ResearchPDF Available

Mobility-as-a-Service and changes in travel preferences and travel behaviour: a literature review

Authors:
  • KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis

Abstract and Figures

Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS), a transport concept integrating various mobility services into one single digital platform, elicits high expectations as a means of providing customised door-to-door transport solutions. To date, the frequent claims about the positive contributions MaaS will make towards achieving sustainability goals rely on a scattering of limited yet insightful research findings. Many research questions remain unanswered, however. Are people willing to accept MaaS as a new transport service (on a daily basis)? The KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis looked for answers by means of an extensive research program. In the initial exploratory phase of the research, KiM conducted an extensive literature review. The findings are presented in the report, ‘Mobility-as-a-Service and changes in travel preferences and travel behaviour: a literature review’.
Content may be subject to copyright.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis
Mobility-as-a-Service and changes
in travel preferences and travel
behaviour: a literature review
Anne Durand, Lucas Harms, Sascha Hoogendoorn-Lanser, Toon Zijlstra
Contents
Summary 3
1 Introduction 6
1.1 Problem statement 6
1.2 Goal, research question and relevance of the study 6
1.3 Approach 7
1.4 Denitionsandscope 8
1.5 Structure of the report 9
2 DeningMaaS 10
2.1 MaaS and forms of integration 10
2.2 A topology for MaaS and “MaaS schemes” 10
2.3 Shared mobility modes 11
2.4 Presentation of MaaS schemes 12
3 Lessonslearntoninuencingtravelpreferencesandbehaviour 14
3.1 The challenge of changing travel behaviour 15
3.2 Mobility integration, travel behaviour and preferences 16
3.3 Changing travel behaviour through mobile applications 19
3.4 Shared mobility modes, travel behaviour and preferences 20
3.5 Conclusion 26
4 SystematicliteraturereviewofthepotentialimpactofMaaSontravelpreferencesand
behaviour 27
4.1 Presentationoftheselectedpapersandtheassociatedresearchmethods 27
4.2 A change in the private car ownership paradigm? 31
4.3 PreconditionsinMaaS:theneedforautonomy,exibilityandreliability 32
4.4 Aspects adding value in MaaS 33
4.5 The user-side design of MaaS 35
4.6 Costs and willingness to pay 35
4.7 The importance of travellers’ characteristics 36
4.8 Conclusion 37
5 Conclusionandagendaforfurtherresearch 39
5.1 Conclusion 39
5.2 MaaS research agenda 41
Literature 42
AppendixA 52
AppendixB 54
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 2
Summary
Mobility-as-a-Service in 2018: high expectations and fragmented insights
Integrated and seamless mobility has been a futuristic vision of mobility (in urban regions mainly) for a few
years already. Today, Mobility-as-a-Service(MaaS) embodies that vision. It is a new transport concept that
integratesexistingandnewmobilityservicesintoonesingledigitalplatform,providingcustomiseddoor-to-
door transport and offering personalised trip planning and payment options. Instead of owning individual
modes of transportation, or to complement them, customers would purchase mobility service packages
tailored to their individual needs, or simply pay per trip. Although MaaS is a relatively new concept, many
studies, technical reports and business cases related to MaaS have appeared over the past couple of years.
Indeed,expectationsarehigh.ItisfrequentlymentionedthatMaaSwillimprovethetravellingexperience,
reducetravellers’costsandefcientlymanagetraveldemandwhileimprovingenvironmentalandsocial
outcomes.Suchfrequentclaimsrelyonascatteringoflimitedyetinsightfulresearchndings.
Explorative and systematic literature reviews on MaaS, travel behaviour and preferences
In times when many see in MaaS a tool for instigating more sustainable travel behaviour patterns among
the population, it is relevant to establish whatwecurrentlyknow,basedonscienticliterature,about
MaaS’spotentialimpactsontravelpreferencesandtravelbehaviour. Two complementary pathways
areusedtoreachthisgoal.First,weconductedanexplorativeliteraturereviewbasedonrelevantresearch
on travel preferences and behaviour outside of MaaS. Indeed, there is already a considerable amount of
studies that provide relevant insights to understand the potential impact of MaaS on travellers. Second, we
conducted a systematic literature review focused exclusively on MaaS, travel preferences and travel behaviour.
This systematic review provides structured knowledge about the state-of-the-art research on MaaS and
travel behaviour and preferences. The main insights gained from these reviews are summarised below.
Uncertainties around changes in travel behaviour
Generally, the reviewed studies show that MaaS has the potential to reach certain travellers, to support
decreases in private car use and to instigate different travel patterns among these travellers. However, the
impactmagnitude, the timeline and direction of these changes remain relatively uncertain and require
more quantitative results, whether on the individual level (travel behaviour, travel preferences) or societal
level (e.g. social and environmental sustainability). Nevertheless, it is unlikely that a drastic shift from the
private car ownership paradigm to the MaaS paradigm will occur within a few years.
Current literature can however inform us about the preconditions for adopting MaaS and for subsequent
changes in travel behaviour patterns, while also providing qualitative indications of potential users
and impacts.
Preconditions for adoption of MaaS
Studiesconsistentlyagreethatitisparticularlychallengingtochangetravelbehaviourwhennotriggerexists
fordoingso,especiallyforhabitualtrips.ThisindicatesthatasarststepMaaSmayhavemorepotentialfor
incidental trips; however, to allow such trips to occur even incidentally, individuals must actually start using
MaaS. The adoption of MaaS, conditioning a subsequent potential change in travel behaviour, is likely to
require a combination of multiple aspects. First, it is important that MaaSaddsenoughvaluefortravellers.
MaaS pilots show that choice freedom, tailor-made offers and increases in travel convenience – notably
through high levels of integration – can positively impact MaaS adoption. The need for such “tailor-made
all-inclusiveness” is especially valid if the asking price is higher than what travellers are used to. This leads
to the second point about costs: to provide travellers with a viable, lasting alternative, adopting the service
must be economically feasible. In that sense, customising the type of offer to the user will likely play a
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 3
key role. Adopting the service must also be perceivedaseconomicallyfeasible;forexample,theprice
structure of MaaS could be an obstacle, especially for car owners. Consequently, the latter might need
to be introduced to MaaS in a different manner than non-car-owners. Third, it is crucial that MaaSdoes
notrequiretravellerstocompromise(toomuch)ontheirautonomy,exibilityandreliabilitydemands.
Being able to combine modes during a trip is deemed a key strength of MaaS. Shared mobility modes in
particular (car sharing, bike sharing, individual and collective demand-responsive transport) can provide
exibilityandchoicefreedominaccess-basedsystemssuchasMaaS,yettheirniteandexiblenature
raises questions about reliability. Fourth, a particularly crucial point isasmartdesignoftheMaaSuser
interface, rendering it accessible for everyone.
Preconditions for MaaS’s potential to challenge travel behaviour patterns
In order to have a chance to instigate new travel behaviour patterns, it is likely that the MaaS user
interface (e.g. a smartphone application) needs to include behaviouralchangesupportsystems
features. There are four of these: customisation to the user, information and feedback, commitment,
and an appealing and simple design. However, these features may not be sufcient conditions for
inuencingtravelbehaviour.Thevalue-addingaspectsofMaaS–moreconvenience,choicefreedom,
etc.–canalsopotentiallyinuencetravelbehaviour.Inessence,suchaspectsarisefromahighdegree
ofmobilityintegration.MaaS’slevelsofintegrationarecurrentlydenedas(1)informationintegration,
(2) ticketing and payment integration, (3) service integration, and (4) integration of societal goals.
Research reveals that a comprehensive approach combining multiple levels of integration is more likely
toencouragepassengerstousetheintegratedmodes than solely a lower level of integration. Further,
mobilitypackagescouldbeusedtoinuencetravelbehaviourpatterns.Generally,MaaSstudiesregard
bundles as having the potential to alter the way people perceive travel alternatives rather than physically
altering alternatives, thereby potentiallypromotingtheusemoresustainablemodes, and notably
shared mobility modes. The latter have proven to be effective for decreasingcaruse and, to a lesser
extent,carownership.Effectsoncongestion,PTuse,cyclingandwalkingvaryacrossmodesorlack
quantiedanalysis.
Potential MaaS users
Generally,youngtomiddle-agedpeopleresidinginurbanareasarelikelytobetherstgrouptoswitch
to MaaS from a more traditional mobility paradigm. Current literature only provides very limited
quantiedindicationsaboutwhothesetravellersare,andnoquanticationaboutthe extenttowhich
suchshiftsintravelbehaviourcouldoccur.TheextenttowhichMaaSwillbeadoptedandinstigate
changes in travel behaviour among the wider population remains uncertain. Skills, values (like a low
sense of ownership), age and place of residence, and other socioeconomic, sociodemographic and
cultural characteristics are likely to play roles in the adoption of MaaS and potential subsequent changes
in travel behaviour.
Impacts of MaaS
This study names a few impacts that MaaS could have. In particular, we note that the question of who
MaaS will reach raises questions that only a few studies have addressed: namely, MaaS’s impact on
(perceived) accesstotransportand social inclusion. In addition to this, MaaS could impact a wide
range of dimensions through the changes in travel behaviour it could trigger, including environmental
sustainability (e.g. air pollution, noise pollution) and thetransportsystem generally (e.g. capacity
optimisation, passenger demand). However, at such a preliminary stage in this new type of paradigm,
onlyroughqualitativeindicationsaboutthetypesofimpactsexist,andtheextentanddirectionofsuch
impactsremainuncertain.PerhapsoneofthemostillustrativeexamplesofthisuncertaintyisMaaS’s
impact on sustainability via car use: while MaaS’s access-based paradigm may compel decreases in
private car use, it may also provide access to motorised vehicles to people who previously did not have
such access.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 4
Research agenda
Threemainareasofresearchwereidentied.Firstly,moreresearchabouttheadoptionofMaaSand
decisions within MaaS, especially on the quantitative side, is needed in order to be able to make more
conclusive statements about MaaS adoption and travel behaviour changes. Secondly, in order to build a
solid base of evidence, more MaaS pilots with a systematic impact assessment available to the general
publicmustbeundertaken.Thirdly,therearegreatexpectationsforsharedmobilitymodesasproviders
oftherequisiteexibilityforallowingpeopletoswitchfromanownership-basedsystemtoanaccess-
based system, but still many doubts about their reliability, impact and synergy. More research on these
topics is desired.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 5
1 Introduction
Integrated and seamless mobility has been a futuristic vision of mobility (in urban regions mainly) for a
few years now (Loose, 2010; Motta et al., 2013; Preston, 2012; Schade et al., 2014). Today, Mobility-as-
a-Service (MaaS)1embodiesthatvision.MaaSisanewtransportconceptthatintegratesexistingand
new mobility services into one single digital platform, providing customised door-to-door transport
and offering personalised trip planning and payment options. Instead of owning individual modes of
transportation, or to complement individual modes of transport, customers would purchase mobility
service packages2 tailored to their individual needs, or simply pay per trip for customised travel options.
1.1 Problem statement
Although MaaS is a relatively new concept, many studies, technical reports, opinion pieces and business
cases related to MaaS have appeared over the past couple of years. Indeed, numerous promises and
challenges emerge with the concept. According to Matyas and Kamargianni (2017), MaaS, when
carefullydesigned,promisestobeinclusiveofallpopulationgroupsinsocietyandbeanefcienttravel
demand management tool for assisting the shift towards more sustainable travel. The design question is
therefore important (Karlsson et al., 2016) and intrinsically linked to potential MaaS users. In fact, MaaS
is described in literature as a user-centric paradigm (Giesecke et al., 2016; Jittrapirom et al., 2017).
ScienticliteraturepertainingtoMaaSisgrowingfast.AccordingtoG.Smithetal.(2018),“thetermhas
rapidly gone from nowhere to nearly everywhere in the personal transport sector” since 2014. In June
2017,UtriainenandPöllänen(2017)searched“MobilityasaService”inalargescienticdatabase
(Scopus) and found 37 peer-reviewed journal and conference papers mentioning the term in either
their titles, abstracts or keywords. By June 2018 this number had more than doubled to 76 citations.
Nonetheless,muchofthisavailableliteraturefocusesondeningwhatMaaSisandonitsorganisational
challenges (ecosystem, technologies, integration of modes), rather than using in-depth analysis to
quantify how MaaS may impact travel preferences and behaviour, as already emphasised by Matyas
and Kamargianni (2017). Although multiple pilots and schemes have been initiated around the world
in recent years (see section 2.4),empiricalknowledgeofMaaS’sexpectedimpactsonpeople’stravel
preferences and travel behaviour remains limited, as highlighted by Ho et al. (2017). Consequently, the
frequent claims about the positive contributions MaaS will make towards achieving sustainability goals
relyonascatteringoflimitedyetinsightfulresearchndings.
1.2 Goal, research question and relevance of the study
Against this background, this study strives to respond to the “lack of clarity” about MaaS’s impacts on
travel behaviour and preferences, as stated by Wong (2017). The purpose of this research is therefore to
provide a better understanding of the ways in which MaaS might impact people’s travel preferences and
travel behaviour. The research question that this study seeks to answer is the following:
What can current literature teach us about the expected impacts of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) on people’s travel
preferences and travel behaviour?
1 Also called Transportation-as-a-Service (TaaS) in the United States (Wong, 2017).
2 “Bundle”and“package”willbeusedinterchangeablyinthisstudy;foradenition,seesection2.1.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 6
Reviewing the potential impacts of MaaS on travel preferences and behaviour is relevant from the
research, business and policy perspectives, as it can inform various parties about the state of the research
pertaining to MaaS and travel behaviour. In this sense, the review helps discern what people would value
in such a new service and what might pose challenges, thereby providing a more nuanced yet realistic
picture of what MaaS can achieve for travellers and society in the near future. This study can be useful
to transport operators and authorities seeking to apply an attractively designed MaaS scheme. Further,
researchers may be interested in the research gaps found in this review.
1.3 Approach
Weuseatwo-stepapproachtoreachourobjective.First,weprovideanexplorativeliteraturereviewon
research topics not directly focused on MaaS, but which are particularly relevant for MaaS. Second, we
conduct a systematic literature review of studies focused on MaaS and travel behaviour.
1.3.1 Explorative literature review of MaaS-related topics
ThecorecharacteristicsofMaaS,asdenedbyJittrapirometal.(2017),havealreadybenettedfrom
researchexaminingtheimpactsontravelpreferencesandtravelbehaviour.Althoughnotdirectlyfocused
on MaaS, such research is undeniably relevant to better understand the potential impact of Mobility-as-
a-Service on travel behaviour and preferences. These nine core characteristics (presented in no particular
hierarchical order) are:
1 The integration of transport modes, including shared mobility modes3(seedenitioninsection2.3)
and more traditional modes,
2 The tariff option (i.e. pay-as-you-go and mobility packages),
3 A single platform, where users can plan, book, pay and get tickets for their trips,
4 Multiple actors (customers, providers, platform owners, authorities, etc.),
5 The use of technologies (smartphones, Internet networks, ICT, etc.),
6 Demand orientation,
7 Registration requirement, to facilitate the use of the service and allow for customisation,
8 Personalisation to the needs of the user,
9 Customisation, enabling the user to modify the offered option based on their preferences.
Howmighteachofthesecorecharacteristicsinuencetravelbehaviourandtravelpreferences?
The characteristics can be translated into relevant research themes pertaining to travel preferences and
travel behaviour. Based on the list of Jittrapirom et al. (2017), we selected three relevant research themes
relatingtoMaaSandtravelpreferences/behaviour;AppendixAdetailsthecompleteselectionprocedure.
The three chosen research themes are:
Mobility integration, travel behaviour and travel preferences,
ICT, particularly smartphone applications, and travel behaviour,
Shared mobility modes, travel behaviour and travel preferences
Afterprovidingbackgroundinformationontravelbehaviourinertia,wesuccessivelyexplorethese
themes with literature that does necessarily pertain to MaaS yet is highly pertinent for MaaS.
Thisliteraturereviewismeanttobeexplorative,meaningthat,inordertokeepourresearchefforts
manageable, no systematic paper selection criteria will be applied.
3 FollowingtheterminologydenedinShaheenetal.(2015),modeslikebikesharing,carsharingandon-demandmodesare
grouped under the term of shared mobility modes.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 7
1.3.2 Systematic literature review of MaaS and travel behaviour
At the time of writing, early 2018, there is a growing body of relevant studies on Mobility-as-a-Service
and travel behaviour and preferences (notions of travel preferences and behaviour, and especially their
connections,aredenedinsection1.4.1). We conduct a systematic literature review on Mobility-as-a-
Serviceandtravelpreferencesandbehaviour.TheselectionprocedureisdescribedinAppendixB.Inthe
nalselection,weretain14papersandclusterthemintotwogroups.
First, there are studies based on MaaS pilots: UbiGo (Karlsson et al. (2016); Sochor et al. (2015); Sochor
et al. (2016); Strömberg et al. (2016); Strömberg et al. (2018); and Smile (Smile mobility, 2015)).
The study of Karlsson et al. (2017) was also selected, as it provided in-depth analysis of both pilots.
Second, there are studies that investigated the prospects for people to adopt MaaS and/or travellers’
decisions in MaaS through surveys and interviews (Alonso-González et al. (2017); Ho et al. (2017);
Haahtela and Viitamo (2017); Kamargianni et al. (2018); Matyas and Kamargianni (2018); Ratilainen
(2017); G. Smith et al. (2018)).
This systematic review allows us to devise a list of aspects that play or could play a role in the adoption of
MaaS and/or in changes in travel behaviour.
1.3.3 Schematic overview
Theresultsfromtheexplorativeliteraturereviewwillbeusedtogivecontexttothendingsofthe
systematic literature review. This approach is depicted in Figure 1.
 Figure1 The study’s two-step approach.
Mobility-as-a-
serviceninecore
characteristics
(Jittapirometal.,
2017)
Selection of the relevant
themes for travel behaviour/
preferences and MaaS Explorativeliterature
review on these
3themes Expectedimpacts
ofMobility-as-a-
Serviceonpeople’s
travelpreferences
andtravel
behaviour
Systematic selection of
studies on travel behaviour/
preferences and MaaS
Systematic literature
review on travel
behaviour/preferences
and MaaS
in this study
1.4 Denitions and scope
Belowweprovidedenitionsforafewkeytermsthatareusedfrequentlyanddenethescopeof
our research.
1.4.1 Travel behaviour, travel preferences and their connection
Travel behaviour refers to how people move over space, how and why they travel from point A to
B, and how they use transport. In contrast, travel preferences refer to how people would prefer to
move over space. In this sense, travel behaviour is usually more constrained than travel preferences
(Kattiyapornpong & Miller, 2007). Intuitively, travel preferences can be understood as somehow
inuencingtravelbehaviour.Moreformally,Chowdhury(2014)showedhowthepreferencesofpublic
transportusersinuencedtheirtravelbehaviourthroughcontrolbeliefs4, under the constraints
of resources (e.g. time, money, skills). Although we acknowledge that the preferences–behaviour
relationshipisnotunidirectional,i.e.behaviourcanalsopotentiallyinuencepreferences(Kroesenet
al.,2017)throughexposure(Serenko&Bontis,2011),thisconnectionremainsoutsidethescopeof
our study.
4 Personalcontrolbeliefsreectthebeliefsofanindividualregardingtheextenttowhichtheyareabletoinuenceorcontrol
outcomes.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 8
1.4.2 The sharing economy and consumer-to-consumer initiatives
The rise of MaaS is often associated with the emergence of the sharing economy, at least outside
academia.However,thesharingeconomyhasacontesteddenition(Acquieretal.,2017):whilesome
argue that it only includes consumer-to-consumer (C2C) interactions (Frenken & Schor, 2017), others
acceptabroaderdenition,includingbusiness-to-customerinitiatives(Stephany,2015)orbothfor-
protandnon-protdimensions(Muñoz&Cohen,2017).AlldenitionscontainC2Cinitiatives,like
carpooling or hitchhiking, which have been associated with the sharing economy for more than a
decade now (Benkler, 2004). Although Holmberg et al. (2016) incorporate peer-to-peer services in
theirdenitionofMaaS,thereis,tothebestofourknowledge,noMaaSschemewhereconsumer-
to-consumer initiatives are included, nor empirical studies where such initiatives are considered (yet).
To avoid any ambiguity, we leave the notion of the sharing economy, and in particular C2C initiatives,
outside the scope of our study. Note however that we do not imply that MaaS and consumer-to-
consumer initiatives are incompatible.
1.4.3 Scope
We restrict our research scope to Mobility-as-a-Service and impacts on potential users (preferences,
behaviour).Wedonotcomprehensivelyexaminepotentialimpactsonthetransportationsystem
(congestion, crowding in public transport, etc.), but rather merely as a consequence of impacts on
travellers; for more details, see Hensher (2018) (MaaS and road congestion), Hensher (2017) (MaaS
and bus contracts), Rantasila (2015) (MaaS and land use). Similarly, considerations on sustainability5
willnotbethoroughlyaddressed;seeGieseckeetal.(2016)andAkyelkenetal.(2018).Weexclude
from our scope considerations on business models (see Aapaoja et al. (2017) and Sarasini et al.
(2017)), institutional conditions (see Mukhtar-Landgren et al. (2016)), information services, car market
perspectives,freight,andmathematicalmodelling.ModessuchasHyperloopordronesareexcluded
from the scope of this study, as are Autonomous Vehicles (AVs), because MaaS must also be considered in
the absence of AVs (Hensher, 2018); see Kamargianni et al. (2018) for MaaS scenarios for the AV era.
1.5 Structure of the report
Ourreportisdividedinvesections.Thissection–Section1–istheintroduction.Section2providesa
denitionofMaaS.Sections3and4followtheapproachdescribedinFigure 1,rstwiththeexplorative
literature review and second with the systematic literature review. Section 5 is the conclusion,
summarisingthemainndingsandprovidingrecommendationsforfutureresearchdirectionsforMaaS
and travel behaviour and preferences.
5 Denitionsofsustainabilityvaryinliterature.Itisusuallyconsideredasencompassingsocial,economicandenvironmental
dimensions. Note though that in transport studies, sustainability is often considered from the environmental perspective
only, i.e. minimising car travel or the emission of air pollutants. Unsustainable transport is generally equated with car use
(Sunio & Schmöcker, 2017).
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 9
2 DeningMaaS
Multiple MaaS initiatives have emerged around the world in recent years since the early description by
Hietanen (2014): MaaS is “a mobility distribution model in which a customer’s major transportation
needs are met over one interface and are offered by a service provider”. As presented in section 1.3.1,
Jittrapirometal.(2017)denedninecorecharacteristicsofMaaS,providinginsightsintoMaaS’s
components. However, according to Sochor et al. (2017), the lack of characterisation of MaaS embracing
itscomplexity–andnotablytheconnectionbetweenallcomponents–canrendergoverningthe
transition towards a MaaS-based transport system challenging. In this section we begin by introducing
thenotionofintegrationfordeningMaaS.Basedonthis,wepresentthetopologydenedbySochor
etal.(2017)todescribeMaaS.Next,adenitionofsharedmobilitymodesisprovided,followedbya
presentation of MaaS schemes.
2.1 MaaS and forms of integration
Mobility-as-a-Service is frequently described in terms of integration (Hietanen (2014), Kamargianni
et al. (2015), Kamargianni et al. (2016), König et al. (2016), Sochor et al. (2017), and Jittrapirom et al.
