calculate the driving range of ICE vehicles? The simplest way is to multiply the fuel efficiency of with the capacity of the fuel tank. The figure

proposes the driving range of C-segment vehicle models sold in Japan. The calculated driving range of these vehicles is so much longer than the one of BEVs sold in Japan. At a glance of this difference, there seems to be no room for BEVs in Market. But there is some problem of comparison.

Both of the fuel efficiency indicator if ICE vehicles and driving range indicator of BEVs can hardly describe the actual performance of cars. These indicators show only the fixed pattern set by authorities such as MLIT of Japan, EPA of USA, and EU.

And there has always been the controversy about the gap between actual performance and the nominal performance.

The data from MLIT shows that the total usage of fuels and the total mileage run by vehicles monthly. Using these data, the average actual fuel consumption by vehicles can be calculated. The figure 3 shows that the average actual fuel consumption is much lower than a nominal one calculated from the catalogue.

There might be some critics that the aggregate data contain older vehicles with lower performance. Meanwhile the driving range of BEVs depends upon the capacity of batteries. The average capacity is increasing faster than the improvement of fuel efficiency.

Additionally, IID Inc. ( 2015) analyzing the OBD2 data of Nissan Leaf and shows that the gap between nominal and actual performance of the Nissan Leaf is narrow.

Then, the performance gap of driving range between BEVs and ICE vehicles can be said narrower than believed.

Background of the case: Accessibility to gas station

In Japan, the number of gas stations is rapidly decreasing while the number of cars owned by consumers is gradually increasing. This means that the accessibility to the gas station is becoming worse. Especially in the countryside of Japan, the number of gas station and its accessibility is worse than the urban side. The figure

shows that both the density of gas stations and the number of vehicles par gas station in the countryside is much lower than that of urban side.

Figure 5: Analysis of the accessibility to gas station by prefecture

Regarding the figure above, the density of gas station is so much varied among prefectures in Japan. There is one gas station per 1.86 square km in Tokyo while there in one gas station per 44.56 square km in Hokkaido. This difference directly affects to the availability of gas stations for customers. Moreover, the market size of a gas station is varied as well. In Tokyo, there are 3019 vehicles par gas station while there are 1778 vehicles par gas station in Hokkaido. This difference affects to

[CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANG E] [CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE] the business circumstances of each gas station and the decline rate of it.

The accessibility to gas station affects to the frequency of refueling from customer point of view. If nearest gas station locates far from the home, users tend to go gas station less frequently. Meanwhile, users tend to avoid running out of gas as well.

Thus, users of vehicles struggle with this dilemma and prefer to buy ICE vehicles with higher fuel efficiency rather than BEVs, which has a shorter driving range.

Describing the following two cases in Japan, the author highlights the unfit between the power train of vehicles and the usage patterns, mentioning about the context of refueling.

Case of countryside in Japan: Small agricultural business and micro-truck

One of the representative case showing the disadvantage of ICE vehicles would be the small agricultural business in the countryside in Japan. They operate multiple numbers of micro trucks so called "Kei-Tora" in Japanese and light duty trucks for daily business and consume tens of liters of gasoline every day.

In Yamanashi prefecture, which located 100 km west from Tokyo, there are numbers of small agricultural business growing peaches and grape in the Kofu basin and on the slope of its peripheral mountains. In many cases, their firm field scatter around the area and they need to run around their fields and the trip distance of their trucks is 50 to 100 km per day. At the same time, the truck is fully loaded with tools, workers and harvests. Then, the fuel efficiency performance and the actual driving range of trucks become much worse than nominal index.

Moreover, the distance between firm fields and gas station becomes the burden for their operation. According to Figure 5, the density of gas stations in Yamanashi prefecture is one gas station per 10.36 square km, which is more than five times less dense than that of Tokyo. Then they have to drive 15 minutes or more to reach the nearest gas station. The fact makes vehicle users go to refueling in good time to avoid running out of gas. At the same time, it takes about one hour to go and refuel.

One owner of such a business says, "We have to refuel each truck twice or three times a week. During the busiest period, we have to assign one employee dedicate for refueling. The labor cost of it reduces the profit." This can be calculated that if the business operates 10 trucks, each truck needs to be refueled three times a week, and it takes 1 hour to go refuel, 30 hours of working hours spent in one week.

The owner said "The worst thing is the running out of gas in the middle of an operation. Then it is needed to go the gas station suspending the task. It significantly reduces the occupancy rate and productivity."

Wrapping up this case, there is unfit between the usage pattern of the vehicle and the location of gas stations. This unfit causes the problem on daily operation and business profit.

Case of urban side in Japan: Taxis in Tokyo

In Tokyo, 19 of i-MiEV and Nissan Leaf introduced as taxi in 2012. However, almost all of these vehicles retired from taxi usage and sold in used car market by 2015. A few Tesla Model S serves as limousine in Tokyo as of 2016. Using the other words, BEVs were incompetent against ICE vehicles in the taxi market of Tokyo.