(2017)).Infact,asexplainedinsection1.3.1,wewilluseliteratureonmobilityintegrationinsection3.2
toexplorethepotentialimpactsofMaaSontravelbehaviour.Fornow,wesimplynotethataccordingto
two MaaS literature reviews, MaaS can comprise the following types of integration: payment, ticketing,
bundles, information and service 6 (Kamargianni et al., 2016; Sochor et al., 2017). Payment and ticketing
integrationarebrieydescribedinsection2.4andfurtherdenedinsection3.2,alongwithinformation
and service integration. What is new compared to the traditional concept of mobility integration is
bundle integration.
What is a bundle?WhenauserbuysamobilitypackageorbundleinthecontextofMaaS,theypre-
purchasepredenedsetsofcreditsonaxedbasisforacombinationofmodes.Thesecreditscouldbe
in time, distance or money units, with pre-determined service level agreements. Packages would have a
xedprice,andtheycouldalsoincludeextraservicessuchasgrocerydelivery,theguaranteeofastable
Internet connection and silent spaces in public transport, free snacks, etc. (Hietanen, 2014).
2.2 A topology for MaaS and “MaaS schemes”
Sochor et al. (2017) proposed a topology of MaaS, as shown in Figure 2, which they argue can facilitate
discussions about MaaS, notably “comparisons of” different schemes, as well as understanding the
potentialeffectsofMaaS.Thistopologycanrecalltraditionaldenitionsofmobilityintegration(see
section 3.2.1). We will use this scale in the remainder of this study. Note that a similar topology was
applied in the White Paper for the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management (MuConsult,
2017). The levels in Figure 2 are not necessarily dependent on each other, as UbiGo reached Level 3
withoutfullycompletingLevel1,forexample.Additionally,someissuesofinterpretationcanalways
arise, and some schemes may only achieve partial integration of a given level. In Figure 2, societal goals
refer to the integration of wider goals such as congestion mitigation and urban planning (see section 3.2
on mobility integration).
6 Information and service integration are also sometimes referred to as ICT and organisational integration in literature.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 10
Nowadays many mobility initiatives are labelled as MaaS, yet such initiatives only provide travel
information and no option to book or pay for any ticket: this is Level 1 of integration. In the remainder
of this study we use the term “MaaS schemes” to denote initiatives that reached at least Level 2 of the
typology in Figure 2. In such initiatives, users can at least book their tickets or pay for them via a single
platform, where information is most of the time also provided. Multiple initiatives at this stage are
frequentlymentionedbythescienticcommunityasMaaSinitiatives(seeKamargiannietal.(2016),
König et al. (2016) and Sochor et al. (2017), amongst others). Note that this distinction is meant to
help keep our research efforts manageable and focused on initiatives with more advanced levels
of integration.
 Figure2 ProposedtopologyofMobility-as-a-Serviceincludinglevels(left)andexamples(right)(fromSochoretal.(2017)).
4Integrationofsocietalgoals
Policies, incentives, etc.
3Integrationoftheserviceoffer
Bundling/subscription, contracts, etc.
2Integrationofbooking&payments
Singletrip–nd,bookandpay
1Integrationofinformation
Multimodal travel planner, price information
0Nointegration
Before presenting MaaS schemes and classifying them according to the typology presented in Figure 2,
weprovideadenitionofsharedmobilitymodes,astheseareoftenpresentinMaaSschemes.
2.3 Shared mobility modes
Bike and car sharing are often included within MaaS schemes (see section 2.4). Bikesharing systems
allow users to pay to borrow shared bicycles for a short term from an unattended bike sharing station
andthenreturnthemtoanotherbikesharingstation.Lately,free-oating(orone-way)bikesharing
systems have appeared, whereby users can pick up and drop off borrowed bikes at locations of their
choice;however,a(payingorfree)subscriptionisoftenneededtoaccessthesystem.Examplesofbike
sharing include the PT-bike (in the Netherlands), Citi Bikes (New York), Santander Cycles (London), and
free-oatingbikes,suchasFlickbike,Gobike,oBikeandMobike.Carsharing works similarly: once
subscribed to a service, people may borrow cars on a short-term basis (ranging from a few minutes
to a few days). There is a difference between one-way shared cars and return-to-base shared cars
(i.e.roundtrip).ExamplesofcarsharingincludeGreenwheels(intheNetherlands),car2go(26cities
in the world), Zipcar and GoGet (Australia), and cambio CarSharing (Germany and Belgium). Demand-
responsive forms of transport are sometimes offered within MaaS schemes or will soon be (see section
2.4);theyexistmainlyintwoforms.First,collectivedemand-responsivetransport (often abbreviated
as DRT) services are door-to-door or stop-to-stop services that provide casual, on-demand transport.
Theycanalsobecalledexiblemicrotransportservices(FMTS)ormicrotransit,astheyareseenas
exibleon-demandpublictransportservices,i.e.publictransportservicesthatdonotoperateaccording
toaschedule.ExamplesofDRTsystemsintheNetherlandsincludetheOpstapper,Buurtbus,and
Brengex.ViaVaninAmsterdamisfullycommercial,asareLyftLineintheUSA,CitymapperSmartRidein
London, and UberPOOL in multiple countries. Second, there is individual demand-responsive transport,
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 11
frequently called ride hailing or ride-sourcing7. Companies offering such services are often referred to
as Transportation Network Companies (TNC’s). Ride-sourcing matches supply and demand by allowing
travellers to use a smartphone application to request individual car rides in real-time from potential
suppliers.Examplesofride-sourcingservicesincludeUber,LyftandDidiChuxing.Ride-sourcingisnotyet
integrated in any MaaS scheme, although there are signs of initiatives in this direction (e.g. MaaS Alliance
(2017)).
2.4 Presentation of MaaS schemes
Multiple schemes have reached Level 2, although ticketing and payment are not necessarily integrated
yet. Payment integration only means that while a well-developed integrated platform may be available,
the associated journey planner does not display combinations of options, such as car sharing + train,
forexample.Ticketsmustbebookedandpaidforseparately,whichforexampleisthecaseformoovel
in Germany, myCicero in Italy, Tuup in Finland, NaviGoGo in Scotland and iDPASS in France. Ticketing
integration only means that separate fees must be paid to the various services, although the traveller has
a single ticket (e.g. smart card) for accessing all the various services. Often, partial payment integration is
provided through subscriptions and pay-per-use systems, as is the case for Hannovermobil in Germany,
andEMMAinFrance.
B2B(BusinesstoBusiness)isoneoftheearliestexamplesofafullLevel2integrationscheme:originating
in the Netherlands, employers provide employees with customisable business cards offering access
to public transport (PT) in the country, bike sharing and sometimes additional services. However, this
scheme provides only partial Level 1 integration, as no dedicated trip planner is yet available.
The Austrian pilot project Smile is a well-known MaaS scheme with Level 2 integration. This scheme
notonlyservedasanexampleofcooperationbetween(large)transportproviders,butalsobetween
other parties, such as software engineers and environmental protection groups. The Smile app provided
multimodal routing (capable of combining private vehicles, PT and shared mobility modes within the
same trip), integrated payment and ticketing. As a follow-up to Smile, an improved trip planner was
developed (Beam-Beta), and together they gave birth to the WienMobil Lab app, operational since 2017.
TodatethreeLevel3schemeshavebeendesigned.Therst,SHIFT,developedinLosAngeles(USA),
was never operational: it would have integrated a variety of services, including bike sharing, car sharing,
taxi,DRT,andavaletservice,andwasuniqueinthatitwouldhaveownedthebus,carandbikeeets.
The second scheme, UbiGo, was a Swedish pilot in which households chose prepaid bundles based on
their own needs; they would therefore plan their trips while taking into account the chosen bundle.
When the subscription ran out, because for instance someone had used all the available car rental days, it
was still possible to make trips using all modes, but they would be billed for them afterwards. A relaunch
inStockholmisplannedin2018(UbiGo,2017).ThethirdandnalschemeisWhim,aFinnishMaaS
initiative, which has been operational since 2016. At the time of writing, users can choose between two
types of bundles, in addition to pay-as-you-go: “Whim Urban”, costing €49 per month and offering
unlimitedurbanpublictransportuseanddiscountedtaxiprices,and“WhimUnlimited”,costing€499
per month and presenting itself as a “Modern alternative for owning a car. At the price of owning a car you get
unlimited access to public transport, taxi or a [shared] car according to your daily need.” (MaaS Global, 2018).
Table 1 summarises MaaS initiatives around the world and the type of integration. Note that this
overview is not comprehensive, and that many initiatives are currently being developed or are deemed
highlylikelytoemergeinthecomingyearsinAsiaandOceania(ARKInvest,2017;L.E.K.,n.d.;MaaS
Global, 2016).
7 This mode of transport is also sometimes called ride sharing, but this is inaccurate (Frenken & Schor, 2017).
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 12
 Table1 Overview of MaaS initiatives and description of the type of mobility integration.
Nameoftheinitiative Place Status Modes Typeof
mobility
integration
moovel Hamburg and
Stuttgart,
Germany
Operational (2015-) Carsharing,taxi,urbanPT,
regional PT.
Level 2 (partial,
payment
integration).
myCicero Italy Operational (2015-) Urban PT, regional PT,
international PT, parking,
permit for urban congestion
charging zones.
Level 2 (partial,
payment
integration).
NaviGoGo Dundee and North
EastFiferegion,
Scotland, UK
Operational (2017-) Carsharing,taxi,urbanPT,
regional PT.
Level 2 (partial,
payment
integration).
iDPASS France Operational (2017-) Carrenting,taxi,valet
parking.
Level 2 (partial,
payment
integration).
Tuup Turku region,
Finland
Operational (2016-) Car sharing, bike sharing,
taxi,urbanPT,DRT.
Level 2 (partial,
payment
integration,
ticketing
integration to
come in 2018).
Hannovermobil Hannover,
Germany
Operational (2014-) Carsharing,taxi,urbanPT,
regional PT.
Level 2.
EMMA(TaM) Montpellier,
France
Operational (2014-) Bike sharing, car sharing,
urban PT, parking.
Level 2.
Business travellers
cards: NS Business Card,
MobilityMixx,Radiuz
Total Mobility, etc.
The Netherlands Operational
(national coverage
of these cards since
2013)
(Car sharing, parking, tank
lling,electriccarloading,
taxi,carrental),bikesharing,
urban PT, regional PT.
Level 2
(Business to
Business),
partial Level 1.
Smile Vienna, Austria Pilot (2014-2015) Bike sharing, car sharing,
taxi,urbanPT,regionalPT,
parking.
Level 2.
WienMobil Lab Vienna, Austria Operational (2017-) Bike sharing, car sharing,
taxi,urbanPT,parking.
Level 2.
SHIFT Las Vegas, USA Planned (2013-
2015)
Bike sharing, car sharing,
taxi,collectiveDRT,valet
parking.
Level 3.
UbiGo Gothenburg,
Sweden
Pilot (2013-2014),
version 2.0 in
preparation
Bike sharing, car sharing, car
renting,taxi,urbanPT.
Level 3.
Whim Helsinki, Finland Operational (2016-) Bike sharing (car sharing to
come),carrenting,taxi,
urban PT, regional PT.
Level 3.
Theseschemesarenotnecessarilydevelopedanddrivenbythesametypesofstakeholders.Forexample,
moovel was initiated and is fully owned by an industrial group, Daimler AG (Daimler AG, n.d.). Smile was
initiated by the infrastructure manager of the city of Vienna and was essentially a collaboration between
Vienna’s PT provider and Austria’s train operator (Smile mobility, 2015). NaviGoGo emerged as part
of a project that included Scottish governmental entities, ICT and mobility companies, and transport
operators(Pick&Mix,2017).TheinuenceofthetypesofstakeholdersonthesuccessofMaaSisstill
unclear though. More research is needed in this area, but this is beyond the scope of our study.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 13
3 Lessons learnt on
inuencingtravel
preferences and
behaviour
InthisexplorativeliteraturereviewweexaminehowMaaSmightchangetravelpreferencesand
behaviour, according to pertinent research into travel preferences and travel behaviour conducted
outside of MaaS. Based on Jittrapirom et al. (2017), three relevant themes were selected (see section
1.3.1or,formoredetails,AppendixA)andwillbediscussedinsuccessivesections:
Mobility integration, travel behaviour and preferences,
ICT, particularly smartphone applications, and travel behaviour,
Shared mobility modes, travel behaviour and preferences.
AsthesethreethemesarebasedonthecorecharacteristicsofMaaSasdenedbyJittrapirometal.
(2017), a concept close to MaaS arguably lies at their intersection, as depicted in Figure 3. Further, the
overlapsthatexistbetweenthesethemeswillalsobeexploredinthissection.
 Figure3 Thethreethemesdiscussedinthisexplorativeliteraturereviewandtheirintersections.
Mobility
integration
Shared
mobility
modes
Mobile
applications
a
concept
close to
MaaS
Beforedelvingintotheliteraturepertainingtothesethemes,werstprovidebackgroundinformationon
travelbehaviourinertiaandowningversususing.Eachsectionendswithareectionontheimpactsfor
Mobility-as-a-Service.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 14
3.1 The challenge of changing travel behaviour
This section describes why changing travel behaviour is challenging. Opportunities to challenge travel
behaviour are also highlighted.
3.1.1 Travel behaviour inertia
It has commonly been noted that travel behaviour tends to repeat itself not only on a daily basis,
but also on a weekly and perhaps even yearly basis (Pendyala et al., 2001). A stream of studies based
on motivational models (see Theory of Planned Behaviour by Ajzen (1991)) suggests that travellers’
behaviour is the result of a deliberation process (Bamberg et al., 2003; Bamberg & Schmidt, 2003), yet
such models neglect the repetitive nature of travel behaviour decisions (Gardner, 2009), which led to
anotherstreamofstudiesarguingthathabitsdominatebehaviouraloutcomesinstablecontexts(Aarts
etal.,1998;Gardner,2009;Gärling&Axhausen,2003;Gärlingetal.,2001;Verplankenetal.,1997).
The habit approach implies that there is little to no deliberation in the travel behaviour. In such cases,
appealstoreasonareineffective(Gärling&Axhausen,2003).ChorusandDellaert(2012)foundthateven
travellerswhoactivelyconsideralternativetraveloptionsforeachtripexhibittravelinertiaiftheydislike
risk and if the quality of the travel alternatives is only revealed upon use. According to Bovy and Stern
(1990), inertia is characterised by “certain thresholds that need to be crossed before changing routine
behaviour” (p. 32), “factors […] which encourage keeping the status quo and oppose behavioural change”
(p.110).VanExelandRietveld(2009)showedthatcardriversinAmsterdamsubstantiallyoverestimate
public transport travel time. However, informing such travellers of the travel time they can gain when
usingpublictransportmaynotconvincethemtoswitchmodes.Indeed,theymightndjustications
fortheirexistingbehaviour(Tertoolenetal.,1998).Traveldecisionsarenotnecessarilyrationalanyway:
symbolicandaffectivefactors(Steg,2005)andemotions(DeVos&Witlox,2017;KiM,2017)alsoplay
roles in travel behaviour, even more so than instrumental factors in some instances (e.g. leisure trips; see
Anable and Gatersleben (2005)). Note that research has shown that a mode shift behaviour is more likely
for leisure trips than work trips (Vedagiri & Arasan, 2009).
3.1.2 Questioning ownership?
Mobility in the 20th century was characterised by the arrival and reign of the car (Goodall et al., 2017).
IntheNetherlands,thecarscoresparticularlywellonindependenceandexibility,aspectsinwhich
publictransportoftenlagsbehind(KiM,2017).ThisisalsotrueelsewhereinEurope(Woods&Masthoff,
2017).Researchshowsthatrelinquishingone’scarcanbedifcult,becausepeopleareoftenattachedto
their own cars (Paundra et al., 2017; Steg, 2005), regarding them as “a place for me-time” and to “zone
out” (Kent, 2015). Laakso (2017) gave free bus passes to people who had relinquished their cars in a
small city in Finland: the study’s participants reported that they needed to plan more in advance than
previously or restructure routines (e.g. grocery shopping, dropping off children). But more than functional
considerations, emotions and feelings played a crucial role in building a new routine. Freudendal-
Pedersen (2009) states that cars are widely perceived as the only transport mode that gives people the
autonomyandexibilityrequiredtoliveamodernlife.Here,autonomymeansbeingindependentfrom
othersandhavingcontroloverone’swayofmoving.Flexibilitymeansbeingabletoadapttoone’s
varying needs independent from time and space constraints.
Concurrently, more and more people acknowledge that cars negatively impact sustainability (Banister,
2008). Arbib and Seba (2017) predict the end of individual car ownership. However, Banister (2008)
arguesthatthiscouldprovedifculttoachieveandmightpotentiallycontravenenotionsoffreedom
and choice. Additionally, Spickermann et al. (2014) stress that while the emotional attachment to cars is
likelytodissolveamongalargeportionofthepopulationinfuture,oldergenerationsmaynditmore
difculttorelinquishthetraditionalownershipmodelandgenerallymaybemorehesitanttoembrace
innovative services.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 15
A trend running in parallel is the growing demand for non-ownership services (Moeller & Wittkowski,
2010),alsocalledaccess-basedconsumption(Bardhi&Eckhardt,2012).Inthisperspective,andalso
duetothesingleplatformconcept,MaaSisoftenassociatedwithSpotify(TheEconomist,2016)and
Netix(Königetal.,2017).AccordingtoBardhiandEckhardt(2012),access-basedconsumptionis
gainingvaluebecauseit“enablesconsumers’freedomoflifestylesandexibleidentityprojects”.Moeller
andWittkowski(2010)foundthatthedemandfornon-ownershipofserviceispositivelyinuencedby
“trendorientation”and“convenienceorientation”factors.However,itisnegativelyinuencedbythe
“possession importance” factor.
3.1.3 Windows of opportunity
Relatively recently the focus in research on travel behaviour change has shifted towards key or life events
that trigger changes in travel behaviour (Lanzendorf, 2003). Such events are “windows of opportunity”
(Schäferetal.,2012)allowingforde-routinisation,i.e.whenindividualsareabletoexaminetheroutine
nature of their own behaviour (Spaargaren, 1997). Studies have shown that individuals are indeed more
susceptible to interventions when a major change to the infrastructure of their neighbourhoods had
occurred, when they had recently relocated residence or workplace (Thøgersen, 2012; Verplanken & Roy,
2016), upon the birth of a child (Berveling et al., 2017) or upon selling one’s car (Laakso, 2017). Note that
studies on windows of opportunity all focus on the impact that a certain key event had on car ownership
or car use, and the subsequent consequences for active modes and public transport use. According to
Redman et al. (2013), tactics to entice car users to PT, coupled with interruptions in habitual behaviour,
can successfully instigate mode change, as long as PT services have attributes that are perceived to be at
least equally as appealing as travel by car.
3.1.4 What does this mean for Mobility-as-a-Service?
Expertsbelievethatontheindividuallevel,MaaS’sgreatestimpactwillbeontheuseofprivatecars
(Karlsson et al., 2017), in line with attention to lifestyles and mobility without owning a car. Moreover,
many see in MaaS a tool for instigating more sustainable travel behaviour patterns among the
population, and in particular for breaking private car dependence (Jittrapirom et al., 2017). Nevertheless,
theliteraturehighlightscomplexpsychologicalprocessesbehindtravelbehaviourandadominanceof
travel behaviour inertia. The latter is relatively common among travellers, especially for work-related
tripsandhabitualtrips,yetrecentresearchsuggestswindowsofopportunityexistduringwhich
people are more likely to challenge their travel habits, although not all windows of opportunities may
provide equal opportunities for adopting MaaS. Consequently, despite travel behaviour inertia, MaaS
implemented with the goal of reducing dependence on private cars might have potential.
3.2 Mobility integration, travel behaviour and preferences
Inthissection,werstdenemobilityintegrationandthenpresentimpactsontravelbehaviourand
travel preferences. The last section highlights implications for MaaS.
3.2.1 Denition of mobility integration, as traditionally understood
Mobility or transport8integrationisnotnew.Despitethelackofacleardenitionofthisnotion(Preston,
2010), it has been a focal point and guiding principle for the development of several transport policies
in numerous countries (Potter & Skinner, 2000), focusing on public transport integration and PT/private
8 Moststudiesdeningintegrationintransportresearchrefertotransport integration, yet studies on MaaS use mobility
integration(seeKamargiannietal.(2016)andE.Lund(2016)).Thisisprobablyduetothedirectconnectionwith
“Mobility-as-a-Service”, and the fact that mobility is nowadays used with the broad meaning of “the ability to move freely
or be easily moved” (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.). Meanwhile, “transport” has become more of a word of reference in
everydaylanguagefor“motorisedmobility”,asreectedbythedenitionprovidedbytheCambridgeDictionary(n.d.):
“a system of vehicles, such as buses, trains, aircraft, etc. for getting from one place to another”. According to Sochor et al.
(2017), offering mobility rather than transport is central in MaaS. Therefore, we will continue using the term mobility
integration in this study, but use transport integration when referring to studies using this term.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 16
modesintegration.NEAandpartners(2003)distinguishbetweeninformationintegration,fareand
ticket integration, network integration and wider integration. In an attempt to describe the concept in
itsfullcomplexity,PotterandSkinner(2000)usedascale,andHull(2005)usedrungsofanintegration
ladder; this latter description was then re-used and adapted by Preston (2010). We re-adapted this
integrationladderbasedonPreston(2010),Hull(2005),andNEAandpartners(2003),asshowninFigure
4.Theintegrationladderisorganisedinapproximateascendingorderoforganisationaldifculty;itisnot
necessary to have fully completed one rung in order to access the following one. Note that sustainability
is often agreed to be the highest rung of the integration ladder (George, 2001; Potter & Skinner, 2000;
Preston,2010).Commonlycitedobjectivesfortransportintegrationaretheefcientuseofresources,
improved accessibility, environmental protection, and increased safety (Preston, 2010). According
to Potter and Skinner (2000), ‘lower’ understandings of integration are unable to deliver complete
solutions to challenges of a high order of magnitude; only a comprehensive approach stands a chance of
successfully tackling such challenges.
 Figure4 The integration ladder and its rungs; corresponding mobility integration levels (adapted from Preston (2010), Hull
(2005),andNEAandpartners(2003)).
(9) Integrate with Environmental, Social and
Economic Policies, e.g. 2011 Dutch National Policy
Strategy for Infrastructure and Spatial Planning
(8) Integrate with Education, Health and Social
Services , e.g. target group transport in the
Netherlands
(7) Integrate Transport and Land-Use , e.g. zoning
regulations, pedestrian-friendly development
paerns (Portland, U .S.)
(6) Integrate Transport Authorities, i.e. one
authority for all transport modes, for one region
(Transport for London , STIF in Paris)
(5) Integrate Passenger and Freight Transport , e.g.
cargo and passenger airports (London Heathrow,
Amsterdam Schiphol )
(4) Integrate Public and Private Transport , e.g.
Park and Ride, Bike and Ride, bus-only lanes
(2) Integrate Public Transport Fares, Ticketing
and Payment, e.g. respectively regional fare
system, PT modes with the same pass , one single
bill (Oyster pass, OV -chipkaart )
(3 ) Integrate Public Transport Services, e.g.
arrival/departure coordination, all modes at the
same place (Amsterdam Centraal, New York
Pennsylvania Station)
(1 ) Integrate Public Transport Information, e.g. app /
website with all PT schedules, possibility to plan
multimodal trips (NS Xtra Reisplanner, Google Maps )
Level 1 : Information
Integration
Level 2: Fare,
Ticketing and
Payment Integration
Level 3: Network
Integration
Level 4: Wide
r
Integration
Integrated and Sustainable Transport
Disintegrated and Unsustainable Transport
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 17
3.2.2 Mobility integration, travel behaviour and preferences
Research suggests that a higher level of integration in transport is more appealing to travellers than
lowerlevels.Weusethe4-LeveldescriptionofNEAandpartners(2003)todescribetheeffectsof
mobility integration on travel preferences and travel behaviour.
Level 1. At present, PT information is frequently sought for routine trips and non-routine trips, and there
is growing demand for information beyond just arrival and departure times, such as crowding levels and
disruptions (Chorus et al., 2006; Matsumoto & Hidaka, 2015). By displaying multiple options in real-time,
such information systems (or ATISs, Advanced Traveller Information Systems) have the potential to make
users rethink their travel habits (Chorus et al., 2006; Kenyon & Lyons, 2003; Tang & Thakuriah, 2011)
and to allow for reductions in actual and perceived waiting times (Watkins et al., 2011). Recent studies
using rigorous statistical analyses show that improved information can lead to increases in patronage
(Brakewood et al., 2015; Tang & Thakuriah, 2012). However, Pronello et al. (2017), and Skoglund and
Karlsson(2012),foundthatimprovedtravelinformationdoesnotnecessarilysignicantlypromote
changes in travel behaviour away from the use of private cars, even when the trip planner can display
time savings with PT compared to private cars (Skoglund & Karlsson, 2012). ATISs may add enough
valuetocompelmorefrequentuseofpublictransport,butnotenoughtoleadtoasignicantdecrease
incaruse,unlessthereisanexplicitintentiontodoso(Pronelloetal.,2017;Skoglund&Karlsson,2012)
(see section 3.1.1 on travel behaviour inertia and section 3.3 on apps and travel behaviour). Note that
literature reviews reveal a generally low willingness to pay for information provided via information
systems, especially for PT information (Chorus et al., 2006; Pronello et al., 2017). There are currently
plenty of systems providing information for free, but people may be willing to pay if the system is
perceivedtoaddsufcientvalueandfunctionsfaultlessly(Pronelloetal.,2017;Zografosetal.,2012).
Today however most travellers view information integration as a basic prerequisite and care more about
higher integration levels (Chowdhury et al., 2018).
Level 2.FareintegrationisusuallyachievedviaafareschemevalidinallPTmodes,suchasa(zonal)at
fare or distance-based fare. Ticket and payment integration can be achieved via a single ticket valid for
a journey across multiple modes, and is nowadays frequently achieved via smart card technology. Fare,
ticketingandpaymentintegrationprovedbenecialintermsofPTpatronageinmultipleEuropean
cities, leading to more convenience, more freedom of choice in transport mode, occasional reductions
intravelcosts,andincreasesinpatronage(Abrateetal.,2009;Blythe&Holm,2002;NEAandpartners,
2003). A recent study also supports the premise that ticketing integration via smart cards can successfully
increasetheuseofthemodesaccessibleviasmartcards(AECOM,2011).
Level 3. Network integration has also delivered positive outcomes in terms of patronage, especially when
combinedwithfareandticketingintegration,asinMadrid(Matas,2004)orViennaandManchester(NEA
and partners, 2003). In Vienna, ticketing integration triggered a restructuring of the network, which in
turn led to increased patronage and substantial improvements for passengers in terms of travel times.
There, only a limited number of passengers saw their amount of transfers increase due to network
integration. Indeed, a major drawback of network integration is transferring, and hence potential
increasesinwaitingtimes(Chowdhuryetal.,2018;NEAandpartners,2003).Buehler(2011)explained
that the reason why PT patronage, cycling and walking is higher in Germany than in the USA is partly due
to the better integration of PT services in Germany.
Level 4. In terms of wider integration, the integration of land-use, transport and environmental policy has
garnered attention in recent decades (Candel, 2017; Geerlings & Stead, 2003; Newman & Kenworthy,
1996). A few studies mentioning impacts on travellers can be mentioned here. A study in Japan
demonstrated that integrated land-use and transport strategies led to CO2reductionanduserbenets
(in terms of generalised travel costs) (Doi & Kii, 2012). Transit-oriented development has been shown to
promote public transport use (H. Lund, 2006), as well as cycling and walking, thereby promoting physical
activity (Langlois et al., 2016). Although policies integrating transport and land-use/environmental/
socialaspectsareoftenpartofregionalornationalstrategiesandvisions(seeexamplesinrungs8and9
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 18
of Figure 4),implementationremainsdifcult,andimpactassessmentsofsuchintegrationontravellers
remain limited (Candel, 2017; Preston, 2010).
3.2.3 What does this mean for MaaS?
Attractiveness for potential users. Research on mobility integration has primarily focused on PT integration
and PT/private modes integration. Studies show that a higher level of integration is more appealing to
travellersthanlowerlevels.Therearenumerousbenetsofintegrationfromthetraveller’sside:ahigher
level of convenience, more freedom of mode choice, and potentially cheaper and shorter journeys. Since
mobilityintegrationisakeyaspectofMaaS,andsinceMaaSisalsodenedwithanintegrationladder
(see section 2.2), we can assume that MaaS initiatives with high integration levels are likely to be more
attractive to users than initiatives with lower integration levels, as Kamargianni et al. (2016) already
highlighted. Nevertheless, we note that mobility integration evolved over the span of multiple decades,
hinting at long development and implementation times, probably owing to the diversity of actors
involved. Technology may shorten these time periods, but high integration levels as standards within
MaaS might not occur in the short term.
Mobility integration and shared mobility modes.Expertsdeemthecombiningofvariousmodesoftransportas
MaaS’s most relevant impact on individuals (Karlsson et al., 2017). These various modes include shared
mobility modes. Initial signs of integration between shared mobility modes and PT have emerged.
PaymentandticketingintegrationexistsintheNetherlandswiththePT-bikes,wherebybikescanbe
rented at stations with a PT pass (Martens, 2007), without requiring a separate subscription. Moreover,
PT-bikes have also recently incorporated information integration via the national train company’s trip
planning app, which shows the number of available PT-bikes at any given station. Ticketing integration is
becomingincreasinglycommonbetweenPTcompaniesandcarandbikesharingcompanies,asexhibited
by the cooperation between STIB (PT and bike sharing operator in Brussels, Belgium) and Cambio (a
car sharing company) (Loose, 2010), and between SBB (Swiss train operator) and Mobility Car sharing.
Consequently,inthecontextofMaaS,therewouldalsobesharedmobilitymodesintheintegration
ladder. Rung 3 for instance would become “Integrate PT and shared mobility modes services”. Arguably, the
more modes, the more challenging it is to implement “seamless transfers”. To date however research on
mobility integration and shared mobility modes remains scarce.
3.3 Changing travel behaviour through mobile applications
Inthissectionwerstdiscusshowmobileapplicationsmightleadtochangesintravelbehaviour.Next,
we shed light on key features in mobile apps aiming to promote more sustainable travel patterns, as
recentlysupportedinaliteraturereview.ThenalsectionhighlightsimplicationsforMaaS.
3.3.1 Mobile applications and sustainable travel behaviour?
ICTisexpectedtoplayanincreasinglyimportantroleinshapingtravelbehaviour(Gössling,2017),and
mobile devices and apps in particular will be of central importance, thanks to their widespread adoption
and pervasive use (Lathia et al. 2013). Mobile applications that impact travel behaviour include apps
providing information about travel (including convenience information, such as parking, congestion,
crowdedness in PT, etc.), planning, routing, access to shared mobility modes, booking, payment, price
comparison of travel alternatives, safety and health advice, and social media apps (Gössling, 2017).
Gössling (2017) indicates that apps can use persuasion to support mode change towards “sustainable
transport choices”. Technologies to promote sustainable mobility were coined Behaviour Change
SupportSystems(BCSS)byOinas-Kukkonen(2010),anddenedas“informationsystemsdesignedto
form, alter, or reinforce attitudes, behaviours or an act of complying without using deception, coercion
orinducements”.Anexampleofsuchasystemisamultimodal,real-timeinformationandnavigation
application. However, as indicated in section 3.2.2, the contribution of such apps to a modal shift
away from private cars remains unclear. Further, shared mobility modes (that often require the use
of an app) may generally lead to reductions in private car use, but may not necessarily lead to more
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 19
sustainable travel patterns (see section 3.4). Notably, there is an entire category of applications that
makes using private cars more attractive and hence may not serve sustainability goals (Gössling, 2017).
When zooming in on the effectiveness of BCSSs for changing travel behaviour in particular, virtually no
denitiveconclusionscanbedrawnduetoalackofmethodologicalrobustness(Sunio&Schmöcker,
2017). Consequently, as suggested by Andersson et al. (2018) and Sunio and Schmöcker (2017), mobile
applications that aim to instigate more sustainable travel patterns must be more grounded in travel
behaviour change theory if they are to effectively promote change.
3.3.2 Key features in mobile apps to support travel behaviour change
To investigate the key features that smartphone application technologies need to promote sustainable
mobility,Anderssonetal.(2018)conductedaliteraturereviewofbehaviourchangeandICTintheelds
oftransport,health,energyandclimate,andgroundingndingsinbehaviouralchangetheories.
First, Andersson et al. (2018) found that customisation to the user is crucial to promote mode change, as
the literature review of Chorus et al. (2006) already underlined. According to the diffusion of innovations
theory, a product must be adapted to the user, and not vice versa (Rogers, 2003). Stopka (2014)
demonstratedthattravellersdoindeedhaveasignicantinterestinpersonalisedadvice,andthatthis
isanintegralpartoftheseamlessnessofthedoor-to-doortravelexperience.Second,Anderssonetal.
(2018) found that information and feedback are important for encouraging individuals to perform the
desired behaviour. Third, they found that engaging users is a key issue in terms of changing behaviour
via apps, which reminds us of travel behaviour inertia. In that sense, continuous improvement9 and
gamicationcouldplayimportantroles.Fourth,anappealingandsimpledesigniskeytoholdingthe
interest of users. One of the qualities that allows an innovation to spread is how simple it is to use,
without the need to learn (Rogers, 2003). That which is simpler to understand is adopted more rapidly
than that which requires new skills and comprehension.
3.3.3 What does this mean for MaaS?
Mobility-as-a-Service is to be primarily accessed on the passenger side via an application on a
smartphone or tablet. The rise of MaaS concurs with the recent growing interest in the way apps could
trigger changes in travel behaviour. Research suggests that four aspects of apps are crucial to promoting
sustainable mobility: customisation to the user, information and feedback, engaging the user, and an
appealingandsimpledesign.Althoughtodatethereisnodenitiveconclusionabouttheeffectiveness
of behaviour change support systems, taking into account these four features – and generally travel
behaviourtheory,asbrieyintroducedinsection3.1 – in designs of MaaS applications could help attract
users, lock them in and promote alternative travel behaviour patterns.
3.4 Shared mobility modes, travel behaviour and preferences
Inthissection,wehighlightinsightsintosharedmobilitymodesfromtheliterature.Eachsubsequent
sectionaddressesonemodeandisarticulatedasfollows:werstdescribethetypicalsocioeconomic
and sociodemographic characteristics of users and also the trip characteristics, and then we present the
ndingsforhoweachmodeimpactsPTuse,walking,cycling,carownershipandcaruse.Thenalsection
highlights implications for MaaS.
3.4.1 Car sharing
Car sharing users and trips. Research shows that the people more likely to participate in car sharing are
young and highly educated adults with moderate to high incomes who live in urban areas and in
households with limited car ownership (Becker et al., 2017; Clewlow, 2016b; Kang et al., 2016; KiM,
2015;LeVine&Polak,2017).AccordingtoBardhiandEckhardt(2012),carsharingoftenattractspeople
who have a low sense of ownership and a utilitarian view of mobility. Visiting friends or family, shopping
(including shopping for heavy items), recreation and business trips are most frequently mentioned as trip
9 A key aspect to spreading an innovation, according to the diffusion of innovations theory (Rogers, 2003).
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 20
purposes; most users appear to rent cars for incidental mobility needs (Baptista et al., 2014; KiM, 2015;
Le Vine & Polak, 2017).
Price structures. Research reveals that many car owners do not have the full costs overview in mind when
purchasing vehicles (Turrentine & Kurani, 2007). Moreover, many drivers only consider the out-of-pocket
costsatthepointoftravel(Scott&Axhausen,2006).Consequently,travellersmaybelesssensitivetothe
long-term costs of owning vehicles than to the running costs of a car sharing subscription.
Car sharing and PT use/walking/biking. Car sharing schemes can enable shifts towards other modes. While
station-based car sharing triggers a shift away from private vehicles and toward public transportation
orwalking/cycling(Shaheenetal.,2009;Siouietal.,2013),theimpactoffree-oatingcarsharingisless
clear.Beckeretal.(2017)foundthatfree-oatingcarsharingcanllagapinpublictransport(modal
integration effect), but that in many cases it reduces PT use and walking/cycling (substitution effect) in
favourofcartrips.ThiswaspartlyconrmedbyMartinandShaheen(2016),whofoundthatamajority
ofcar2gomembersusedtaxisandPTlessfrequently(althoughtheintegration/substitutioneffectsvary
per city), but walked more frequently.
Car sharing, private car use and car ownership. Several studies have indicated that car sharing reduces vehicle
ownership rates per capita among car sharing members, as summarised in Baptista et al. (2014) and
Shaheen et al. (2012). Martin and Shaheen (2011) note that the decrease in privately owned vehicles
is also accompanied by an average decline in VKT/VMT (Vehicle Kilometres Travelled/Vehicle Miles
Travelled) of between 27 and 43% per year. Reducing private car use is less likely to occur among
suburban car sharing members than urban ones (Clewlow, 2016a) and among individuals with high
education levels and/or high incomes (Le Vine & Polak, 2017). Martin et al. (2010) found that between 9
and 13 privately owned vehicles were taken off the road per (station-based) car-sharing vehicle, which
includes both the suppression and shedding effects. Car sharing’s suppression effect is the effect that
car sharing has on suppressing the members’ need to personal vehicles, while the shedding effect is the
effectthatallowscarsharingmemberstosellordiscardtheirpersonalvehicles.Examplesoftheseeffects
canbefoundinrecentstudiesexaminingfree-oatingcarsharing.AccordingtoMartinandShaheen
(2016),whostudiedtheimpactofcar2goinveNorthAmericancities,thesuppressioneffectwaslarger
than the shedding effect (7-10% and 2-5%, respectively). Similarly, Le Vine and Polak (2017) found the
suppressioneffectinsome30%offree-oatingcarsharingmembersinLondon,comparedtojust4%for
the shedding effect, although shedding is more likely than suppressing among low-income households.
IntheNetherlands,SuikerandvandenElshout(2013)foundthat4%ofcar2gomembersinAmsterdam
had reconsidered owning cars.
3.4.2 Bike sharing
All insights provided in this section derive from studies on station-based bike sharing. To the best of our
knowledge,insightsintohowfree-oatingschemesimpacttravelbehaviourremainlackingasofmid-
2018, and the same applies for bike sharing’s impact on car ownership.
Bike sharing users and trips. Bike sharing users are younger, have higher incomes, higher education levels
and are more likely to work full- or part-time than the average population (Fishman, 2016; Ricci, 2015).
Bike sharing users do not necessarily have lower car ownership rates than non-users (Fishman et al.,
2013). The main reasons for using bike sharing are convenience (close to work, to home, fast, short
routes, getting around more easily), followed by saving money (Fishman, 2016). Users usually praise
the time saved compared to other modes that are subject to congestion or delay (Sener et al., 2009).
Shared bicycles are typically used for short-duration trips, while trip purpose depends on the type of user,
notably long-term users (more work-related purposes) or casual users (more leisure-related purposes)
(Fishman, 2016).
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 21
Bike sharing and PT use/walking/biking. Research reveals that most people who switch to shared bikes come
fromwalkingandPT,notfromcars;forexample,Bullocketal.(2017)foundthatinDublin77%ofthe
totalhadswitchedfromwalking,16%frombus/tram,andtheremainderfromtaxis.Aswithcarsharing,
modalintegrationandmodalsubstitutioneffectsexist.AccordingtoYangetal.(2018),modalintegration
candecreasetheaverageusertraveltimesandincreaseurbanpublictransportnetworkefciency,as
sharedbikesareusedforrstandlastmiles.StudieshaveshownthatbikesharingandPTintegration
provide users with considerable incentive to use bike sharing, potentially resulting in car use reduction
(Bachand-Marleauetal.,2011;Martens,2007).Butsubstitutionalsoexists:inLyon(France),50%ofbike
sharing trips replaced PT trips (DeMaio, 2009). According to Martin and Shaheen (2014), in cities with
high population densities and high public transport network densities, bike sharing decreases PT use
indenseandcentralurbanlocations(asrecentlyconrmedbyCampbellandBrakewood(2017)),and
increases PT use in suburban areas/city peripheries.
Bike sharing and private car use. Research universally shows that bike sharing systems reduce car travel
(Fishman et al., 2014; Martin & Shaheen, 2014; Shaheen et al., 2013). Nevertheless, shifting away
fromprivatecarsremainslimitedandhighlycontext-dependent.Fishmanetal.(2014)estimateacar
substitution rate of 2% among users in London (U.K.), which contrasts with rates of 19%, 19% and
21% among users in Minneapolis/St. Paul (U.S.), and Melbourne and Brisbane (Australia), respectively.
Fishmanetal.(2014)explainedsuchdifferencesasduetolowernumbersofcarcommutingtripsin
cities with low substitution rates. The impact of bike sharing systems on road congestion is unclear
(Fishman,2016).
3.4.3 Ride-sourcing
Most of the available studies on ride-sourcing derive from California (U.S.); several studies have analysed
data collected there in 2015 among adults aged 18 to 50 (Alemi et al., 2017; Alemi, Circella, Mokhtarian,
et al., 2018; Alemi, Circella, & Sperling, 2018; Circella et al., 2018).
Ride-sourcing users and trips.Therateofadoptingride-sourcingissignicantlyhigheramongpeoplewho
are young adults, highly educated, work full time, have higher incomes (Alemi et al., 2017; Clewlow &
Mishra, 2017b), reside in urban areas, are childless (Alemi et al., 2017), have low rates of car ownership,
and already undertake multimodal trips (Alemi, Circella, & Sperling, 2018). Moreover, Alemi et al. (2017)
found positive correlations between ride-sourcing adoption and the frequent use of smartphones for
daily travel and social media, shopping online, and previous bike sharing and/or car sharing use. Although
ride-sourcing is primarily used incidentally (Alemi, Circella, Mokhtarian, et al., 2018), ride-sourcing trips
can account for 15% of all trips within San Francisco on an average weekday (SFCTA, 2017). Among
ride-sourcing users, the most-cited reasons for using such services are convenience, reliability, short
travel times, avoiding drunk driving, and not having to park (Alemi, Circella, & Sperling, 2018; Clewlow &
Mishra, 2017b; Rayle et al., 2016).
Ride sourcing and PT use/walking/biking.BothmodalintegrationandmodalsubstitutionwithPTexist.
AccordingtoClewlowandMishra(2017b),theextenttowhichoneismoreprevalentthantheother
depends on the demographics of the user and the availability and type of PT. APTA (2016) and Alemi,
Circella, and Sperling (2018) suggest that a complementary effect is at work, since a majority of ride-
sourcing trips are made between 22:00 and 4:00, when public transport services are limited, and owning
to “to not drink and drive” being frequently cited as a main reason for using ride-sourcing. A study
recentlydemonstratedthatride-sourcinghassignicantpotentialtocomplementPTasafeedersystem,
while reducing total VKT (Stiglic et al., 2018). Ride-sourcing has however been shown to compete with
PTinurbanandsuburbansettings,aswellasinthecontextoftripsto/fromairports(Alemi,Circella,&
Sperling, 2018; Rayle et al., 2016; Schaller, 2017). Regarding walking and biking, more than 40% of the
frequent ride-sourcing users in a Californian survey reported a decrease, and less than 10% an increase in
these active modes (Circella et al., 2018).
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 22
Ride-sourcing, private car use and car ownership.Studiesconsistentlyndacorrelationbetweenride-sourcing
adoption and reductions in private car driving: 26% of users in seven major U.S. cities reported that
they drove less after adopting on-demand ride services (Clewlow & Mishra, 2017b), with this share
increasing to 40% for San Francisco only (Rayle et al., 2016), and 70% for frequent10 users in California
(Alemi, Circella, & Sperling, 2018). More than 90% of Rayle et al. (2016) survey respondents stated that
they did not change the number of vehicles they owned after joining a ride-sourcing scheme (some
evenincreasedtheirvehicleownership),whilethatgurewas91%intheClewlowandMishra(2017a)
study. The more frequently a person used ride-sourcing, the more likely they were to have shed a vehicle
(Clewlow & Mishra, 2017a). Impacts on congestion remain unclear (Jin et al., 2018). Note that ride-
sourcing could induce trips: in the Rayle et al. (2016) study, 8% of respondents would not have made
theirtriphadride-sourcingnotexisted.
Ride-sourcing and other shared mobility modes. Alemi et al. (2017) found a positive correlation between
ride-sourcing adoption and previous use of bike sharing and/or car sharing. However, frequent car
sharing use negatively correlates with ride-sourcing, indicating potential competition (Alemi, Circella,
Mokhtarian, et al., 2018). Research reveals the impact of combining ride-sourcing and car sharing: 57%
of the individuals who adopted both services are carless and reside in highly urbanised neighbourhoods,
compared to 37% for non-adopters, while 33% are carless and reside in PT-accessible neighbourhoods,
compared to 19% for non-adopters (Clewlow, 2016b). The American Public Transportation Association’s
term “supersharers” denotes people who used some combination of bike sharing, car sharing and ride-
sourcing for commuting, errands and recreational trips within the past three months (APTA, 2016).
Nevertheless, Clewlow and Mishra (2017b) found that such users still have on average higher rates of car
ownership than PT-only users. Supersharers remain a small group though.
3.4.4 Demand-responsive transport
DRT users. Initially, the growth of DRT around the world was fostered by policies aiming to ensure the
provision of transport services for people with impairments, resulting in DRT and disabilities often
beingassociated(Aldaihanietal.,2004;deJongetal.,2011;Enochetal.,2004).However,owingto
technological improvements, DRT is increasingly used for new applications. Cervero (1997) highlighted
the potential of DRT in settings combining spatial dispersion and low dependency on city centres.
DRT services are increasingly used in rural areas, where they have proved to be most effective in
both meeting demand (Laws, 2009) and justifying public investments (Davison et al., 2012). Mulley
and Nelson (2009) posited that areas in urban and peri-urban settingsmightalsobenetfromDRT
services,notablywhenthereisinsufcientdemandforaviablexed-routeservice.Wewillrefertothis
type of DRT as coverage-oriented DRT services. According to the literature review of Jain et al. (2017),
eight characteristics are likely to impact the use of a DRT service: being aged 15-24, or 55 and above;
being female; not being in the workforce; not possessing a driving licence; low household income
and vehicle ownership rates; being a single-person household; and not having a train station in one’s
neighbourhood. Further, there is a higher share of people with mobility impairments among coverage-
oriented DRT users than among the general population (TCRP, 2004; Wang et al., 2014). Jain et al. (2017)
found that such services are frequently used for shopping and social purposes. DRT’s high adaptability
(Laws, 2009) also renders it relevant in high-density areas (Davison et al., 2012). We refer to this type of
DRT as urban DRT services11.AccordingtoSantietal.(2014),morethan95%oftaxitripsinNewYorkCity
couldbesharedwithoutincurringmorethanveminutesdelay,andvariousurbannetworkstructures
around the world show similar potential (Tachet et al., 2017). A stated preference study conducted in
Chicago(inthecontextofcommutingtrips)revealedthatthe18-34and51-69agegroupsaremore
likely to adopt urban DRT, as are the high-income respondents (Frei et al., 2017). Another stated
preference study conducted in Amsterdam (pertaining to leisure trips) revealed that among car owners, it
10 Alemi,Circella,andSperling(2018)dene“frequent”asatleastonceamonth.
11 We do not imply that DRT cannot be used for coverage purposes and in densely populated areas. We make the distinction
here for the sake of clarity.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 23
is the highly educated, working individuals aged 50 or younger who are more likely to include urban DRT
in their mobility choices (Alonso-González et al., 2017). This study also revealed that more multimodal
individualsaremorepronetoengageinurbanDRTuse,inlinewiththeOECDITF(2017)study.