The cause of incompetency was driving range. These two vehicle models had 100 km to 200km of nominal driving range. And the actual driving range of these cars was much less than the nominal one. In an extreme case, Nissan Leaf, which has 200 km of nominal range could run only 100 km or less.

On the other hand, the daily average travel distance of taxi in Tokyo is more than 400 km. Therefore the BEV taxi needed to charge its battery three or more times a day.

Moreover, the traveling distance of each customer is highly varied. For example, if the customer orders go Narita International Airport from Shinjuku, the driving distance is around 80 km one way. This means that the BEV taxi has possibility to charge its battery on the way to the airport with its customer. Even if the taxi could reach the airport without charging, it needs to charge its battery to get back to Tokyo.

Wrapping up this case, there is unfit between the usage pattern of taxi and the performance of driving range as well as the charging time. This unfit causes the defeat of BEV taxi in Tokyo.

Discussion

Regarding these two contrasting cases, the fit between usage pattern and performance is critical to select the optimal powertrain for vehicles. In the first case, the workplace and traveling route are fixed and the gas station is distant from the workplace. At the same time, multiple vehicles are cooperating in operation.

Then, refueling becomes the cause of task interruption and labor cost.

Otherwise, in the second case, traveling route and distance is not fixed ex ante. At the same time, each vehicle is operating independently and can easily find its nearest gas station. Thus, keeping the driving range longer is critical to their business and refueling it is not the burden while longer charging time of BEVs is undesirable because it lowers occupancy rate.

Thereafter, the author hypothetically proposes a decision model of an optimal power train of vehicle mentioning mileage and refuel. As discussed, if the potential users can own their "base" to charge the BEV, they can recharge their vehicles every day. On the other hand, it is not realistic to assume that the potential users of ICE vehicles own gas station by themselves. Thus, the users of ICE vehicles have to visit the nearest gas station to refuel their vehicles as the fuel decrease up to a certain level.

This means that the driving range of ICE vehicles cannot always be fully exploited while BEV with their own base can enjoy its maximum performance every morning.

The graph below shows the difference of the transition of each car's driving range.

As shown, even though the maximum driving range of BEVs is shorter than ICE Vehicle, daily recharge enables to exploit the full capacity every day.

When the owners of BEVs have their own charging base at home, BEV becomes an Meanwhile, the situation of fleet users is different in many cases. Especially, daily driving distance of taxi is more than 200km every day. The Japanese law sets the limit of daily driving distance of taxi driver as 365km.

Regarding the second inequality, if the charging time to compensate the consumption of each day is longer than its everyday idle time, the daily maximum driving range steadily decreases. This case can be occurred on EVs with large battery capacity.

On the other hand, no ICE vehicles have this issue since the refuel takes a few minutes even if the fuel tank has 100 liter capacity. Though, ICE vehicles need to go nearest gas station to refuel. Additionally, assuming that the driving pattern is constant every day such as commuting and routinized operation, the value of BEVs is enhanced thanks to the daily recharging, as we can see on Figure 6. Meanwhile, assuming that the driving pattern is varied every day such as taxi and non-routinized operation, the value of ICE vehicle is enhanced thanks to quicker refuel and longer maximum driving range as discussed above. In some case, BEVs need to recharge multiple times per day as we can see on Figure 7.

Using this model, it is found that usage patterns of major consumers can be covered with BEVs as well as ICE vehicles. However, the cost and labor of refueling would make BEVs more reasonable than ICE vehicles.

Prior research expected that BEVs would be adopted as smaller city cars in urban area, with limited needs of mobility and higher willingness to pay for eco-friendly innovations [START_REF] Sierzchula | The competitive environment of electric vehicles: An analysis of prototype and production models[END_REF]. However, this article suggested that BEVs with shorter driving range are rather not suitable for usage in urban area because it is difficult to keep personal "charging base." With the new value proposition of personal charging base, which is more available in the countryside, the performance gap between ICE vehicles and BEVs can be narrowed.

Conclusion:

As Christensen (1997) pointed out, "Disruptive Innovation" is not attractive for existing companies because its lower performance doesn't attract the existing customers. Applying this fact, BEV can be a kind of "Disruptive Innovation." In this article, the author pointed out that the performance gap between ICE vehicle and BEV is rather smaller in actual usage condition using the statistical data of vehicle usage in Japan.

After that, the author pointed out that the changing pattern of usage enables the overcome the performance gap between ICE vehicle and BEVs. If there is "charging base" for each BEV, the user can enjoy its maximum performance and become free from the burden of refueling. If the usage pattern of major customers fits with this "new value proposition", BEVs can become "Disruptive Innovation."

On the other hand, there is still some "room" that ICE vehicle has advantage against BEVs. Citing the case of taxi in Tokyo, if the traveling distance is longer and not expectable, the longer charging time harms the value of BEVs. Especially, if the occupancy rate of the vehicle and availability for the customer are the critical for its business, such as taxi, ICE vehicle would be best solution for taxi business until the performance gap of charging time will be overcome.

The discussion of the cases proves that there are three performance indicator, such as driving range, charging / refueling or charging time / refueling frequency, significantly affect to the selection of optimal power train of vehicles.