DRT and travel behaviour. Coverage-oriented DRT is designed, and often subsidised, to substitute and
complement public transport, where/for whom other alternatives are limited (rural areas, people with
impairments, etc.). Moreover, literature on urban DRT remains relatively limited. Studies suggest that
urban DRT use may reduce walking, biking and PT use, but the complementary/substitution effects,
notably with PT, are as yet unknown and could depend on the design of the DRT service (Alonso-
González et al., 2017; Frei et al., 2017; Gunay et al., 2016; Jokinen et al., 2017).
3.4.5 What does this mean for MaaS?
Changes in travel behaviour.Studiesshowthatsmallcarsuppressionandsheddingeffectsdoexist,which
isencouraginginthecontextofMaaS.EffectsonVKT,PTuse,cyclingandwalkingvaryacrossmodes
and often depend on built environment characteristics. Table 2 provides an overview of the effects of
shared mobility modes on travel behaviour. Note however the unequal degree of knowledge about the
various modes (e.g. we know more about bike sharing than urban DRT; consequently, more uncertainties
existabouttheeffectsofurbanDRT).Moreover,evenwhenmultiplestudiesareavailable,standard
methodologiesforassessingimpactsontravelbehaviourdonotnecessarilyexist(e.g.forbikesharing,
see Fishman (2016)).
 Table2 Overview of the effects of shared mobility modes on travel behaviour.
Impacton…
PT use Active modes
(walking,
cycling)
Private car
use
Car ownership VKT (Vehicle
Kilometres
Travelled)
Car sharing
(station-based)
(+) (+) (-) (-) mostly for urban
dwellers, suppression
and shedding effects
depending on
household income
(-)
Car sharing
(free-oating)
(+)/(-) (-)/(+) (+)
Bike sharing (+) in suburban
areas of densely
populated cities / (-)
in city centres with
high population and
PT network densities
(+) for cycling
/ (-) for
walking
(-) (?) (+)/(-)
Ride sourcing (+)/(-) (-) (-) (-) for frequent users (?) (potentially
(+))
Ride sourcing +
car sharing
(?) (?) (-) (-) stronger effect
than ride sourcing or
car sharing alone
(?)
Coverage-
oriented DRT
In these cases, DRT is designed to substitute and complement public transport. Other
alternatives may be limited for users (no PT available, mobility impairment, etc.).
Urban DRT (?) (potentially (-)) (-) (based on
1 study)
(-) potentially (?) (?)
(+): Increase in general
(-): Decrease in general
(?): Impact still unclear or unknown
(+)/(-): Sometimes increase, sometimes decrease.
Thetabledoesnotprovideanyquantication,justanindicationofthetrenddirectioningeneral.
For nuances, the reader can refer to the above sections and cited references.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 24
Users’ proles and the question of access to transport. By design, shared mobility modes are usually situated
in areas with high population densities, where they are more commercially viable (Agatz et al., 2012).
A (potentially unintended) pre-selection of users already occurs, owing to the fact that these shared
mobilitymodesareusuallyavailableincitiesandnotinmoreremoteplaces.Moreover,theproles
of typical users are relatively comparable across these modes (car and bike sharing, ride-sourcing,
urban DRT): often younger people with higher incomes and education levels who are more likely to
be employed than the average population. A strong focus on these modes in MaaS and a potential
subsequentsubstitutioneffectwithPTcouldraisethequestionofwhowilltrulybenetfromMaaS,
especially when public subsidies are involved (with shared mobility modes or PT). Further, as noted by
Jin et al. (2018) regarding ride-sourcing, the question of the ‘digital divide’ remains relevant for a service
like MaaS. This term originally referred to unequal access to ICT and the skills required to use it (Selwyn,
2004),buttodayhasalsoexpandedtoincludetheunequalaccesstosmartphonesandmobiledata
(Jin et al., 2018). Shared mobility modes can require such technology and MaaS would also likely require
it. However, smartphone (and mobile data) use is arguably not easy for everyone, even in countries
with high smartphone penetration rates, and hence a sharp digital divide remains (Poushter, 2017).
New technologies pertaining to mobility have the potential to give people more possibilities, yet also
toexcludeandimmobilisethosewhohavelimitedaccesstothem.Additionally,otherbarrierstousing
sharedmobilitymodesexist,notablyamongpeoplewithlowincomesorminorities(seeNamazuetal.
(2018) for car sharing, Fishman (2016) for bike sharing); it is unlikely that these barriers would simply
disappear when such modes are integrated in MaaS, and therefore they will also need to be addressed.
Price structure. Note that the price structure of MaaS is comparable to the price structure of car sharing
memberships(pay-as-you-goandpre-denedplans),whichmaydetersomecarownersinasimilarway
as car sharing’s price structure does, even when maintaining the status quo is not the cheapest option.
Types of trips. The types of trip purposes with shared mobility modes usually depend on how frequently
such modes are used, with infrequent users tending to make more casual (e.g. leisure) rather than
time-critical trips. Nevertheless, a majority of shared mobility modes members use these services on
an incidental basis, which suggests that: (1) MaaS including shared mobility modes may initially only be
used for casual and incidental trips, and that (2) a heavy focus on commuting trips in the initial stages
mayonlyattractpeoplewiththeinnovators’prole,aswellassomeearlyadopters.
Reliability with shared mobility modes. As emphasised by Van Hagen and Bron (2013), reliability – and
safety – is an essential prerequisite for passengers. Shared mobility modes introduce new meanings of
reliability, which differ from the usual meaning of reliability in conventional public transport, because
oftheuncertaintiesaboutlocalavailabilitythatareinherenttotheexibleandnite(scarce)natureof
suchservices.LambertonandRose(2012)deneproductscarcityas“thelikelihoodthataproductor
product-related resource will be unavailable when a consumer desires access”, and they demonstrated
that a perceived risk of product scarcity due to competition for the shared product could be a key
inhibitor to participating in a commercial sharing program. Fricker and Gast (2016) demonstrated that
even a low probability of unavailability of shared bikes may deter use, especially for individuals that rely
on them daily. Additionally, Weckström et al. (2017) found that long response times and unavailability of
vehicles were the main reasons why higher income groups discontinued their use of Kutsuplus, an urban
DRT service. In addition to the unguaranteed availability upon departure, other aspects could affect the
reliabilityofsharedmobilitymodesandthereforepotentiallyMaaS,includingtheanxietyofreturninga
shared vehicle on time (ter Berg & Schothorst, 2015) and transfers within schedule-free modes, or from
a schedule-free mode to a schedule-bound mode (and vice versa). Such uncertainties about reliability
could have consequences for MaaS’s adoption and use.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 25
3.5 Conclusion
Based on the nine core characteristics of MaaS as described by Jittrapirom et al. (2017), we have selected
and discussed three relevant themes. Where these three themes intersect – as depicted in Figure 5,
an annotated version of Figure 3 –, coupled with an understanding of the MaaS concept and travel
behaviour theory, provides some insights and discussion points about Mobility-as-a-Service and its
potential for instigating changes in travel preferences and travel behaviour, as summarised below.
 Figure5 Thethreethemesandtheirintersectionsasdiscussedandaddressedinthisexplorativeliteraturereview.
Mobility
integration
Shared
mobility
modes
Mobile
applications
a
concept
close to
MaaS
PT/sharedmobilitymodes
integration,transfers
andreliability,etc
AdvancedTraveller
InformationSystems,
willingnesstopayfor
information,etc
 Newformofexibility
withoutacar,digital
divide,etc.
Ourexplorativeliteraturereviewindicatesthatthelarge-scaleadoptionanduseofMaaSmayremain
relatively unlikely in the short term and unclear over the longer term. However, MaaS seemingly has
potentialforreachingspecicpopulationgroups,particularlyyoungandtech-savvyurbanindividuals.
It may also hold promise to instigate changes in travel behaviour and preferences among them,
potentially in a more sustainable direction. Nonetheless, it is crucial to take various aspects into account
when pursuing a widespread adoption of MaaS and change in travel patterns. First, research on mobility
integration reveals how challenging the integration process is. A higher level of integration is more
attractive to travellers; however, developing and successfully implementing such integration is a long-
termandcomplexprocess.Second,nodenitiveconclusionshaveyetbeenreachedabouttheimpact
of mobile applications that aim to support changes in travel behaviour (so-called Behavioural Change
Support Systems). Research reveals that four app features in particular are necessary conditions, yet they
maynotbesufcient.Third,althoughresearchonsharedmobilitymodesshedslightontheexistence
ofsuppressionandsheddingeffectswithcars,itpertainsonlytospecicuserproles.Inthevast
majority of cases, using such modes remains incidental and must not be automatically associated with
more sustainable travel patterns. Integrating these modes within MaaS has the potential to provide an
advancedlevelofexibility,butitalsoraisesquestionsaboutthereliabilityofsuchmodesand,more
generally, problems associated with social inclusion.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 26
4 Systematic literature
review of the potential
impact of MaaS on travel
preferences and
behaviour
In this section we present a literature review of the potential impact of MaaS on travellers’ preferences
andbehaviour.OurfocusisonstudiesspecicallypertainingtoMaaSandtravelbehaviour/preferences.
Intheselectedstudies,wefoundsixcommonthemespertainingtoMaaS,travelbehaviourand
preferences. This section is therefore structured as follows:
Introduction: Presentation of the selected papers and the associated research methods.
Theme 1: A change in the private car ownership paradigm?
Theme 2:PreconditionsinMaaS:theneedforautonomy,exibilityandreliability
Theme 3: Aspects adding value in MaaS
Theme 4: The user-side design of MaaS
Theme 5: Costs and willingness to pay
Theme 6: Travellers’ characteristics
4.1 Presentation of the selected papers and the associated
researchmethods
Inthissectionwestartbypresentingtheselectedpapers.Beforedelvingintothendings,the“what”,
wemustrstexaminethe“how”:howdidtheselectedstudiesdrawtheirconclusions?Usingwhich
approach? Here we provide some insights into the representativeness of the studies’ samples, as
well as information about research methods that can be important to bear in mind when reading and
interpreting the results (e.g. limitations of certain research methods).
4.1.1 Selection of relevant papers
Weapplyasystematicselectionbasedonafewkeywordsandcriteria,asdetailedinAppendixB.Inour
nalselection,weretain14papersthatcanbeclusteredintotwogroups,aspresentedinTable 3.
ThetypeofstudyandresearchmethodsarealsobrieypresentedinTable 3. Note that in the systematic
literature review (section 4.2 to 4.7) we use a few other references for illustration purposes or to provide
adenition.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 27
 Table3 Results from the systematic literature search conducted in May 2018 on Mobility-as-a-Service and its potential
impacts on travel preferences and behaviour.
Groupof
studies
Year Authors Typeofstudyandresearch
methods
Country/regionwherethe
study is conducted
Research
papers on
MaaS pilots/
linked to
MaaS pilots
2016 Strömberg,Rexfelt,
Karlsson and Sochor
Comparative analysis of two
cases studies (one is UbiGo) in
light of Rogers’ diffusion of
innovations theory.
Gothenburg (Sweden)
2015 Sochor, Strömberg and
Karlsson
EvaluationsofMaaSpilots
(qualitative and quantitative:
surveys, interviews and travel
diaries for a few days (UbiGo)).
2016 Karlsson, Sochor and
Strömberg
2016 Sochor, Karlsson and
Strömberg
2018 Strömberg, Karlsson and
Sochor
2015 Smile mobility* Vienna (Austria)
2017 Karlsson, Sochor,
Aapaoja,Eckhardt,
König*
In-depth evaluations of UbiGo
and Smile
-
Interviews and
surveys
2018 Smith, Sochor and
Karlsson
Development of MaaS
scenarios through interviews
with professionals.
West Sweden
2017 Ho, Hensher, Mulley and
Wong
Survey research: Stated
PreferenceexperimentonMaaS
monthly bundles.
Sydney (Australia)
2017 Ratilainen* Helsinki (Finland)
2018 Matyas and
Kamargianni
London (UK)
2017 Alonso-Gonzáles, Van
Oort, Cats and
Hoogendoorn
Survey research: Stated
Preferenceexperimenton
mode choice.
Amsterdam (The
Netherlands)
2017 Haahtela and Viitamo Evaluationofthepotentialof
MaaS through a survey and
focus groups.
Finland
2018 Kamargianni, Matyas, Li
and Muscat*
Surveyresearch:Evaluationof
the potential of MaaS through
attitudinal research.
London (UK)
*Thesestudiesareneitherjournalarticlesnorconferencepapers;seeexplanationinAppendixB.
4.1.2 Research methods
Overview of methods. Pilot and survey research are often used to make quantitative statements about
the impacts of MaaS on travel preferences and travel behaviour. Survey research was either used as a
complement, as in the case of evaluating UbiGo, or as a main method for gathering information about
MaaS, and was occasionally preceded by a more quantitative approach, such as Haahtela and Viitamo
(2017) using focus groups to assist in the survey’s design. When used as a main method for acquiring
information about MaaS, attitude research and stated preference (SP) research are often used. G. Smith
et al. (2018) took a different approach than the rest of the selected studies: they conducted interviews
with private stakeholders, in which PT and MaaS were discussed. They then performed a structured
analysisoftheinterviewtranscriptsandidentiedthreescenariosforthefuturedevelopmentsofMaaS.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 28
Pilots.Evaluationsofpilotstypicallyusedvariousmethods,aspresentedinTable 3. Additionally, these
pilots differed in multiple aspects, as shown in Table 4. Both pilots primarily targeted young or middle-
aged urban dwellers. Moreover, the participants agreed to sign up for such trials and seemingly genuinely
enjoyed the possibility of trying a new service (Sochor et al., 2016). The participants were not particularly
deterred by prices, especially in the case of UbiGo, which worked with monthly bundles (see section
4.6 for bundles’ prices). Karlsson et al. (2017) found that UbiGo was particularly more attractive for
households of more than one person situated in the city centre of Gothenburg, where car sharing and
PT provision are good. Based on data from Sochor et al. (2015) and Karlsson et al. (2016), at least 90%
of UbiGo households seemingly earned more than the gross medium income in Gothenburg. All told,
the pilots’ results may not apply to the entire population of these respective cities and countries,
generally.Thereishoweverabenettohavingsuchaselectgroupofparticipants:itcreatesobservability.
According to Strömberg et al. (2016), selective pilot recruitment increases the chances of success, and,
consequently, creates observability (a wide audience can see that it works) – showing that a sustainable
modal shift is possible.
 Table4 Overview of Smile and UbiGo pilots (Karlsson et al., 2017; Smile mobility, 2015; Strömberg et al., 2018).
Smile UbiGo
Type of MaaS pilot* Level 2 Level 3
Pilot duration 6 months (from November 2014) 6 months (from November 2013)
Amount of pilot
participants
Over 1,000 195 people in 83 households
Amount of survey
respondents
Around 170 (end-pilot survey) 164 before-pilot, 161 during-pilot, 160
end-pilot, 109 6-month follow-up
Characteristics of the
sample of participants
Matched the gender and age distribution for
early adopters.
The average Smile user is male, aged
between 20 and 40 and has a high level of
education and high income.
Overrepresentation of city centre
inhabitants, retired people greatly
underrepresented.
* See section 2.2.
Attitudinal research. An attitude is a group of opinions, values and dispositions to act associated with
a particular concept. Attitudes can be measured by showing respondents statements pertaining to a
particularconceptandaskingthemtoevaluatetheextenttowhichtheyagreewiththestatement.
AccordingtoSwait(1994),attitudesindirectlyinuencepreferences,hencetherelevanceofattitudes
forexaminingpreferenceswithinMaaS.Kamargiannietal.(2018)usedattitudinalstatementstogain
deeper insights into intrinsic motivations for using or not using MaaS.
Stated preferences studies. Stated Preference (SP) techniques are frequently used to gather information
about products and services that are not yet available (Louviere et al., 2000). In discrete choice SP,
respondentsareaskedtochoosebetweendifferenthypotheticalalternativesdenedbyasetof
attributes (e.g. travel time and price) that usually have two to three levels (e.g. €10, €25, €40 for
thepriceattribute).Theresearchercontrolstheexperimentprocess.InHoetal.(2017),Matyasand
Kamargianni (2018), and Ratilainen (2017), respondents chose their favourite mobility bundle from a
given selection, with the aim being to understand which types of bundles might appeal to potential users
inSydney,LondonandHelsinki,respectively.Notethatthersttwostudiesusedso-calledcontext-aware
experiments,inwhichresearchersstrivetomakethechoicesituationstherespondentsfaceasrealistic
aspossiblebyusingdataabouttherespondents’actualtravelbehaviour.Althoughrequiringextraeffort
intermsofdatacollection,itisagrowingtrendinSPexperiments(Cherchi&Hensher,2015);seeMatyas
andKamargianni(2017)foranexplanationoncontext-awareexperiments.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 29
In Alonso-González et al. (2017), respondents were asked to choose between different modes that may
coexistinanurbanMaaSscheme,soastoestablishthemodalconsiderationset(alsocalled“modal
portfolio”) for residents of Amsterdam.
Shortcomings of SP and attitudinal research.ThemostcommonshortcomingofSPexperimentsisthat
theyrevolvearoundhypotheticalchoicesituations;achoicemadeinsuchanexperimentwouldnot
necessarily translate into the same choice in real life, owing to a wide variety of decision factors and
circumstancesthatcannotbeincludedintheexperiment.Moreover,evenwhenrespondentschoose
a certain bundle with modes they have not used before, will they actually use them? Matyas and
Kamargianni (2018) found that 64% of their respondents answered positively to the statement, “I would
be willing to try transport modes I previously didn’t use if my MaaS plan included them”. Although
this looks encouraging for modes like bike sharing, car sharing and DRT, it could still be that while
respondentsexpressexcitementattheideaofMaaS,theymightbemorehesitantinrealitytochange
their travel habits and adopt modes they previously did not use. Further, the potential for hypothetical
biasinSPexperimentsalwaysexists:itcouldbethatrespondentsmisunderstandthehypothetical
productorserviceexplainedtothem.Attitudinalresearchalsodoesnotperfectlyreectfuture
behaviour; it is common to see people failing to practice what they preach (J. R. Smith & Louis, 2007) and
multiple studies in the past have reported low or inconsistent correspondence between attitudinal and
behavioural entities (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977).
Representativeness of samples.Eachofthesurveystudiesincludesamplesthataremoreorless
representative for each metropolitan area, which can be useful to bear in mind when interpreting the
results. Details of the representativeness of each sample are shown in Table 5; overall, there is a good
degree of representativeness. All studies targeted people aged 18 or above.
 Table5 RepresentativenessofsamplesinsurveystudiesonMaaS(excludingevaluationsofpilots).
Study* City(and
metropolitan
area)
Sample
size
Representativeness?
Matyas and
Kamargianni (2018)
London 1,068 Representative of the population in terms of age and gender,
over-representation of full-time employed and retired
people.
Kamargianni et al.
(2018)
London 1,570 Representative of the population in terms of gender, age,
residential zone and driving license possession. Over-
representation of Caucasian British.
Ho et al. (2017) Sydney 252 Well representative for the worker population but under-
representative of retirees and housekeepers.
Alonso-González et al.
(2017)
Amsterdam 797 Slightly under-representative of the elderly and low-
educated people (compared with the Dutch population),
representative otherwise.
Ratilainen (2017) Helsinki 252 Over-representation of females, older age categories and
people with low-income.
* Haahtela and Viitamo (2017) is not included here because the paper mainly focused on focus groups and the
complementarity between focus groups and survey.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 30
4.2 A change in the private car ownership paradigm?
4.2.1 Private car use and MaaS in practice
A recurring discussion in the selected studies is private car use reduction. Pilots reveal that MaaS can
engender a decrease in private car use. In Vienna, 21% of participants in the Smile pilot reduced the
use of their private cars (Smile mobility, 2015). In Sweden, 44% of UbiGo participants also decreased
their use of private cars during the trial (Karlsson et al., 2017). Participants became less positive towards
private car use and more positive towards use of alternative modes (Sochor et al., 2015). Strömberg et
al.(2018)showedthattheextenttowhichtheydidso,andthetypeofmodalshiftoccurringgenerally,
dependedontheirpre-pilottravelbehaviour,sociodemographiccharacteristics,andexpectationsfrom
thepilot.Theresearchersdenedfourclusters:
Car shedders (13%), i.e. people who wanted to relinquish ownership of their cars because they were
expensiveandinconvenient,andwhowantedtoreducetheirenvironmentalimpact.95%ofthem
reduced their private car use.
Car accessors (30%), i.e. people who wanted to gain access to a car without owning one, hesitating to
purchase one for the same reason that car shedders wanted to relinquish theirs. 37% of them reduced
their private car use.
Simpliers(22%),i.e.peoplewhodesiredasmarterwayofhandlingtheiruseofmultiplemobility
services. Around 20% of them reduced their private car use.
Economisers(35%),i.e.peoplewhosawUbiGoasawayofsavingmoneyonPT.53%ofthemreported
using their private cars less during the trial.
Note that before the pilot, UbiGo participants were incentivised to relinquish (one of) their car(s) during
thetrial,receivinganancialcompensation.25%ofthehouseholdschosetoacceptthechallenge,of
which 88% were single-vehicle households, and none changed their minds during the 6-month trial
(Karlsson et al., 2016).
4.2.2 Owning versus using
In the same line, the dichotomy of owning versus using, in the sense of privately owned car versus
sharing a vehicle and/or space in a vehicle, is also a recurrent topic in the selected studies. In London,
67% of non-car owners believe there is no need to own cars, regardless of their age or area of the city
they live in (Kamargianni et al., 2018). Moreover, 36% of the non-car-owning participants stated they
would delay purchasing a car and 40% that they would not purchase a car at all if MaaS were available.
In UbiGo, 78% of the car accessors increased their use of car sharing and 30% increased their use of car
rentals (Strömberg et al., 2018). Regarding car owners in London, one in three stated that they would
like to have access to a car without owning one, and one in three agreed that MaaS would help them
depend less on their cars, while one-fourth of car owners stated that they would even be willing to sell
their cars for unlimited access to car sharing (Kamargianni et al., 2018). The researchers nevertheless
noted that half of the car owners were attached to their cars and did not like the idea of only having
access to a car without owning one; around half of the car-owning respondents in London disagreed with
the statement, “MaaS would help me depend less on my car”. Additionally, residing in the countryside
orsmalltownscouldmakeitratherdifculttorelinquishcarownership,especiallywhensuchachoice
of living and commuting (daily with a private car) aligns with one’s values (Haahtela & Viitamo, 2017).
In light of our previous discussion on car ownership in section 3.1,suchndingsarenotverysurprising:
carsarewidelyperceivedastheonlytransportmodethatgivespeoplesufcientautonomyandexibility
(Freudendal-Pedersen, 2009).
Note though that the dichotomy of owning versus using presents gradations, hybrid forms where using
andowningmaycoexist.TheintervieweesofG.Smithetal.(2018),privatestakeholders,allbelieve
that the diffusion of MaaS will allow for a decrease in car ownership, and more precisely that urban and
suburbanhouseholdswillrstabandontheirsecondcarsandthenprogressivelytheirrstcars.Intheir
analysisoftheextrapolatedpotentialofUbiGo,Karlssonetal.(2017)arguethatsuchaservicewouldbe
a particularly good option as a replacement for second cars, or for households considering investing in a
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 31
second car. The combination of shared mobility modes and public transport would therefore provide an
alternative for second cars. In this perspective, what role would public transport play in MaaS?
4.2.3 The role of public transport
According to Hensher (2017), the MaaS era could disrupt the current role and organisation of public
transport. Matyas and Kamargianni (2018) and Ho et al. (2017) state that PT should be the backbone of
MaaS – at least in metropolises such as London, Sydney and Vienna. Both studies found that respondents
have a preference for mobility bundles that include public transport, especially unlimited public
transport. In Vienna, 48% of Smile users used PT more often (Karlsson et al., 2017). Note though that not
all public transport users might switch to MaaS: mobility bundles were not attractive to frequent public
transport users in Sydney for economic reasons. Moreover, the focus group and survey participants
of Haahtela and Viitamo (2017) (cities as well as small towns) mentioned several improvements that
must be made to public transport before they would consider switching (more frequently) to buses
andtrains.Arstmajorimprovementwouldbehavingenoughplacestosit,whileothersuggestions
for improvement included being able to work during commutes, with quiet spaces, power sockets and
Internet connections. Pilots in urban regions found increases in public transport use among participants:
48% of respondents to Smile’s post-pilot survey stated that they used public transport more often,
while all groups in UbiGo used public transport more often, including up to 60% more often for the
Economisers.Intheirsurvey,Kamargiannietal.(2018)foundthat35%ofregularcarusersstatedthat
they would substitute car use for public transport if MaaS was available, although one can argue that the
MaaSproductmusthavesufcientaddedvalue–otherwise,theshifttoPTwouldhavealreadyoccurred.
If such a shift does take place, this could lead to crowding in PT vehicles and at stations (Kamargianni
et al., 2018). Alternatively, if MaaS with car sharing were available, 12% and 22% of regular public
transport users stated they would substitute part of their public transport trips with car sharing and
taxi12, respectively. Some of the transport professionals interviewed by G. Smith et al. (2018) believe that
PT users gaining easier access to car-based services could lead to the cannibalisation of public transport
modalshares.Theprotabilityofcar-basedservicesforproviderscomparedtopublictransportmight
also contribute to this phenomenon (G. Smith et al., 2018), thereby possibly limiting MaaS’s positive
impactontheenvironment(airquality,noise,etc.)orexacerbatingcurrentissuesrelatedtoprivatecar
use. In the study of Kamargianni et al. (2018), 14% of regular PT users stated that they would substitute
part of their PT use with bike sharing: some of the potential decrease in PT use with MaaS might result
from substitution with active modes, when distances allow.
4.3 Preconditions in MaaS: the need for autonomy, exibility
and reliability
4.3.1 The need for autonomy and exibility
InUbiGo,theparticipantsrevealedthattheyvaluetheirexibilityandautonomy,evenwhenusingtheir
private cars less frequently. The end-pilot evaluation revealed that they had overestimated their car
use (car rental and shared cars) by 30% on average, preparing “for a need that never materialised” (as one
participantphrasedit,seeKarlssonetal.(2016)),whichshowstheneedforexibilityandautonomy
inMaaS:peopleoftenwanttohaveanoption‘justincase’.Inthatsense,autonomyandexibilitycan
bedeemedaspreconditionsforadoptingMaaS.Flexibilitycouldalsoperhapsexplainthedifference
in willingness to pay (WTP) in a bundle between one-way car sharing (WTP = around $7.27 Australian
dollars) versus round-trip car sharing (WTP = 0), as observed by Ho et al. (2017). Moreover, Haahtela
andViitamo(2017)notedthatpeopleinfocusgroupsoftenmentionedtheirneedfortheexibilityand
12 Theresearchersalsoindicatethatrespondentsareinfavourofusingtaxiasasharedoption(i.e.DRT),butnoquantitative
information is available on this topic.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 32
autonomy of a private car for trip chaining13, whether it be for work (meetings in diverse locations) or
private purposes (picking up children at school, grocery shopping after work, etc.).
Surveyandpilotparticipantsalsoexpressedtheneedforexibilityintheirremarksandpreferences
pertaining to the design of MaaS. Matyas and Kamargianni (2018) found a preference for car sharing
intermsofhoursratherthandays,offeringmoreexibilityandacheaperbundle.Smileparticipants
appreciated the fact that the app took into account their privately owned transport modes in the trip
planning,allowingforfurtherexibility(Smilemobility,2015).Sochoretal.(2016)notethatUbiGo
participants desired a pay-per-use system based on money rather than credits (hours of car sharing
anddaysofpublictransport),offeringthemmoreexibility.Thedesignoftheservicecantherefore
potentiallyenableorhinderexibility.
4.3.2 New meanings of reliability
As previously discussed in section 3.4.5, reliability is a prerequisite for passengers, yet shared mobility
modesintroducenewmeaningsofreliability.MaaSstudiesthatexplicitlyincludedofferswithshared
mobilitymodesshowthatdiscussionsaboutreliabilityareindeedtopicalinthecontextofMaaS.
Ho et al. (2017) found that people prefer not having to book shared cars in advance, meaning they are
willing to pay more for last-minute availability. With every 15-minute increase in advance booking, the
researchers estimated that the willingness to pay would decrease by around $1.00 Australian dollar.
Ratilainen (2017) found that what matters more to people when using DRT is the pick-up speed promise
– being certain about the pick-up time, the assurance that one will be picked up on time – rather than
the duration between booking and availability. Further, as part of the service in MaaS, participants in the
Haahtela and Viitamo (2017) focus groups highlighted another form of reliability: namely, they want to
be provided with adequate and accurate routing when PT delays occur.
4.4 Aspects adding value in MaaS
4.4.1 Choice freedom
UbiGo participants enjoyed having access to the wide palette of transportation services offered on a
single platform (Sochor et al., 2016), and valued the high degree of choice freedom, notably the varied
careettheyhadaccessto.Choicefreedomisthereforenotonlyaboutarangeofdifferentmodes(e.g.
bus or electric bike), but also of vehicles (e.g. shared electric city car or shared family car). According to
Spickermannetal.(2014),havingaexiblyapplicable“virtualeet”thatcombinesvariousvehiclesand
modes will be key for the groups in which private cars will be less important in future. Choice freedom
canalsolowerentrybarrierstoservices,makingexperimentationeasierandcontributingtothecreation
of new mental models (Strömberg, 2015). UbiGo participants also stressed that car sharing sites must be
situatednearbyiftheyaretousecarsharing(Sochoretal.,2015).TheanalysisofUbiGo’sextrapolated
potential by Karlsson et al. (2017) found that such a service would mainly attract households in areas
where PT was readily available both in terms of routes and frequency, and with car sharing vehicles
parkedlessthan300metersaway(approximately).Thismeansthatevenifpeoplearewillingtoshift
fromowningamodetoaccessingit,thesystemmustallowforit.Althoughurbantravellersexpect
to enjoy increasing freedom of choice in how they make trips, demand for high-level autonomy and
(temporalandspatial)exibilityremains.
13 By trip chaining, we refer to a sequence of trip segments beginning at the ‘home’ activity and continuing until the traveller
returns ‘home’ (Primerano et al., 2008), for instance home > work > restaurant > home.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 33
4.4.2 Convenience and value of an advanced level of integration
UbiGo users gained a new understanding of what convenience means to them thanks to the service’s
all-inclusiveness (Sochor et al., 2016), and this perception of all-inclusiveness was reinforced by the trust
the participants had that any problem would be promptly dealth with (Sochor et al., 2015). In Vienna,
55% of Smile users stated they more frequently combined different transportation modes, mainly cars
and public transport (26%) and bike and public transport (26%) (Karlsson et al., 2017; Smile mobility,
2015). This increase in mode combination can be attributed to the Smile app’s high level of integration,
whereby multiple modes could be booked together within a single trip. 48% of respondents stated that
their travel behaviour had changed since using the app, including using faster routes, combining different
modes, and subscribing to new mobility offers (Smile mobility, 2015). The focus groups of Haahtela and
Viitamo(2017)alsoexpressedhighdemandforintegration,aswellasparallelservices,suchastaking
childrentoschool.Tosumup,itislikelythatMaaSusersgainmultiplebenetsfromhighlevelsof
mobility integration.
4.4.3 Tailored offer
Literature on smartphone apps and travel behaviour shows that to have a chance at instigating changes
in travel behaviour, it is crucial for the service to be tailored to the user (see section 3.3.2). This is
conrmedinMaaS.AccordingtoSochoretal.(2016),thefactthatsubscriptionpackagesinUbiGowere
personalisedtottheneedsofeachhouseholdplayedafundamentalroleinchangingtravelbehaviour.
UbiGoparticipantsdeclaredthathavingabundlemadethemreectontheircurrenttravelhabits.64%of
the participants stated that they had increased their use of alternative modes, especially car sharing and
bus/tram,while97%saidtheyweresatisedwithsuchchanges(Karlssonetal.,2016).
Ho et al. (2017) noted that when respondents were offered the choice of creating mobility package
themselves, they often replicated their current travel patterns, something which the researchers had
already been partly capable of doing thanks to a detailed questionnaire completed prior to the SP
survey.Similarly,MatyasandKamargianni(2018)foundthatfrequenttaxiuserstendedtoprefermore
taxiintheirplans,PTTravelcardownerspreferredplanswithPTTravelcards,and(privateorshared)
bicycle users plans that included bike sharing. Kamargianni et al. (2015) use the term “collaborative
customisation” to describe the process of dialogue between customers and providers, with the former
capable of articulating their needs so that the latter can use that information to create customised
services or products. While many sectors refrain from engaging in this type of customisation, as it results
in too many different products to produce, Kamargianni et al. (2015) argue that this is not an issue in
MaaS given the non-physical nature of the service. According to the researchers, three elements are
neededtodesignapackagethattsaperson’sneeds:individualmobilitypatterns,socioeconomicstatus,
and attitudes and perceptions. However, they also note that since people are only capable of answering
limited numbers of questions before becoming irritated or confused, the information collecting process
and service must be smartly designed. Last but not least, such a tailor-made offer requires the user to
accept sharing data about their preferences. The question of data privacy is therefore crucial.
Note that the customised or tailor-made offer discussed in this section is part of, but not equal to,
the “customisation to the user” feature detailed in section 3.3.2. Indeed, the latter also refers to the
customisationoftheapplicationinterface,forexample,asdiscussedinsection4.5.2 below.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 34
4.5 The user-side design of MaaS
4.5.1 The design of mobility bundles
Why so much focus on mobility bundles in MaaS literature? Matyas and Kamargianni (2018) argue
that MaaS could be used as a tool for altering the way people perceive travel alternatives, rather than
physically altering the alternatives, and thereby potentially promoting shared mobility modes and PT,
for instance. Indeed, literature on transport passes and season tickets (i.e. PT mobility packages) shows
thatmobilitypackagingsignicantlyincreasesthepatronageofthemodesincludedinthepackage
(Axhausenetal.,2000)andreducestheuseofmodesnotincludedinthepackage(Simma&Axhausen,
2001). Bundling is frequently utilised to increase consumer acceptance and contribute to the diffusion
of underutilised products or services, particularly when such products are bundled with more familiar
products (Reinders et al., 2010; Sarin et al., 2003). Matyas and Kamargianni (2018) found that even
though a bundle might include modes that individuals do not prefer, this does not mean that they would
not purchase it. In 22% of their choice tasks, the MaaS product – i.e. a bundle of modes, discounts and
extrafeatures(e.g.luxurycabsonly,oatingcarsharing)–offeredsuchsufcientaddedvaluethat
respondents said they would actually consider purchasing it. The researchers noted that many individuals
who did not previously use car and bike sharing said they would now be willing to purchase bundles
containing them, and therefore perhaps be willing try these modes.
4.5.2 The design of the service
One reason why UbiGo allowed for changes in travel behaviour was the fact that the service was easy
enough to use (Karlsson et al., 2016), which accords with the importance of simplicity in ICT systems
that aim to change travel behaviour (see section 3.3.2). When Kamargianni et al. (2018) asked people
about potentially committing to a MaaS service, they discovered that the service must be carefully
designed in order to attract people and lock them in. More than a half of their respondents said they
would worry about running out of their subscribed amounts (of trips, kilometres, duration) in MaaS,
while nearly half of the respondents also stated that subscribing to MaaS would make them feel
trapped. When considering the answers per age group, Kamargianni et al. (2018) found that 52% of the
respondents aged 40 and above felt uneasy about the multiple characteristics of subscription services
and were nervous about committing to a MaaS subscription. This shows that in addition to the type of
service provided in MaaS, the design of the service’s basic elements is essential, particularly for reaching
certain age groups. Further, as previously mentioned, the design of the service can potentially enable
orhinderexibility.Insummary,theservice’ssimplicityinitsbroadersenseiskey;itmustbeeasyto
navigateandunderstand,cancel,transferunusedcreditstothenextmonth,changeplans,andsoforth.
Another reason why UbiGo allowed for changes in travel behaviour was its trialability14 aspect
(Strömbergetal.,2016).AccordingtoLaakso(2017),experimentsareconsideredas“safespaces”for
people to trial behaviour without strict commitments, and this could potentially ease people into the
travel behaviour change process, thereby creating observability for local policy and the public (Strömberg
et al., 2016).
4.6 Costs and willingness to pay
4.6.1 Willingness to pay and added value
Price is a preoccupation of travellers generally and hence a key aspect of MaaS. In UbiGo, households
chose bundles costing on average €200, with the cheapest option €135 (Karlsson et al., 2016).
MaaScouldfreeindividualsfrommode-speciccosts(anannualPTsubscription,carcosts)that
potentiallylockthemintospecicmodes.However,theformsofMaaSofferingthemostexibilitymay
notbeeconomicallyfeasibleforeveryone.TheanalysisofUbiGo’sextrapolatedpotentialbyKarlssonet
14 Trialability,the“degreetowhichaninnovationcanbeexperimentedwithonalimitedbasis”,isinfactalsooneofthemain
qualities of an innovation that allows it to spread (Rogers, 2003).
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 35
al. (2017) underlines the fact that such a service only attracts those users for whom it is an economically
feasiblealternative,orwhobelievetheserviceofferssufcientaddedvalue.Wearguethatperhapsboth
of these conditions must be met in order to allow for lasting changes. Sochor et al. (2016) argue that
thepilot’skeyserviceattributes(easeofuse,choicefreedomandthesubsequentexibility,tailor-made
offer, convenience) add value15comparedtopeople’sprevioustravelsolutions,whichcouldexplain
the willingness to pay (Rogers, 2003). And developing an all-inclusive service – “the service of the service
(Karlssonetal.,2016)–didindeedpayoff,asafterusingUbiGoforsixmonthstheuserswerefoundto
have more sustainable travel preferences and behaviour.
4.6.2 Subscription price sensitivity and incomplete comparison with car costs
Allsurveystudiesinvolvingbundlechoicesfoundthatpotentialusersweresignicantlypricesensitive
(Ho et al., 2017; Matyas & Kamargianni, 2018; Ratilainen, 2017), which accords with the discussion in
section 3.4.1onxedandrunningcostsinsubscriptionsystemsversusprivatecars.Althoughthereare
signicantxedcostsrelatedtoowningacar,thevariablecostsofdrivingadditionalkilometresare
relativelylow,hencecarownersoftenndusingtheirowncarscheaper.Runningcostshowevermay
bemoreapparentincitieswhere,becauseoftollsandparkingcosts,owningcarsisexpensive,likein
Londonforinstance(TheEconomist,2013).Indeed,56%ofthecar-owningrespondentsinKamargianni
etal.(2018)acknowledgedthattheircarsareamajorhouseholdexpense.Studiesindicatethatpeople
would be willing to switch to shared cars if prices and service levels are right for their needs (Haahtela &
Viitamo, 2017; Kamargianni et al., 2018).
4.7 The importance of travellers’ characteristics
4.7.1 Current travel behaviour
Current travel behaviour and attitudes towards MaaS and travelling generally may be key components
for understanding if and how MaaS might change people’s travel preferences and behaviour.
This is shown by the segmentations done by Strömberg et al. (2018) (see section 4.2.1). The various
segmentations applied in other studies also show that current travel behaviour must be carefully
considered;forexample,theanswerstotheattitudinalstatementsofKamargiannietal.(2018)reveal
the differences between car owners and non-car owners, who consequently might need to be introduced
to MaaS differently. Ho et al. (2017) found that very frequent car users (four days per week or more) who
took few or no public transport trips were among the least likely to adopt a MaaS bundle, and thus to
change their travel behaviour.
4.7.2 Travelling and ICT skills, social inclusion
As previously mentioned in section 3.1.1, travellers are in general behaviourally inert. Survey studies
suggest that travellers indeed often prefer the status quo (Ho et al., 2017; Ratilainen, 2017). Moreover,
ride-sourcing and urban DRT studies reveal that the more multimodal an individual is, the more likely
they are to adopt these modes. However, travelling skills16 not only play a role in shared mobility modes
adoption, but seemingly also in MaaS adoption generally, as shown by Alonso-González et al. (2017).
ThissuggeststhatalackofexperiencewiththevariousmodescouldbeanobstacletousingMaaS.Inthis
respect, the trialability aspect could play a major role as noted by Strömberg et al. (2016). It is also worth
noting that Alonso-González et al. (2017) consider MaaS-prone behaviour as the behaviour of someone
engaging in mobility app usage on a weekly basis. On the user side, MaaS is to be primarily accessed via
apps, hence the crucial role of ICT skills. In that sense, age is likely to play a role in the adoption of MaaS.
Studies show that young adults17 are generally more likely to adopt MaaS than the older generations
15 Theaddedvalueortherelativebenetisanimportantattributefortherapiddiffusionofaninnovation,accordingto
Rogers (2003).
16 Denedhereasbeingfamiliarwithusingmultiplemodes,andinparticularnon-privatelyownedmodessuchaspublic
transport.
17 The upper age limit of “young adult” varies per study, from 34 to 39 years old.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 36
(Alonso-González et al., 2017; Kamargianni et al., 2018), which brings us back to discussions about the
digital divide, access to MaaS generally, and inclusion, as noted in section 3.4.5. Karlsson et al. (2017)
emphasisethat“voiceshavebeenraisedregardingtheimpactofMaaSonsocialinclusion/exclusion”,as
concernsexistthatMaaSmightnotbeeconomicallyfeasibleforeveryoneandnotaccessibleeverywhere,
due to potential commercial interests.
4.7.3 Sociodemographic and socioeconomic status, cultural aspects
Other characteristics are likely to play roles in the adoption of MaaS. Alonso-González et al. (2017) show
that highly educated people are more likely to adopt MaaS. Ho et al. (2017) found via their survey that
age and number of children in the household may impact MaaS subscription, which was also a main
ndingoftheHaahtelaandViitamo(2017)focusgroups.Householdswithatleasttwoyoungchildren
were less interested in MaaS, as was also suggested in interviews with UbiGo users (Karlsson et al.,
2017).Thesendings,aswellasthendingthatyoungadultsaremorelikelytoadoptMaaSgenerally,
areconrmedbyarecentstudyonthefutureimplementationofMaaSthatusedastructuredexpert
opinion collection technique (Jittrapirom et al., 2018).
In addition, Haahtela and Viitamo (2017) found that cultural aspects will also likely play a role in adopting
MaaS,particularlywithregardinghowservice-orientedagivencultureis.Theexamplestheresearchers
gaveforexplainingwhataservice-orientedcultureisincluded:usingcarsharingorride-sourcing
services, ordering groceries at home, using the Internet to search for travel information, book and pay
for trips. Moreover, they noted that Finland has a less developed service-oriented culture than Austria or
Switzerland(wherepartoftheirresearchwasalsoconducted),whichtheypositedasexplanationforwhy
the Finnish commuters they surveyed were perhaps not yet fully ready to engage in MaaS.
4.8 Conclusion
MaaS pilot studies provide useful insights into travel behaviour, as they work with actual changes
in behaviour rather than hypothetical ones. Yet in order to be able to draw conclusions on travel
preferences and travel behaviour with MaaS for a larger share of the population, it is necessary to
examinetheliteratureonMaaSoutsideoftheseprojects.Themixofstudiesselectedinthisliterature
review provides a balanced overview of the current state of research on MaaS and travel behaviour.
Studies show that generally MaaS could provide enough added value to allow certain groups of travellers
to consider adopting this service. Young to middle-aged people residing in urban areas are likely to be the
rstgrouptoswitchfromthemoretraditionalmobilityparadigmtoMaaS.Nevertheless,wenotethat:
1 Thereremainshighdemandforautonomy,exibilityandreliability,prerequisitesforadoptingMaaS.
2 Itmustbeeconomicallyfeasibleforpeople/households,andpricesmustbejustiedbysufcient
addedvalue,especiallyiftheyarehigherthanaperson’scurrentmobilityexpenses.Suchaddedvalue
could be provided via attractive service designs and high levels of integration. Moreover, pilots have
demonstrated that high levels of integration may allow for shifts from private car use to alternative
modes.
3 Currentliteratureonlyprovidesverylimitedquantiedindicationsaboutwhotheseearlyadopters
are,andnoquanticationabouttheextenttowhichsuchshiftsintravelbehaviourcouldoccur.
Moreover, age and place of residence, and other socioeconomic, sociodemographic, cultural characte-
ristics and skills, are likely to play roles in adopting MaaS and subsequently potentially changing travel
behaviour.
Generally,theextenttowhichMaaSwillbeadoptedandinstigatechangesintravelbehaviourinthe
widerpopulationalsoremainsuncertainandrequiresmoreattention,notablytoquantifytheextentof
such changes. The positive contribution of MaaS towards achieving sustainability goals is consequently
still unclear. Table 6 summarises the aspects that are likely to play roles in adopting MaaS and changing
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 37
travel behaviour among travellers, and shows the types of studies that highlight the importance of
each aspect.
 Table6 List of aspects playing a role in the adoption of MaaS and potential changes in travel behaviour, according to the
literature.
Typeofaspect Aspect PR1SIR2
Trip-specicaspect Convenience of the trip with MaaS x x
Choice freedom within MaaS x x
Flexibility x x
Autonomy x
Reliability of shared mobility modes x
Service-specicaspect Ease-of-use x x
Customisability of the service (tailored to one’s needs) x x
Trialability x
High level of integration, including product bundling x x
Costs aspect Costs, willingness to pay x x
Travellers’ characteristics Sociodemographic, socioeconomic and cultural characteristics x x
Past and current travel behaviour, travelling skills x x
CategoriesaredenedaspresentedinTable2.1:Pilotsresearch,2:Surveyandinterviewresearch.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 38
5 Conclusion and agenda
for further research
5.1 Conclusion
In times when many see in MaaS a tool for instigating more sustainable travel behaviour patterns
amongthepopulation,itisrelevanttoestablishwhatwecurrentlyknow,basedonscienticliterature,
about MaaS’s potential impacts on travel preferences and travel behaviour. Two pathways are used to
reachthisgoal:anexplorativeliteraturereviewbasedonrelevantresearchontravelpreferencesand
behaviour conducted outside of MaaS, and a systematic literature review focused exclusively on MaaS, travel
preferences and travel behaviour.