Therefore, different from the statement of [START_REF] Christensen | The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail[END_REF], which pointed out that the "Disruptive Innovation" finally disrupt the existing company and products, multiple technological solution will co-exist in the automotive industry according to the findings of this article unlike the hard disk drive industry.

The findings of this article contribute to both of consumers and companies to help their selection of optimal power train of vehicles. Especially, the finding that BEV happens to be less competent in the urban side because of easier access to gas stations and difficulty to keep charging base for idle time points out the desirable measure for the diffusion of BEVs. From a strategic point of view, BEVs may rather accepted by consumers and business using vehicles in routinized pattern in the countryside. While shortening time of charging and expansion of charging station is critical to accelerate the diffusion of BEVs in urban side.

Additionally, the finding of this article implies that the better policy to accelerating the diffusion of BEVs would be financial support for installing "personal charging base" for consumers. Though prior research implied that increasing the number of "public charging station" to stimulate the diffusion of BEVs [START_REF] Sierzchula | The influence of financial incentives and other socio-economic factors on electric vehicle adoption[END_REF], the outcome would be smaller because the disadvantage of charging time cannot be overcome through this solution.

And last but not least, there is obviously the limit of research in this article. Firstly, the data used is aggregated and only in Japan and outcome is highly contextualized.

The preference of users and usage pattern may differ among countries. Secondly, it should be possible to gather the detailed data about usage patterns. And finally, it is argued that there is the technology race between BEVs and FCEVs [START_REF] Ball | The future of hydrogen-opportunities and challenges[END_REF]. The comparison between BEVs and FCEVs is not done in this article, even though the selection model possibly be applied. Expanding the application of the model for multiple types of alternative fuel vehicles, it would become more better to describe and forecast the diffusion of AFVs.

  BEVs currently sold in the market of developed countries, the pattern of their technological choice is diversified among vehicle models. Some of them, such as Renault ZOE, Nissan LEAF and VW E-Golf can be categorized as "Modular Innovation." Since they were developed using incumbent architecture of ICE vehicles. The engine under the front hood was replaced by electric motors and the fuel tank replaced by batteries. On the other hand, the other such as BMW i3 and Tesla Model S can be categorized as "Radical Innovation." Since they introduced completely different architecture from existing ICE vehicles. BMW developed body cell using CFRP and installed electric motor on the rear axle. Tesla, which is a new entrant, developed aluminum floor integrated with battery and installed motors on both of front and rear axle.

Figure 4 :

 4 Figure 4: Transition of average age of passenger vehicles in Japan, 2001-2015

  Station: sq km/1 Gas Station

Figure 6 :Figure 7 :

 67 Figure 6: Comparing the transitions of daily maximum driving range,

  of recharge in one day

Table 1 : Number of EVs sold and its market share in Europe, USA, and Japan

 1

		Number of Vehicles	Number of EVs*	Market Share of
		sold in 2014	sold in 2014	EVs* in 2014
	Europe	12,550,707	75,331	0.60%
	USA	16,435,286	118,773	0.72%
	Japan**	5,562,752	29,809	0.54%

*: "EVs" consists from Battery EV, Plug-in HEV, and Battery EV with Range Extender.

Table 2 : Calculated Driving Range of c-segment car sold in Japan

 2

	OEM	Name of Vehicles	Fuel tank (l)	JC08 (km/l)	Range (km)
	Toyota Aqua_HEV	36	37	1332
	Toyota Yaris	42	21.6	907.2
	Nissan Note	41	23.4	959.4
	Nissan Micra	41	21.4	877.4
	Honda Fit	40	21.8	872
	Honda Fit (smaller tank)	32	26	832
	Honda Fit_HEV	40	33.6	1344
	Honda Fit_HEV (smaller tank)	32	36.4	1164.8
	Mazda Demio	44	24.6	1082.4
	VW	Polo	45	21.9	985.5
	Audi	A1	45	22.9	1030.5
	Peugeot 208	50	18.2	910
	Citroen C3	50	19	950
	Mini	Mini ONE (3Dr)	40	19.2	768
	Mini	Mini COOPER (5Dr)	40	17.9	716
	Fiat	500	35	24	840
		Average	40.8	24.3	973.2

Figure 3: Transition of actual Fuel Efficiency from 2009 to 2015

	Fuel Efficiency (km/l)	2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
	Regular Car	8.29	8.26 8.33	8.36	8.36 8.50 8.80
	Small Car	11.27 11.27 11.31 11.42 11.28 11.44 11.61
	HEV	16.15 16.26 16.11 16.04 16.03 15.91 15.96
	Micro Car	12.50 12.60 12.82 13.12 13.32 13.85 13.73
	Total Average	10.54 10.64 10.77 10.98 11.12 11.50 11.70

AIRIA (2016) stated that the average age of the passenger vehicle in Japan is 8.29 years as of March 2015. At the same time, the yearly average actual fuel consumption of vehicles shows that the improvement of actual fuel consumption is between one per cent and two per cent per year for this 7 years.