Generally, the reviewed studies show that MaaS has the potential to reach certain travellers, to support
decreases in private car use and to instigate different travel patterns among these travellers. However,
the impact magnitude and direction of these changes remain relatively uncertain and require more
quantitative results, whether on the individual level (travel behaviour, travel preferences) or societal level
(e.g.socialandenvironmentalsustainability).Theexactsizeofthegroupoftravellersthatwillinitially
be impacted also remains unclear, as is the timeline for wider adoption among the population. Indeed, it
is unlikely that a drastic shift from the private car ownership paradigm to the MaaS paradigm will occur
within a few years.
Current literature can however inform us about the preconditions for adopting MaaS and for subsequent
changes in travel behaviour patterns, while also providing qualitative indications of potential users
and impacts.
5.1.1 Preconditions for adoption of MaaS and subsequent changes in travel behaviour
Studies consistently agree that it is particularly challenging to change travel behaviour when no trigger
existsfordoingso,especiallyforhabitualtrips.Thisindicatesthatasarststep,MaaSmayhavemore
potential for incidental trips. However, to allow such for trips to occur, individuals must actually start
usingMaaS.BesidetheobviouspreconditionofthephysicalexistenceandavailabilityofMaaS,the
adoption of MaaS, conditioning a subsequent potential change in travel behaviour, is likely to require
a combination of multiple aspects. First, it is important that MaaS adds enough value for travellers.
MaaS pilots show that choice freedom, tailor-made offers and increases in travel convenience – notably
through high levels of integration – can positively impact MaaS adoption. The need for such “tailor-
made all-inclusiveness” is especially valid if the asking price is higher than what travellers are used
to. This leads to the second point about costs: to provide travellers with a viable, lasting alternative,
adopting the service must be economically feasible. In that sense, customising the type of offer to the
user will likely play a key role. Adopting the service must also be perceived as economically feasible;
forexample,thepricestructureofMaaScouldbeanobstacle,especiallyforcarowners.Consequently,
the latter might need to be introduced to MaaS in a different manner than non-car-owners. Third, it is
crucialthatMaaSdoesnotrequiretravellerstocompromise(toomuch)ontheirautonomy,exibility
and reliability demands. Being able to combine modes during a trip is deemed a key strength of MaaS.
Sharedmobilitymodesinparticularcanprovideexibilityandchoicefreedominaccess-basedsystems
suchasMaaS,yettheirniteandexiblenatureraisesquestionsaboutreliability.Fourth,a particularly
important point is a smart design of the MaaS user interface, rendering it accessible for everyone.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 39
5.1.2 Preconditions for MaaS’s potential to challenge travel behaviour patterns
A smart design of the user interface is one feature of behavioural change support systems. In order
to have a chance to instigate new travel behaviour patterns, it is likely that the MaaS user interface
(e.g. a smartphone application) needs to include all of these features, i.e. customisation to the user,
information and feedback, commitment, and an appealing and simple design. However, these features
maynotbesufcientconditionsforinuencingtravelbehaviour.Thevalue-addingaspectsofMaaS–
moreconvenience,choicefreedom,etc.–canalsopotentiallyinuencetravelbehaviour.Inessence,
such aspects arise from a high degree of mobility integration. MaaS’s levels of integration are currently
denedas(1)informationintegration,(2)ticketingandpaymentintegration,(3)serviceintegration,and
(4) integration of societal goals. Research reveals that a comprehensive approach combining multiple
levels of integration is more likely to encourage passengers to use the integrated modes than solely
alowerlevelofintegration.Further,mobilitypackagescouldbeusedtoinuencetravelbehaviour
patterns. Generally, MaaS studies regard mobility packages as having the potential to alter the way
people perceive travel alternatives rather than physically altering alternatives, thereby potentially
promoting the use more sustainable modes, and notably shared mobility modes. The latter have proven
tobeeffectivefordecreasingcaruseand,toalesserextent,carownership.Effectsoncongestion,PTuse,
cyclingandwalkingvaryacrossmodesorlackquantiedanalysis.
5.1.3 Potential MaaS users
Generally,youngtomiddle-agedpeopleresidinginurbanareasarelikelytobetherstgrouptoswitch
to MaaS from a more traditional mobility paradigm. Current literature only provides very limited
quantiedindicationsaboutwhothesetravellersare,andnoquanticationaboutthe extenttowhich
suchshiftsintravelbehaviourcouldoccur.TheextenttowhichMaaSwillbeadoptedandinstigate
changes in travel behaviour among the wider population remains uncertain. Skills, values (like a low
sense of ownership), age and place of residence, and other socioeconomic, sociodemographic and
cultural characteristics are likely to play roles in the adoption of MaaS and potential subsequent changes
in travel behaviour.
5.1.4 Impacts of MaaS
This study named a few impacts that MaaS could have. In particular, we note that the question of
who MaaS will reach raises questions that only a few studies have addressed: namely, MaaS’s impact
on (perceived) access to transport and social inclusion. Shared mobility modes could provide a good
startingpointforexaminingthesequestions.Inadditiontoimpactsonsocialsustainability,MaaS
could impact a wide range of dimensions through the changes in travel behaviour it could trigger,
including environmental sustainability (e.g. air pollution, noise pollution) and the transport system
generally (e.g. capacity optimisation, passenger demand). However, at such a preliminary stage in this
newtypeofparadigm,onlyroughqualitativeindicationsaboutthetypesofimpactsexist,andthe
extentanddirectionofsuchimpactsremainuncertain.Perhapsoneofthemostillustrativeexamples
of this uncertainty is MaaS’s impact on sustainability via car use: while MaaS’s access-based paradigm
may compel decreases in private car use, it may also provide access to motorised vehicles to people
who previously did not have such access. In order to make conclusive statements about such effects,
more research about MaaS adoption and travel behaviour within MaaS is required, especially on the
quantitative side.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 40
5.2 MaaS research agenda
Bothliteraturereviewsidentiedanumberofpointsforfutureresearch.Althoughtherearecurrently
few MaaS-related studies available, the subject is topical, as shown by the fact that the vast majority of
relevant studies were published in 2016, 2017 or 2018.
MaaS adoption and travel behaviour change. A wide range of impacts must be researched generally, including
of MaaS’s impact on health, sustainability, the transport system, land use, etc. Many people quickly
expressexcitementaboutsuchpotentialimpacts,butwhatweneedrstismoreresearchaboutthe
adoption of MaaS and decisions within MaaS, especially on the quantitative side. Only then can the
impacts be derived in terms of measurable goals (e.g. Vehicle Kilometres Travelled). Quantitative
researchcouldoccurinarststageinurbanareas,wheremultiplemobilityservicesarealreadyavailable,
but research on MaaS is also relevant for non-urban areas. Ultimately, it is crucial for MaaS research to
also focus on groups of people who are not necessarily thought of as “early adopters”, as this will allow
for the study of impacts on access and social inclusion. Moreover, research on MaaS packages, incentives
(rewards when users display certain behaviour), the need for privacy and how to transition from
ownership models to access-based models could also provide valuable insights. By privacy, we mean
both the willingness to share data to the MaaS operator for enhanced personalisation and the willingness
to share a ride. Perhaps one of the most delicate points is the willingness to pay and costs generally,
whichwilldemandspecialattentionandmoreresearchonwhatexactlyaddsvaluewithinMaaSfroma
user’s perspective. At the core, how can mobility be a service for travellers? What would truly add value
to travel generally? Do people recognise the added value of MaaS, and if not (how) can that be changed?
Further, we note that current studies about MaaS adoption and travel behaviour usually approach
respondents in a very individualised manner, yet mobility choices, like car ownership, are likely decisions
taken on the household level. Studies focusing on households as the unit of research would be desirable.
Additionally,itcouldberelevanttoexploreotherusersegmentationsthanthetraditionalcarusers(orcar
owners)/PT users, in order to better understand MaaS adoption and choices within MaaS. Segmentations
basedonsociologicalanalysisorlifestylescouldbeapplied,forexample.
MaaS pilots. MultipleMaaSpilotsandinitiativesexist,yetfewndingsareavailabletothepublic,partly
due to commercial interests. In order to build a solid base of evidence, more MaaS pilots must be
undertaken, with a systematic impact assessment available to the general public. A tentative effort to
buildarstimpactassessmentframeworkisfoundinKarlssonetal.(2017).Suchpilotscouldhave
a geographical basis (e.g. pilots in certain regions), but also on a certain situational basis, such as for
exampleexamininghowMaaScouldsubstituteasecondcarinhouseholdsthatarehesitatingtoshed
their second cars.
Shared mobility modes and public transport. Therearegreatexpectationsforsharedmobilitymodesas
providersoftherequisiteexibilityforallowingpeopletoswitchfromanownership-basedsystemto
an access-based system. However, doubts persist about the reliability of such modes (e.g. availability,
transfers), their impact (congestion, modal split) and their synergy. More research on these topics is
desired,bearinginmindthatanunequaldegreeofknowledgeaboutthesemodesexists:forinstance,we
do not yet know much about urban DRT. Arguably, the integration of shared mobility modes and private
modes, and public transport and shared mobility modes, is relevant in MaaS, yet research of these topics
is still lacking. As for PT, it is often called the backbone of MaaS, but it too seemingly requires further
study, using quantitative evidence, to determine if/when such a backbone is (always) the best option.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 41
Literature
Aapaoja,A.,Eckhardt,J.,&Nykänen,L.(2017).Business models for MaaS. Paper presented at the 1st
International Conference on Mobility as a Service (ICoMaaS), Tampere, Finland.
Aarts, H., Verplanken, B., & van Knippenberg, A. (1998). Predicting Behavior From Actions in the Past:
Repeated Decision-Making or a Matter of Habit? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), 1355-1374.
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01681.x
Abrate, G., Piacenza, M., & Vannoni, D. (2009). The impact of Integrated Tariff Systems on public
transportdemand:EvidencefromItaly.Regional Science and Urban Economics, 39(2), 120-127.
doi:10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2008.05.014
Acquier,A.,Daudigeos,T.,&Pinkse,J.(2017).Promisesandparadoxesofthesharingeconomy:
An organizing framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 1-10. doi:10.1016/j.
techfore.2017.07.006
AECOM.(2011).StudyonPublicTransportSmartcards-FinalReport.EuropeanCommissionDirectorate-
General for Mobility and Transport.
Agatz,N.,Erera,A.,Savelsbergh,M.,&Wang,X.(2012).Optimizationfordynamicride-sharing:Areview.
European Journal of Operational Research, 223(2), 295-303. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2012.05.028
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2),
179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-Behaviour Relations: A Theoretical Analysis and Review of
EmpiricalResearch.Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888-918.
Akyelken, N., Banister, D., & Givoni, M. (2018). The Sustainability of Shared Mobility in London: The
Dilemma for Governance. Sustainability, 10(2). doi:10.3390/su10020420
Aldaihani, M. M., Quadrifoglio, L., Dessouky, M. M., & Hall, R. (2004). Network design for a grid
hybrid transit service. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 38(7), 511-530. doi:10.1016/j.
tra.2004.05.001
Alemi, F., Circella, G., Handy, S., & Mokhtarian, P. (2017). What Inuences Travelers to Use Uber? Exploring the
Factors Affecting the Adoption o On-Demand Ride Services. Paper presented at the 96th Annual Meeting of
the Transportation Research Board (TRB), Washington D.C., United States.
Alemi, F., Circella, G., Mokhtarian, P., & Handy, S. (2018). On-demand Ride Services in California: Investigating
the Factors Affecting the Frequency of use of Uber/Lyft. Paper presented at the 97th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board (TRB), Washington D.C., United States.
Alemi, F., Circella, G., & Sperling, D. (2018). Adoption of Uber and Lyft, Factors Limiting and/or Encouraging Their
Use and Impacts on Other Travel Modes among Millennials and Gen Xers in California. Paper presented at the
97th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (TRB), Washington D.C., United States.
Alonso-González, M., Van Oort, N., Cats, O., & Hoogendoorn, S. (2017). Urban Demand Responsive Transport
in the Mobility as a Service ecosystem: its role and potential market share. Paper presented at the International
Conference Series on Competition and Ownership in Land Passenger Transport (Thredbo 15),
Stockholm, Sweden.
Anable, J., & Gatersleben, B. (2005). All work and no play? The role of instrumental and affective factors
in work and leisure journeys by different travel modes. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,
39(2), 163-181. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2004.09.008
Andersson,A.,WinslottHiselius,L.,&Adell,E.(2018).Promotingsustainabletravelbehaviourthrough
the use of smartphone applications: A review and development of a conceptual model. Travel Behaviour
and Society, 11, 52-61. doi:10.1016/j.tbs.2017.12.008
APTA. (2016). Shared Mobility and the Transformation of Public Transit, American Public
Transportation Association.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 42
Arbib, J., & Seba, T. (2017). Rethinking Transportation 2020-2030: The Disruption of Transportation and
the Collapse of the Internal-Combustion Vehicle and Oil Industries. RethinkX.
ARK Invest. (2017). China’s Booming Autonomous Car Opportunity Retrieved from https://ark-invest.
com/research/chinese-mobility-as-a-service. Accessed on July 19th, 2018
Axhausen,K.W.,Simma,A.,&Golob,T.(2000).Pre-commitment and usage. Season tickets, car and travel. Paper
presented at the RSA World Congress, Lugano, Switzerland.
Bachand-Marleau,J.,Larsen,J.,&Ed-Geneidy,M.(2011).Much-AnticipatedMarriageofCyclingand
Transit: How Will It Work? Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2247.
doi:10.3141/2247-13
Bamberg, S., Ajzen, I., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Choice of travel mode in the theory of planned behavior: The
roles of past behavior, habit, and reasoned action. Basic and applied social psychology, 25(3), 175-187.
doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2503_01
Bamberg, S., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Incentives, morality, or habit? Predicting students’ car use for
university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis. Environment and behavior, 35(2), 264-
285. doi:10.1177/0013916502250134
Banister, D. (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy, 15(2), 73-80. doi:10.1016/j.
tranpol.2007.10.005
Baptista,P.,Melo,S.,&Rolim,C.(2014).Energy,EnvironmentalandMobilityImpactsofCar-sharing
Systems.EmpiricalResultsfromLisbon,Portugal.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 111, 28-37.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.035
Bardhi,F.,&Eckhardt,G.(2012).Access-BasedConsumption:TheCaseofCarSharing.Journal of Consumer
Research, 39. doi:10.1086/666376
Becker,H.,Ciari,F.,&Axhausen,K.W.(2017).Comparingcar-sharingschemesinSwitzerland:User
groups and usage patterns. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 97, 17-29. doi:10.1016/j.
tra.2017.01.004
Benkler,Y.(2004).SharingNicely:OnShareableGoodsandtheEmergenceofSharingasaModalityof
EconomicProduction.The Yale Law Journal, 114(2), 273-358.
Berveling, J., Olde Kalter, M.-J., & Harms, L. (2017). Baby on board. How life events impact mobility. Paper
presentedattheEuropeanTransportConference(ETC),Barcelona.
Blythe,P.,&Holm,C.(2002).ADEPTIII:PilotingCombi-cardsforPublicTransportTicketinginFinland.
Trafc Engineering and Control, 43(1), 16-20.
Bovy,P.H.L.,&Stern,E.(1990).Route choice. Waynding in transport networks: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Brakewood, C., Macfarlane, G. S., & Watkins, K. (2015). The impact of real-time information on bus
ridership in New York City. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 53, 59-75. doi:10.1016/j.
trc.2015.01.021
Buehler, R. (2011). Determinants of transport mode choice: a comparison of Germany and the USA.
Journal of Transport Geography, 19(4), 644-657. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.07.005
Bullock, C., Brereton, F., & Bailey, S. (2017). The economic contribution of public bike-share to the
sustainabilityandefcientfunctioningofcities.Sustainable Cities and Society, 28, 76-87. doi:10.1016/j.
scs.2016.08.024
Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Online Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved from https://dictionary.cambridge.
org/. Accessed on June 11th 2018.
Campbell, K. B., & Brakewood, C. (2017). Sharing riders: How bikesharing impacts bus ridership in New
York City. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 100, 264-282. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2017.04.017
Candel,J.(2017).HolyGrailorinatedexpactations?Thesuccessandfailureofintegratedpolicy
strategies. Policy Studies, 38(6), 519-552. doi:10.1080/01442872.2017.1337090
Cervero, R. (1997). Paratransit in America: Redening mass transportation: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Cherchi,E.,&Hensher,D.A.(2015).Stated preference surveys and experimental design: an audit of the journey
so far and future research perspectives Paper presented at the Travel Survey Methods Conference, Leura,
Australia.
Chorus, C., & Dellaert, B. (2012). Travel Choice Inertia: The Joint Role of Risk Aversion and Learning.
Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (JTEP), 139-155.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 43
Chorus,C.,Molin,E.J.E.,&VanWee,B.(2006).UseandEffectsofAdvancedTraveller
Information Services (ATIS): A Review of the Literature. Transport Reviews, 26(2), 127-149.
doi:10.1080/01441640500333677
Chowdhury, S. (2014). An investigation of public transport users’ willingness to select routes with
transfers PhD thesis, The University of Auckland.
Chowdhury, S., & Ceder, A. (2016). Users’ willingness to ride and integrated public-transport service:
Aliteraturereview.Transport Policy, 48, 183-195. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.03.007
Chowdhury, S., Hadas, Y., Gonzalez, V. A., & Schot, B. (2018). Public transport users’ and policy makers’
perceptions of integrated public transport systems. Transport Policy, 61, 75-83. doi:10.1016/j.
tranpol.2017.10.001
Circella, G., Alemi, F., Tiedeman, K., Handy, S., & Mokhtarian, P. (2018). The Adoption of Shared Mobility
in California and Its Relationship with Other Components of Travel Behaviour. Report for the National
Center for Sustainable Transportation Research.
Clewlow, R. (2016a). Carsharing and sustainable travel behavior: Results from the San Francisco Bay Area.
Transport Policy, 51, 158-164. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.01.013
Clewlow, R. (2016b). Shared-use mobility in the United States: Current adoption and potential impacts on travel
behaviour. Paper presented at the 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (TRB),
Washington D.C., United States.
Clewlow, R., & Mishra, G. S. (2017a). Disruptive Transportation: The Adoption, Utilization and Impacts of Ride-
Hailing in the United States. Retrieved from
Clewlow, R., & Mishra, G. S. (2017b). Shared Mobility: Current Adoption, Use and Potential Impacts on Travel
Behaviour. Paper presented at the 96th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (TRB),
Washington D.C., United States.
DaimlerAG.(n.d.).ByappfromAtoB.moovelsimpliesurbanmobility.Retrievedfrom
https://www.daimler.com/products/services/mobility-services/moovel/.
Davison,L.,Enoch,M.,Ryley,T.,Quddus,M.,&Wang,C.(2012).Identifyingpotentialmarketniches
for Demand Responsive Transport. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 3, 50-61.
doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2012.04.007
de Jong, W., Vogels, J., van Wijk, K., & Cazemier, O. (2011). The key factors for providing successful public
transport in low-density areas in The Netherlands. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 2,
65-73. doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2011.07.002
DeVos,J.,&Witlox,F.(2017).Travelsatisfactionrevisited.Onthepivotalroleoftravelsatisfactionin
conceptualising a travel behaviour process. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 106, 364-
373. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2017.10.009
DeMaio, P. (2009). Bike-sharing: History, Impacts, Models of Provision, and Future. Journal of Public
Transportation, 12(4), 41-56. doi:10.5038/2375-0901.12.4.3
Doi, K., & Kii, M. (2012). Looking at sustainable urban mobility through a cross-assessment model within
the framework of land-use and transport integration. IATSS Research, 35(2), 62-70. doi:10.1016/j.
iatssr.2012.02.004
Enoch,M.,Potter,S.,Parkhurst,G.,&Smith,M.(2004).INTERMODE:InnovationsinDemand-Responsive
Transport. Report for the Department for Transport and Greate Manchester Passenger Transport
Executive.London:DepartmentforTransport.
Fishman,E.(2016).Bikeshare:AReviewofRecentLiterature.Transport Reviews, 36(1), 92-113. doi:10.108
0/01441647.2015.1033036
Fishman,E.,Washington,S.,&Haworth,N.(2013).BikeShare:ASynthesisoftheLiterature.Transport
Reviews: A Transnational Transdisciplinary Journal. doi:10.1080/01441647.2013.775612
Fishman,E.,Washington,S.,&Haworth,N.(2014).Bikeshare’simpactoncaruse:Evidencefromthe
United States, Great Britain, and Australia. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 31,
13-20. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2014.05.013
Frei,C.,Hyland,M.,&Mahmassani,H.S.(2017).Flexingserviceschedules:Assessingthepotential
for demand-adaptive hybrid transit via a stated preference approach. Transportation Research Part C:
Emerging Technologies, 76, 71-89. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2016.12.017
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 44
Frenken, K., & Schor, J. (2017). Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environmental Innovation and
Societal Transitions, 23, 3-10. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2017.01.003
Freudendal-Pedersen, M. (2009). Mobility in Daily Life, Between Freedom and Unfreedom: Ashgate Publishing.
Fricker, C., & Gast, N. (2016). Incentives and redistribution in homogeneous bike-sharing systems with
stationsofnitecapacity.EURO Journal on Transportation and Logistics, 5(3), 261-291. doi:10.1007/
s13676-014-0053-5
Gardner,B.(2009).Modellingmotivationandhabitinstabletravelmodecontexts.Transportation Research
Part F: Trafc Psychology and Behaviour, 12(1), 68-76. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2008.08.001
Gärling,T.,&Axhausen,K.W.(2003).Introduction: habitual travel choice. Transportation, 30(1), 1-11.
doi:10.1023/a:1021230223001
Gärling,T.,Fujii,S.,&Boe,O.(2001).Empiricaltestsofamodelofdeterminantsofscript-baseddriving
choice. Transportation Research Part F: Trafc Psychology and Behaviour, 4(2), 89-102. doi:10.1016/S1369-
8478(01)00016-X
Geerlings, H., & Stead, D. (2003). The integration of land use planning, transport and environment in
Europeanpolicyandresearch.Transport Policy, 10(3),187-196.doi:10.1016/S0967-070X(03)00020-9
George, C. (2001). Sustainability appraisal for sustainable development: integrating everything
from jobs to climate change. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 19(2), 95-106.
doi:10.3152/147154601781767104
Giesecke, R., Surakka, T., & Hakonen, M. (2016). Conceptualising Mobility as a Service. A user centric view on
key issues of mobility services.PaperpresentedattheEleventhInternationalConferenceonEcological
VehiclesandRenewableEnergies(EVER).
Goodall, W., Dovey Fishman, T., Bornstein, J., & Bonthron, B. (2017). The rise of Mobility as a Service.
Deloitte Review.
Gössling, S. (2017). ICT and transport behaviour: A conceptual review. International journal of sustainable
transportation, 12(3), 153-164. doi:10.1080/15568318.2017.1338318
Gunay,B.,Akgol,K.,Andreasson,I.,&Terzi,S.(2016).EstimationofModalShiftPotentialforaNewForm
of Dial-A-Ride Service. Journal of Public Transportation, 19(2), 75-88. doi:10.5038/2375-0901.19.2.5
Haahtela,T.,&Viitamo,E.(2017).Searching for the potential of MaaS in commuting - comparison of survey and
focus group methods and results. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Mobility-as-a-
Service, Tampere, Finland.
Hensher, D. A. (2017). Future bus transport contracts under a mobility as a service (MaaS) regime in
the digital age: Are they likely to change? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 98, 86-96.
doi:10.1016/j.tra.2017.02.006
Hensher, D. A. (2018). Tackling road congestion – What might it look like in the future under a
collaborative and connected mobility model? Transport Policy. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.02.007
Hietanen, S. (2014). ‘Mobility as a Service’ - the new transport model? ITS & Transport Management
Supplement. Eurotransport., 12(2), 2-4.
Ho, C., Hensher, D. A., Mulley, C., & Wong, Y. (2017). Prospects for switching out of conventional transport
services to mobility as a service subcription plans - A stated choice study. Paper presented at the International
Conference Series on Competition and Ownership in Land Passenger Transport (Thredbo 15).
Stockholm, Sweden.
Hull, A. (2005). Integrated transport planning in the UK: From concept to reality. Journal of Transport
Geography, 13, 318-328. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2004.12.002
Jain, S., Ronald, N., Thompson, R., & Winter, S. (2017). Predicting susceptibility to use demand responsive
transport using demographic and trip characteristics of the population. Travel Behaviour and Society, 6,
44-56. doi:10.1016/j.tbs.2016.06.001
Jin, S. T., Kong, H., Wu, R., & Sui, D. Z. (2018). Ridesourcing, the sharing economy, and the future of cities.
Cities, 76, 96-104. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2018.01.012
Jittrapirom,P.,Caiati,V.,Feneri,A.-M.,Ebrahimigharehbaghi,S.,Alonso-González,M.,&Narayan,J.
(2017).MobilityasaService:ACriticalReviewofDentions,AssessementsofSchemesandKey
Challenges. Urban Planning, 2(2), 13-25. doi:10.17645/up.v2i2.931
Jittrapirom, P., Marchau, V., van der Heijden, R., & Meurs, H. (2018). Future implementation of Mobility as
a Service (MaaS): Results of an international Delphi study. Working Paper of the SCRIPT project. Available at
Radboud Repository.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 45
Jokinen,J.-P.,Sihvola,T.,&Mladenovic,M.N.(2017).Policylessonsfromtheexibletransportservice
pilot Kutsuplus in the Helsinki Capital Region. Transport Policy. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.12.004
Kamargianni, M., Li, W., Matyas, M., & Schäfer, A. (2016). A Critical Review of New Mobility Services for
Urban Transport. Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 3294-3303. doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.277
Kamargianni, M., Matyas, M., & Li, W. (2018). Londoners’ attitudes towards car-ownership and Mobility-
as-a-Service:Impactassessmentandopportunitiesthatlieahead.MaaSLab-UCLEnergyInstitute
Report, Prepared for Transport for London.
Kamargianni, M., Matyas, M., Li, W., & Schäfer, A. (2015). Feasibility Study for “Mobility as a Service”
concept in London. MaaSLab-UCLEnergyInstituteReport.
Kang, J., Hwang, K., & Park, S. (2016). FindingFactorsthatInuenceCarsharingUsageinSeoul.
Sustainability, 8. doi:10.3390/su8080709
Karlsson,I.C.M.,Sochor,J.,Aapaoja,A.,Eckhardt,J.,&König,D.(2017).Deliverable4:Impact
Assessement MAASiFiE project funded by CEDR.
Karlsson, I. C. M., Sochor, J., & Strömberg, H. (2016). Developing the ‘Service’ in Mobility as a Service:
ExperiencesfromaFieldTrialofanInnovativeTravelBrokerage.Transportation Research Procedia, 14,
3265-3273. doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.273
Kattiyapornpong, U., & Miller, K. (2007). Differences within and between travel preference, planned travel and
choice behaviour of Australians travelling to Asians and overseas destinations. Paper presented at the Council
ofAustralasianUniversityandHospitalityEducation:Tourism:Pastachievements,futurechallenges,
Sydney University of Technology, Australia.
Kent, J. L. (2015). Still Feeling the Car – The Role of Comfort in Sustaining Private Car Use. Mobilities, 10(5),
726-747. doi:10.1080/17450101.2014.944400
Kenyon, S., & Lyons, G. (2003). The value of integrated multimodal traveller information and its potential
contribution to modal change. Transportation Research Part F: Trafc Psychology and Behaviour, 6(1), 1-21.
doi:10.1016/S1369-8478(02)00035-9
KiM. (2015). Carsharing in the Netherlands: Trends, user characteristics and mobility effects [Netherlands
Institute for Transport Policy Analysis].
KiM. (2017). Trends in perception of mobility (in Dutch) [Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy
Anlaysis].
Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in
SoftwareEngineering.EBSETechnicalReport.
König,D.,Eckhardt,J.,Aapaoja,A.,Sochor,J.,&Karlsson,I.C.M.(2016).Deliverable3:Businessand
operator models for MaaS. MAASiFiE project funded by CEDR.
König,D.,Piri,E.,Karlsson,I.C.M.,Sochor,J.,&Heino,I.(2017).Deliverable 5: Technology for MaaS.
MAASiFiEprojectfundedbyCEDR.
Kroesen, M., Handy, S., & Chorus, C. (2017). Do attitudes cause behavior or vice versa? An alternative
conceptualization of the attitude-behavior relationship in travel behavior modeling. Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 101, 190-202. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2017.05.013
L.E.K.(n.d.).DevelopmentofMobility-as-a-Service(MaaS)PilotsforNewZealandTransportAgency.
Retrieved from https://www.lek.com/insights/development-mobility-service-maas-pilots-new-
zealand-transport-agency-0. Accessed on July 19th, 2018
Laakso,S.(2017).Givingupcars–Theimpactofamobilityexperimentoncarbonemissionsand
everyday routines. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, 135-142. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.035
Lamberton, C. P., & Rose, R. L. (2012). When is ours better than mine? A framework for understanding
and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 109-125.
doi:10.1509/jm.10.0368
Langlois,M.,Was,R.A.,Ross,N.A.,&El-Geneidy,A.M.(2016).Cantransit-orienteddevelopmentshelp
achieve the recommended weekly level of physical activity? Journal of Transport & Health, 3(2), 181-190.
doi:10.1016/j.jth.2016.02.006
Lanzendorf, M. (2003). Mobility biographies. A new perspective for understanding travel behaviour. Paper
presented at the 10th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Laws,R.(2009).Evaluatingpublicly-fundedDRTschemesinEnglandandWales.PhD Thesis,
Loughborough University.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 46
LeVine,S.,&Polak,J.(2017).Theimpactoffree-oatingcarsharingoncarownership:Early-stage
ndingsfromLondon.Transport Policy. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.02.004
Loose,W.(2010).TheStateofEuropeanCar-Sharing.Energy-efcientmobilitythroughcar-sharing,
fundedbytheprogrammeIntelligentEnergyEurope.
Louviere, J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. (2000). Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications: Cambridge
University Press.
Lund,E.(2016).FeasibilitystudyMaaS-AbusinesscaseforEC2B.
Lund, H. (2006). Reasons for Living in a Transit-Oriented Development, and Associated Transit Use.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(3), 357-366. doi:10.1080/01944360608976757
MaaS Alliance. (2017). MaaS Alliance partners with Uber to support shared mobility. Retrieved from
https://maas-alliance.eu/maas-alliance-partners-uber-support-shared-mobility/. Accessed on
February 12th, 2018
MaaSGlobal.(2016).MaaSGlobalexpandingtoAsiawithitsall-inmobilityappWhim.Retrievedfrom
http://maas.global/maas-global-expanding-to-asia-with-its-all-in-mobility-app-whim/. Accessed on
July 19th, 2018
MaaS Global. (2018). Whim Helsinki - Find your plan. Retrieved from https://whimapp.com/monthly-
plans/. Accessed on February 22nd, 2018.
Martens,K.(2007).Promotingbike-and-ride:TheDutchexperience.Transportation Research Part A: Policy
and Practice, 41(4), 326-338. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2006.09.010
Martin,E.W.,&Shaheen,S.A.(2011).GreenhouseGasEmissionImpactsofCarsharinginNorthAmerica.
IEEE transactions on intelligent transportation systems, 12(6), 2011. doi:10.1109/TITS.2011.2158539
Martin,E.W.,&Shaheen,S.A.(2014).Evaluatingpublictransitmodalshiftdynamicsinresponse
to bikesharing: a tale of two U.S. cities. Journal of Transport Geography, 41, 315-324. doi:10.1016/j.
jtrangeo.2014.06.026
Martin,E.W.,&Shaheen,S.A.(2016).ImpactsofCar2Goonvehicleownership,modalshift,vehiclemiles
traveledandgreenhousegasemissions:ananalysisofveNorthAmericanCities.Working paper of the
Transportation Sustainability Research Center at UC Berkeley.
Martin,E.W.,Shaheen,S.A.,&Lidicker,J.(2010).ImpactofCarsharingonHouseholdVehicle
Holdings. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2143, 150-158.
doi:10.3141/2143-19
Matas, A. (2004). Demand and Revenue Implications of an Integrated Public Transport Policy: The Case of
Madrid. Transport Reviews, 24(2), 195-217. doi:10.1080/0144164032000107223
Matsumoto,T.,&Hidaka,K.(2015).Evaluationtheeffectofmobileinformationservicesforpublic
transportation through the empirical research on commuter trains. Technology in Society, 43, 144-158.
doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2015.08.001
Matyas, M., & Kamargianni, M. (2017). Stated Preference Design for exploring Demand for “Mobility as a Service”
Plans. Paper presented at the 5th International Choice Modelling Conference, Cape Town, South Africa.
Matyas, M., & Kamargianni, M. (2018). The potential of Mobility as a Service bundles as a mobility
management tool. Transportation, Published online on August 6th 2018. doi:10.1007/s11116-018-9913-4
Moeller, S., & Wittkowski, K. (2010). The burdens of ownership: reasons for preferring renting. Managing
Service Quality: An International Journal, 20(2), 176-191. doi:10.1108/09604521011027598
Motta, G., Ferrara, A., Sacco, D., You, L., & Cugola, G. (2013). Integrated Mobility: A Research in Progress.
Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 6, 97-101. doi:10.4236/jsea.2013.63b021
MuConsult. (2017). White Paper Mobility as a Service in the Netherlands (in Dutch).
Mukhtar-Landgren,D.,Karlsson,I.C.M.,Koglin,T.,Kronsell,A.,Lund,E.,Sarasini,S.,...Wendle, B.
(2016). Institutional conditions for integrated mobility services (IMS): Towards a framework for
analysis. K2 Working Papers.
Mulley,C.,&Nelson,J.D.(2009).Flexibletransportservices:Anewmarketopportunityforpublic
transport. Research in Transportation Economics, 25(1), 39-45. doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2009.08.008
Muñoz,P.,&Cohen,B.(2017).Mappingoutthesharingeconomy:Acongurationalapproachto
sharing business modeling. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 21-37. doi:10.1016/j.
techfore.2017.03.035
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 47
Namazu,M.,MacKenzie,D.,Zerrif,H.,&Dowlatabadi,H.(2018).Iscarsharingforeveryone?
Understanding the diffusion of carsharing services. Transport Policy, 63, 189-199. doi:10.1016/j.
tranpol.2017.12.012
NEAandpartners.(2003).Integrationandregulatorystructuresinpublictransport.Studycommissioned
bytheEuropeanCommission,DGTREN.
Newman, P. W. G., & Kenworthy, J. R. (1996). The land use—transport connection: An overview. Land Use
Policy, 13(1), 1-22. doi:10.1016/0264-8377(95)00027-5
OECDITF.(2017).SharedMobilitySimulationsforHelsinki.Case-SpecicPolicyAnalysis.
Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2010). Behavior change support systems: A research model and agenda. Paper presented at
the 5th International Conference on Persuasive Technology, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Paundra,J.,Rook,L.,vanDalen,J.,&Ketter,W.(2017).Preferencesforcarsharingservices:Effectsof
instrumental attributes and psychological ownership. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 121-130.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.07.003
Pendyala, R., Parashar, A., & Muthyalagari, G. (2001). Measuring day-to day variability in travel characteristics
using GPS data. Paper presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board
(TRB), Washington D.C., United States.
Pick&Mix.(2017).Theconsortium-Pick&Mixproject.Retrievedfromhttp://www.pickandmixproject.
com/about/. Accessed on July 19th, 2018
Potter, S., & Skinner, M. (2000). On transport integration: a contribution to better understanding. Futures,
32,275-287.doi:10.1016/S0016-3287(99)00097-X.
Poushter, J. (2017). Smartphones are common in advanced economies, but digital divide remains.
Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/21/
smartphones-are-common-in-advanced-economies-but-digital-divides-remain/. Accessed on June
11th, 2018.
Preston, J. (2010). What’s so funny about peace, love and transport integration? Research in Transportation
Economics, 29(1), 329-338. doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2010.07.042
Preston, J. (2012). Integration for Seamless Transport. Discussion Paper at the International Transport
Forum (ITF).
Primerano,F.,Taylor,M.A.P.,Pitaksringkarn,L.,&Tisato,P.(2008).Deningandunderstandingtrip
chaining behaviour. Transportation, 35(1), 55-72. doi:10.1007/s11116-007-9134-8
Pronello, C., Duboz, A., & Rappazzo, V. (2017). Towards Smarter Urban Mobility: Willingness to Pay for an
Advanced Traveller Information System in Lyon. Sustainability, 9(10), 1690. doi:10.3390/su9101690
Rantasila, K. (2015, 23-25 Nov. 2015). The impact of Mobility as a Service concept to land use in Finnish context.
Paper presented at the International Conference on Sustainable Mobility Applications, Renewables
and Technology (SMART), Kuwait.
Ratilainen,H.(2017).ExploringConsumerPreferencesforMaaSSubscriptionPackagesusingaStated
ChoiceExperiment.Master Thesis, Delft University of Technology.
Rayle,L.,Dai,D.,Chan,N.,Cervero,R.,&Shaheen,S.A.(2016).Justabettertaxi?Asurvey-based
comparisonoftaxis,transit,andridesourcingservicesinSanFrancisco.Transport Policy, 45, 168-178.
doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.10.004
Redman, L., Friman, M., Gärling, T., & Hartig, T. (2013). Quality attributes of public transport that attract
car users: A research review. Transport Policy, 25, 119-127. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.11.005
Reinders, M., Frambach, R., & Schoormans, J. (2010). Using Product Bundling to Facilitate the
Adoption Process of Radical Innovations. Journal of Product innovation Management, 27(7), 1127-1140.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00775.x
Ricci, M. (2015). Bike sharing: A review of evidence on impacts and processes of implementation and
operation. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 15, 28-38. doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2015.03.003
Rogers,E.M.(2003).Diffusion of innovations (Fifth ed.): Simon and Schuster.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 48
Santi,P.,Resta,G.,Szell,M.,Sobolevsky,S.,Strogatz,S.H.,&Ratti,C.(2014).Quantifyingthebenets
of vehicle pooling with shareability networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(37),
13290-13249.
Sarasini, S., Sochor, J., & Arby, H. (2017). What characterises a sustainable MaaS business model? Paper
presented at the 1st International Conference on Mobility-as-a-Service, Tampere, Finland.
Sarin, S., Sego, T., & Chanvarasuth, N. (2003). Strategic use of bundling for reducing consumers’
perceived risk associated with the purchase of new high-tech products. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 11(3), 71-83. doi:10.1080/10696679.2003.11658502
Schade, W., Krail, M., & Kühn, A. (2014). New mobility concepts: myth or emerging reality? Paper presented at
the 5th Transport Research Arena (TRA), Paris, France.
Schäfer,M.,Jaeger-Erben,M.,&Bamberg,S.(2012).LifeEventsasWindowsofOpportunities
for Changing Towards Sustainable Consumption Patterns? Journal of Consumer Policy, 35, 65-84.
doi:10.1007/s10603-011-9181-6
Schaller,B.(2017).Unsustainable?TheGrowthofApp-BasedRideServicesandTrafc,Travelandthe
Future of New York City. Schaller Consulting Report.
Scott,D.M.,&Axhausen,K.W.(2006).HouseholdMobilityToolOwnership:ModelingInteractions
between Cars and Season Tickets. Transportation, 33(4), 311-328. doi:10.1007/s11116-005-0328-7
Selwyn, N. (2004). Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New media &
society, 6(3), 341-362.
Sener,I.N.,Eluru,N.,&Bhat,C.R.(2009).AnanalysisofbicycleroutechoicepreferencesinTexas,US.
Transportation, 36(5), 511-539. doi:10.1007/s11116-009-9201-4
Serenko,A.,&Bontis,N.(2011).What’sfamiliarisexcellent:Theimpactofexposureeffectonperceived
journal quality. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 219-223. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.005
SFCTA.(2017).TNCsToday:AProleofSanFranciscoTransportationNetworkCompanyActivity.
San Francisco County Transportation Authority. Retrieved from https://www.sfcta.org/tncstoday.
Accessed on June 4th, 2018.
Shaheen,S.A.,Chan,N.,Bansal,A.,&Cohen,A.P.(2015).SharedMobilityWhitePaper:Denitions,
IndustryDevelopmentsandEarlyUnderstanding.UCBerkeleyTransportationSustainabilityResearch
Center and Caltrans.
Shaheen, S. A., Cohen, A. P., & Chung, M. S. (2009). North American Carsharing. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2110, 35-44. doi:10.3141/2110-05
Shaheen, S. A., Mallery, M. A., & Kingsley, K. J. (2012). Personal vehicle sharing services in North America.
Research in Transportation Business & Management, 3, 71-81. doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2012.04.005
Shaheen,S.A.,Martin,E.W.,&Cohen,A.P.(2013).PublicBikesharingandModalShiftBehaviour:A
ComparativeStudyofEarlyBikesharingSystemsinNorthAmerica.International Journal of Transportation,
1(1), 35-54. doi:10.14257/ijt.2013.1.1.03
Simma,A.,&Axhausen,K.W.(2001).Structuresofcommitmentinmodeuse:acomparisonof
Switzerland, Germany and Great Britain. Transport Policy, 8(4), 279-288. doi:10.1016/S0967-
070X(01)00023-3
Sioui, L., Morency, C., & Trépanier, M. (2013). How Carsharing Affects the Travel Behavior of Households:
A Case Study of Montréal, Canada. International journal of sustainable transportation, 7(1), 52-69. doi:10.1
080/15568318.2012.660109
Skoglund, T., & Karlsson, I. C. M. (2012). Appreciated - but with a fading grace of novely! Traveller’s
assessment of, usage of and behavioural change given access to a co-modal travel planner. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 48, 932-940. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.1070
Smile mobility. (2015). Results of the smile pilot. Retrieved from smile-einfachmobil.at/pilotbetrieb_
en.html#dieergebnisse. Accessed on December 6th, 2017.
Smith, G., Sochor, J., & Karlsson, I. C. M. (2018). Mobility as a Service: Development scenarios and
implications for public transport. Research in Transportation Economics. doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2018.04.001
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 49
Smith, J. R., & Louis, W. (2007). Do As We Say and As We Do: The Interplay of Descriptive and Injunctive
Group Norms in the Attitude-Behaviour Relationship. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 647-666.
doi:10.1348/014466607X269748
Sochor, J., Arby, H., Karlsson, I. C. M., & Sarasini, S. (2017). A topological approach to Mobility as a Service:
A proposed tool for understanding requirements and effects, and for aiding the integration of social goals. Paper
presented at the 1st International Conference on Mobility-as-a-Service, Tampere, Finland.
Sochor,J.,Karlsson,I.C.M.,&Strömberg,H.(2016).TryingoutMobilityasaService:Experiencesfrom
aeldtrialandimplicationsforunderstandingdemand.Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2542. doi:10.3141/2542-07
Sochor, J., Strömberg, H., & Karlsson, I. C. M. (2015). Challenges in integrating user, commercial and
societal perspectives in an innovative mobility service. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2536.
Spaargaren, G. (1997). The ecological modernization of production and consumption: Essays in environmental
sociology: Spaargaren.
Spickermann, A., Grienitz, V., & von der Gracht, H. A. (2014). Heading towards a multimodal city of the
future?: Multi-stakeholder scenarios for urban mobility. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 89,
201-221. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.036
Steg, L. (2005). Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(2), 147-162. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2004.07.001
Stephany, A. (2015). The business of sharing: Making it in the new sharing economy: Springer.
Stiglic,M.,Agatz,N.,Savelsbergh,M.,&Gradisar,M.(2018).Enhancingurbanmobility:Integratingride-
sharing and public transit. Computers & Operations Research, 90, 12-21. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2017.08.016
Stopka,U.(2014).IdenticationofUserRequirementsforMobileApplicationstoSupportDoor-to-Door
Mobility in Public Transport. International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 513-524.
Strömberg, H. (2015). Creating space for action-Supporting behaviour change by making sustainable
transport opportunities available in the world and in the mind. PhD Thesis, Chalmers University
of Technology.
Strömberg, H., Karlsson, I. C. M., & Sochor, J. (2018). Inviting travelers to the smorgasbord of sustainable
urban transport: evidence from a MaaS eld trial. Paper presented at the 97th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board (TRB), Washington D.C., United States.
Strömberg,H.,Rexfelt,O.,Karlsson,I.C.M.,&Sochor,J.(2016).Trying on change – Trialability as a
change moderator for sustainable travel behaviour. Travel Behaviour and Society, 4, 60-68. doi:10.1016/j.
tbs.2016.01.002
Suiker,S.,&vandenElshout,J.(2013).Measurement of the effects of the introduction of the Car2Go concept in
Amsterdam (in Dutch).PaperpresentedattheDutchNationalTrafcConvention.
Sunio, V., & Schmöcker, J.-D. (2017). Can we promote Sustainable Travel Behavior Through Mobile Apps?
EvalutionandReviewofEvidence.International journal of sustainable transportation, 11(8), 553-566.
Swait, J. (1994). A structural equation model of latent segmentation and product choice for cross-
sectional revealed preference choice data. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 1(2), 77-89.
doi:10.1016/0969-6989(94)90002-7
Tachet, R., Sagarra, O., Santi, P., Resta, G., Szell, M., Strogatz, S. H., & Ratti, C. (2017). Scaling Law of
Urban Ride Sharing. Nature Scientic Reports, 7. doi:10.1038/srep42868
Tang, L., & Thakuriah, P. (2011). Will the psychological effects of real-time transit information systems
lead to ridership gain? Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2216.
doi:10.3141/2216-08
Tang, L., & Thakuriah, P. (2012). Ridership effects of real-time bus information system: A case study in
the City of Chicago. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 22, 146-161. doi:10.1016/j.
trc.2012.01.001
TCRP. (2004). Demand Responsive/ADA Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes (Transit
Cooperative Research Program) Synthesis Report 95, Federal Transit Administration, Washington D.C.
ter Berg, J., & Schothorst, Y. (2015). Car sharing in the near future (in Dutch). Veldkamp. Retrieved from
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 50
Tertoolen, G., van Kreveld, D., & Verstraten, B. (1998). Psychological resistance against attempts to
reduce private car use. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 32(3), 171-181. doi:10.1016/
S0965-8564(97)00006-2
TheEconomist.(2013).Dailychart:Thecostofdriving.Retrievedfromhttps://www.economist.com/
graphic-detail/2013/04/04/the-cost-of-driving. Accessed on May 29th, 2018
TheEconomist.(2016).Itstartswithasingleapp.The Economist. Accessed on June 22nd, 2018
Thøgersen, J. (2012). The importance of timing for breaking commuters’ car driving habits. In Alan Warde
&DaleSoutherton(Ed.),The Habits of Consumption (Vol. 12, pp. 130-140). Helsinki: Helsinki Collegium
for Advanced Studies.
Turrentine, T. S., & Kurani, K. S. (2007). Car buyers and fuel economy? Energy Policy, 35(2), 1213-1223.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.03.005
UbiGo. (2017). UbiGo and Fluidtime pave new ways of mobility in Sweden. Press release, Gothenburg,
October 17th, 2017.
Utriainen, R., & Pöllänen, M. (2017). Review on Mobility as a Service in scientic literature. Paper presented at
the 1st International Conference on Mobility as a Service (ICoMaaS), Tampere, Finland.
VanExel,N.J.A.,&Rietveld,P.(2009).Couldyoualsohavemadethistripbyanothermode?
An investigation of perceived travel possibilities of car and train travellers on the main travel corridors
to the city of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 43(4), 374-
385. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2008.11.004
Van Hagen, M., & Bron, P. (2013). Enhancing the experience of the train journey: chaning the focus from satisfaction
to the emotional experience of customers.Paperpresentedatthe41stEuropeanTransportConference
(ETC),Frankfurt,Germany.
Van Wee, B., & Banister, D. (2016). How to Write a Literature Review Paper? Transport Reviews, 36(2), 278-
288. doi:10.1080/01441647.2015.1065456
Vedagiri, P., & Arasan, V. T. (2009). Modelling modal shift due to the enhanced level of bus service.
Transport, 24(2), 121-128.
Verplanken, B., Aarts, H., & van Knippenberg, A. (1997). Habit, information acquisition, and the process
of making travel mode choices. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 539-560. doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1099-0992(199709/10)27:53.0
Verplanken,B.,&Roy,D.(2016).Empoweringinterventionstopromotesustainablelifestyles:Testingthe
habitdiscontinuityhypothesisinaeldexperiment.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 127-134.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.008
Wang,C.,Quddus,M.,Enoch,M.,Ryley,T.,&Davison,L.(2014).MultilevelmodellingofDemand
Responsive Transport (DRT) trips in Greater Manchester based on area-wide socio-economic data.
Transportation, 41(3), 589-610. doi:10.1007/s11116-013-9506-1
Watkins,K.E.,Ferris,B.,Borning,A.,Rutherford,G.S.,&Layton,D.(2011).WhereIsMyBus?Impactof
mobile real-time information on the perceived and actual wait time of transit riders. Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45(8), 839-848. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2011.06.010
Weckström,C.,Mladenovic,M.N.,&Ullah,W.(2017).UserPerspectivesonEmergingMobilityServices:
ExPostAnalysisofKutsuplusPilot.PresentationatAaltoUniversity,SchoolofEngineering.
Wong, Y. (2017). Emerging transport technologies and the modal efciency framework: A case for Mobility-as-a-
Service (MaaS) Paper presented at the International Conference Series on Competition and Ownership
in Land Passenger Transport (Thredbo 15), Stockholm, Sweden.
Woods,R.,&Masthoff,J.(2017).Acomparisonofcardriving,publictransportandcyclingexperiences
inthreeEuropeancities.Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 103, 211-222. doi:10.1016/j.
tra.2017.06.002
Yang,X.-H.,Cheng,Z.,Chen,G.,Wang,L.,Ruan,Z.-Y.,&Zheng,Y.-J.(2018).The impact of a public
bicycle-sharing system on urban public transport networks. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 107, 246-256. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2017.10.017
Zografos,K.G.,Androutsopoulos,K.N.,&Apospori,E.(2012).UserAcceptanceandWillingnesstoPay
for the Use of Multimodal Trip Planning Systems. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 48, 2405-2414.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.1211
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 51
AppendixA
Based on a literature review of peer-reviewed studies on all aspects of MaaS, Jittrapirom et al. (2017)
proposed nine core characteristics of MaaS. These core characteristics are (in no particular hierarchical
order):
1 The integration of transport modes, in which multiple modes are combined in one single platform,
thereby allowing users to take trips using multiple modes. These modes can be both traditional
modes (public transport, private cars and bicycles) and shared mobility modes.
2 The tariff option, i.e. the fact that MaaS platforms offer a choice between pay-as-you-go and mobility
packages (containing certain amounts of kilometres-minutes-points that can be used for travelling in
exchangeforamonthlysubscriptionfee).
3 Asingleplatform,whereuserscanplan,book,payforandgetticketsfortheirtrips,aswellasnd
real-time information.
4 Multiple actors, from customers and providers to platform owners, data management companies,
and authorities amongst others, because MaaS is built on the interaction between such various
parties.
5 The use of technologies, because MaaS relies on smartphones, Internet networks, ICT and data
systems.
6 Demand orientation, as MaaS is a user-centric paradigm seeking to offer tailored solutions to users.
7 Registration requirement, which both facilitates use of the service and allows for customisation.
8 Personalisationthatensurestheneedsofusersaremetmoreefciently.Travelhistoryandexpressed
preferences serve to provide tailored recommendations.
9 Customisation, enabling users to modify the offered option based on their preferences.
These core characteristics can be translated into relevant research themes pertaining to travel
preferencesandtravelbehaviour.Howmighteachofthesecorecharacteristicsinuencetravelbehaviour
andtravelpreferences?Forexample,therstcorecharacteristicraisestwoquestionsabouttravel
preferences and behaviour. Given that the supply of shared mobility modes has grown in the past
decade,towhatextenthavetheyinuencedtravelpreferencesandbehaviour?Further,intermsoftravel
behaviour,whatarethendingsofexperimentsontransportintegration?TableA.1summarisesthese
topics, some of which are common to multiple core characteristics.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 52
 TableA.1 Core characteristics of MaaS and relevant themes pertaining to travel behaviour and preferences.
CorecharacteristicsofMaaS Relevantthemesfromtheangleoftravelpreferencesandtravelbehaviour
Integration of transport modes Shared mobility modes and travel behaviour/preferences
Mobility integration and travel behaviour/preferences
Tariff option Mobility integration and travel behaviour/preferences
One platform ICT (esp. mobile/tablet applications) and transport behaviour
Mobility integration and travel behaviour/preferences
Multiple actors Mobility integration and travel behaviour/preferences
User of technologies ICT (esp. mobile/tablet applications) and transport behaviour
Demand orientation ICT (esp. mobile/tablet applications) and transport behaviour
Registration requirement ICT (esp. mobile/tablet applications) and transport behaviour
Personalisation ICT (esp. mobile/tablet applications) and transport behaviour
Customisation ICT (esp. mobile/tablet applications) and transport behaviour
Insummary,threemainthemesofinterestemergedfortheexplorativeliteraturestudy:
Mobility integration, travel behaviour and preferences,
ICT and travel behaviour; here, we mainly focus on applications,
Shared mobility modes, travel behaviour and preferences.
Thesethemeswillbeexploredseparatelywithrelevantliterature;seesections3.2, 3.3 and 3.4.
From these nine core characteristics, the user orientation is quite clear. According to Jittrapirom et al.
(2017), a number of studies argue that the strategic goal of such intense user orientation is to achieve
more sustainable transport patterns by providing people with personalised alternatives to private cars
(Chowdhury & Ceder, 2016; Giesecke et al., 2016; König et al., 2016). Consequently, car ownership, and
the willingness to shift from the car ownership paradigm, are other relevant themes to address in this
explorativeliteraturereview;theyarediscussedinsection3.1,ontravelbehaviourandtravelhabits.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 53
AppendixB
The literature review in this section is based on a selection of studies following multiple criteria.
In June 2017, Utriainen and Pöllänen (2017) searched for “Mobility as a Service” in both the Scopus
andScienceDirectdatabases,compilingonlypeer-reviewedscienticarticlesandconferencearticles.
In Scopus, they found 37 papers containing the term either in their titles, abstracts or keywords.
Just under a year later that number had increased to 61. In ScienceDirect, the researchers found 33 peer-
reviewedscienticarticlesandconferencearticles,whiletodaythatnumberhasdoubledto66,with
more papers published in early 2018 than in any other previous year. Since our literature study focuses
on shifts in travel preferences and travel behaviour with MaaS, we searched the same databases three
times(peer-reviewedjournalarticlesandconferencepapers)withthefollowingkeywords(inallelds):
Query 1: “Mobility as a Service” and “travel behaviour” (or “travel behaviour”). This yielded 11 papers
in Scopus (four of which are conference papers), and 19 journal articles in ScienceDirect. Three papers
were found in both databases, hence 27 unique papers were found with this query.
Query 2: “Mobility as a Service” and “travel preference”. This yielded no papers in Scopus and
two journal articles in ScienceDirect, one of which having already appeared in the previous query.
This query therefore found one unique new paper.
Query 3: “Mobility as a Service” and “modal shift”. This yielded one journal article in Scopus that
had already appeared in Query 1, and 13 journal articles in ScienceDirect, of which four had already
appeared in previous queries. This query therefore found nine new papers.
Ofthese37papers,33arenotspecicallyfocusedonpotentialusersandshiftsintravelbehaviourwith
MaaS; these papers primarily deal with perspectives beyond the scope of this study, or MaaS and users
areonlymentionedincidentally,ortheyfocusondeningMaaSwhilereferringtothendingsofthe
four remaining relevant papers. Because four studies are not enough for a literature review, forward and
backward snowballing techniques are used and applied to the four selected papers. To broaden the scope
even more, forward snowballing was also applied to some of the 33 other relevant papers; in particular,
those dealing with perspectives within the scope of our research were used as starting points for forward
snowballing. The snowballing techniques are described in Van Wee and Banister (2016). Kitchenham
and Charters (2007) consider these techniques as useful additions to systematic database searches.
Forwardsnowballingyieldedveadditionalrelevantpapers,whilebackwardsnowballingyielded
four additional papers, of which three are overlapping. Note that, due to the limited amount of peer-
reviewed research found, we decided to include four non-peer-reviewed studies in the selection, using
theforwardsnowballingtechnique,ofwhichoneisanextensionofaselectedpeer-reviewedconference
paper.AsecondwasincludedbecauseitusesaStatedPreferenceexperiment,whichisparticularly
popular for studying the potential impacts of MaaS. A third is a study only available via a website, but is
included because it is one of the only sources for results of an Austrian MaaS pilot. And the fourth study
isaEuropeanreport,includedbecauseitprovidesin-depthevaluationsoftwoMaaSpilots,thereby
providingextrainformation,ascomparedtosourcesdirectlyrelatedtoeachpilot.Thenalselection
contains 14 studies and is detailed in Table B.1. The type of study (conference paper, journal article,
other) is indicated, as are the main techniques used for gaining insights into MaaS and potential users.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 54
 TableB.1 Results from the systematic literature search of Mobility as a Service and its potential impacts on travel preferences
and behaviour, conducted in May 2018. Listed in order of appearance in the systematic search.
Year Authors Typeofpaper Typeofstudyandresearch
method
Country/regionwhere
thestudyisconducted
Q11Q22Q33FS4BS5
2018 Smith, Sochor and Karlsson Journal article Development of MaaS
scenarios through interviews
West Sweden x x
2016 Karlsson, Sochor and
Strömberg
Journal article EvaluationofaMaaSpilot
(qualitative and quantitative).
Gothenburg (Sweden) x
2016 Strömberg,Rexfelt,Karlsson
and Sochor
Journal article Comparative analysis including
a MaaS pilot.
Gothenburg (Sweden) xxx
2015 Sochor, Strömberg and Karlsson Journal article EvaluationofaMaaSpilot
(qualitative and quantitative)
Gothenburg (Sweden) x
2017 Ho, Hensher, Mulley and Wong Conference
paper
StatedPreferenceexperiment
on MaaS monthly bundles.
Sydney (Australia) x x
2017 Alonso-Gonzáles, Van Oort,
Cats and Hoogendoorn
Conference
paper
StatedPreferenceexperiment
on mode choice.
Amsterdam (The
Netherlands)
x
2016 Sochor, Karlsson and Strömberg Journal article EvaluationofaMaaSpilot
(qualitative and quantitative)
Gothenburg (Sweden) x x
2018 Strömberg, Karlsson and
Sochor
Conference
paper
EvaluationofaMaaSpilot
(qualitative and quantitative)
Gothenburg (Sweden) x x
2018 Matyas and Kamargianni Journal
paper*
StatedPreferenceexperiment
on MaaS monthly bundles.
London (UK) x
2017 Haahtela and Viitamo Conference
paper
Evaluationofthepotentialof
MaaS through a survey and
focus groups (qualitative and
quantitative)
Finland x
2018 Kamargianni, Matyas, Li and
Muscat
Other: Report Survey (attitudinal research). London (UK) x
2017 Ratilainen Other: Master
Thesis
StatedPreferenceexperiment
on MaaS monthly bundles.
Helsinki (Finland) x
2015 Smile mobility Other: Report
(website page)
EvaluationofaMaaSpilot
(qualitative and quantitative).
Vienna (Austria) x
2017 Karlsson, Sochor, Aapaoja,
Eckhardt,König
Other: Report Impact assessment of MaaS,
focused on in-depth
evaluations of Smile and UbiGo.
-x x
1: Query 1
2: Query 2
3: Query 3
4: Forward Snowballing (studies with citations to at least one the four original papers)
5:BackwardSnowballing(studiescitedinatleastoneoftheveoriginalpapers).
* When this literature study was conducted, this journal paper had not appeared yet. A conference paper from
the 97th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board in Washington from the same authors and
with similar results was used.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 55
Colophon
This is a publication by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management
September 2018
KiM | Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis
ISBN/EAN
978-90-8902-195-3
KiM-18-A17
Authors
Anne Durand, Lucas Harms, Sascha Hoogendoorn-Lanser, Toon Zijlstra
Vormgeving en opmaak
VormVijf, The Hague
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis
P.O.Box20901
2500EXTheHague
Netherlands
Telephone: +31 (0)70 456 19 65
Website: http://english.kimnet.nl
E-mail:info@kimnet.nl
KiMpublicationscanbedownloadedaspdflesfromourwebsite:http://english.kimnet.nl.
You may also contact one of our staff members.
Parts of this publication may be reproduced on the condition that KiM is cited as the source.
KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis | Mobility as a Service: a literature review 56
This is a publication by the
Ministry of Infrastructure and
Water Management
P.O.Box20901 | 2500 EX The Hague
www.rijksoverheid.nl/ienm
http://english.kimnet.nl
ISBN: 978-90-8902-195-3
September 2018 | KiM-18-A17
The KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport
Policy Analysis conducts mobility analyses that
are subsequently incorporated in national
transportation policy. As an independent
institute within the Dutch Ministry of
Infrastructure and Water Management, KiM
provides strategic research and policy analysis.
The content of KiM publications is independent
anddoesnotneedtoreecttheviewsheldby
the minister and/or state secretary of the
Infrastructure and Water Management
ministry.
The KiM Netherlands Institute
for Transport Policy Analysis
... This section reviews related research on the adoption and usage of MaaS and its consequences for the environment. Much of recent research on MaaS has focused on potential target groups, their interest in MaaS (Alonso-González et al., 2020;Caiati et al., 2020;Durand et al., 2018;Fioreze et al., 2019;Zijlstra et al., 2019), and their preferred MaaS bundles Guidon et al., 2020;Ho et al., 2020Ho et al., , 2019Jang et al., 2020;Matyas and Kamargianni, 2018;Reck and Axhausen, 2020;Vij et al., 2020). These studies have used literature reviews, stated preference experiments, and models such as latent class models and latent variable models to analyze the data. ...
... Concerning the adopters of MaaS, Durand et al. (2018) systematically reviewed the literature and reported that the first groups to adopt MaaS are likely to be young to middle-aged people living in urban areas. Conversely, Fioreze et al. (2019) argued that it is not necessarily the demographic characteristics such as age that drive the interest in the adoption of MaaS, but the travel behavior. ...
Article
Full-text available
Mobility as a Service (MaaS), a user-centric framework for delivering a portfolio of multi-modal mobility services, promises to overcome negative externalities associated with the mobility sector by providing convenience to being multimodal and getting citizens away from using their private vehicles. The current work aims at providing pieces of evidence on the extent to which such a promise can be delivered. To this end, first, the adoption of MaaS and the use of various modes within MaaS bundles are examined using empirical data collected from portfolio and stated adaptation choice experiments. Next, an activity-based travel demand model (Albatross) is employed to simulate activity-travel patterns of travelers in the city of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The results are linked to an emission model and the impacts on emission levels are compared for various scenarios with different MaaS bundles. It is found that the conservative, balanced, and optimistic scenarios decrease emission levels by 3–4%, 14–19%, and 43–54%, respectively.
... Results from a PBS initiative in Beijing suggest that the placement of docks is critical for considering it a viable last-mile solution in connection with existing public transportation [30]. In an extensive literature review for KiM (Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis) from 2018, Durand et al. express the need for better insights on how free-floating e-scooter schemes impact travel behavior [23]. ...
... Examples include the municipality for infrastructure and local regulations, rental companies for responsibilities towards respecting local regulations, and riders themselves to ride with more respect for other road users. Multi-modal mobility requires all stakeholders to engage in its success [23,26,10,43]. Rental companies have committed in different ways to communicate good riding practices to their users through e.g. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Electric stand-up scooters (e-scooters) are introduced in several cities worldwide, providing new means for people to travel around the city. While praised for their flexibility, e-scooters are also met with negative sentiments due to fatal accidents and chaotic parking. In this paper, we seek to understand the mobility of shared e-scooters and point to gaps in the user interaction between the digital and physical world. We carried out three data collections, including interviews, in situ observation, analysis of news media coverage. Our findings illustrate integration with alternate modes of transportation in urban context, and how technologies facilitate or hinder (micro-) mobility. We found that users of e-scooters primarily view these devices as an alternative to walking rather than other transportation forms. Additionally, we found that users’ and non-users’ needs, perspectives and experiences of e-scooters clash, in particular with regard to perceptions of sustainability. Based on these findings, we present three relevant perspectives of sustainability, extending the ongoing debate of sustainable HCI research. We contribute with an empirically supported understanding of the perception of mobility and sustainability for e-scooters in a Scandinavian urban context.
... This is thought to reflect the concern that "in the MaaS demonstration experiment, there may be a bias toward using transportation that is not normally used." pointed out by Durand et al. [10]. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The concept of Mobility as a Service (MaaS), which means integrating multiple transportation modes, not only fixed transportation but also on-demand service, and providing them as a single service, is attracting attention. For the efficient operation of the MaaS system, appropriate number of on-demand service vehicles and pricing are required. Agent-based simulation is suitable for analyzing the relationship between such transportation setting and user behavior. Therefore, we construct a simulation tool to quantitatively analyze and evaluate a MaaS system that consists of users mode choice model as demand side, on-demand shared service allocation method and railway/bus operational information as supply side, and traffic simulator, SUMO. As a case study, we analyze the impact on an actual MaaS demonstration where on-demand shared services were introduced into public transportation modes such as railways, fixed-route buses. Through the cost-benefit analysis using simulation, we found that if the number of demands is sufficiently larger, the benefit of introducing on-demand share service can be expected. The proposed simulation is useful for making decisions on the number of vehicles and appropriate pricing required when introducing new mobility services and MaaS services.
... The goal of the statements is to understand respondents' preparedness to use on-demand mobility services. In investigating the drivers of MaaS and Flex adoption, Alonso-González, et al. (2020a, b, c) used three groups of attitudinal statements, categorized by Durand et al. (2018) into: (1) Mobility integration, (2) Shared mobility modes and (3) Mobile applications. While the goal of this research is to better understand Flex-readiness, a similar setup of attitudinal statements is used, as there are many similarities in the willingness to use of MaaS and on-demand mobility. ...
Article
Full-text available
On-demand mobility services are promising to revolutionise urban travel, but preliminary studies are showing they may actually increase total vehicle miles travelled, worsening road congestion in cities. In this study, we assess the demand for on-demand mobility services in urban areas, using a stated preference survey, to understand the potential impact of introducing on-demand services on the current modal split. The survey was carried out in the Netherlands and offered respondents a choice between bike, car, public transport and on-demand services. 1,063 valid responses are analysed with a multinomial logit and a latent class choice model. By means of the latter, we uncover four distinctive groups of travellers based on the observed choice behaviour. The majority of the sample, the Sharing-ready cyclists (55%), are avid cyclists and do not see on-demand mobility as an alternative for making urban trips. Two classes, Tech-ready individuals (27%) and Flex-ready individuals (9%) would potentially use on-demand services: the former is fairly time-sensitive and would thus use on-demand service if they were sufficiently fast. The latter is highly cost-sensitive, and would therefore use the service primarily if it is cheap. The fourth class, Flex-sceptic individuals (9%) shows very limited potential for using on-demand services.
... It is MaaS' potential ability to reduce travellers' dependency on cars Reck, Hensher, & Ho, 2020;Sochor et al., 2015) where a lot of its benefits derive from. Given access to integrated mobility services through digital platforms offering customised door-todoor trip planning and payment options, people may no longer choose to own and use individual modes of transport but instead choose to purchase mobility services that cover their travel needs (Durand, Harms, Hoogendoorn-Lanser, & Zijlstra, 2018;Giesecke et al., 2016;Nikitas et al., 2017). A pay-as-you-go MaaS scheme in Vienna, Austria and a bundle MaaS scheme in Gothenburg, Sweden have already shown that MaaS in both forms has potential to lower transport users' dependency on private cars at least. ...
Article
Full-text available
Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) has many advocators suggesting that it could evolve to the cornerstone of a new mobility paradigm since, in theory, it can tackle many of society's grand challenges referring to environmental degradation, increased traffic congestion and reduced accessibility. However, little evidence exists to confirm that this is achievable; in reality, a consensus is yet to be reached even in terms of what exactly classifies as MaaS and what the MaaS priorities should be. Few cities have piloted digital interface-based schemes integrating, in a holistic way, public, active, and shared use mobility services, and have measurable results about their impacts; thus, there may be a significant gap between MaaS' actuality and potential, and a need to elaborate on this dichotomy. This study is a critical narrative review of the literature that contextualises the key dimensions of MaaS and then identifies, categorises, and discusses its possible implications. These are presented in 11 diverse thematic areas mapping out the opportunities and challenges of MaaS that may possibly underpin its business establishment, functional management, user adoption and long-term sustainability.
... Like many other cities, Antwerp promotes shared mobility and Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS). As reported elsewhere, these models mainly take into account the demands and skills of middle class and younger groups (Durand et al., 2018). The exclusion of children and the credit card requirement were mentioned as barriers to bike-sharing. ...
Article
For many years, the literature has pointed to the difficulties with the development of transport policy measures which meet both social and environmental policy objectives. Low Emission Zones (LEZ) offer an interesting example of measures that aim to decrease traffic-related air pollution, but which might have significant social effects by reducing the mobility of vulnerable, car-dependent groups. The Antwerp LEZ (Belgium) is used as a case. The assumptions and views in policy documents were compared with the experiences of some affected persons. The research challenges the assumption that only households with a non-compliant vehicle living in the LEZ are impacted by the measure since the LEZ may have a social impact well beyond the delimited zone. Some people with their residence in the LEZ expressed the feeling that they put a burden on friends and relatives from outside the zone who want to visit them. Furthermore, the LEZ affects low-income car owners with an older, damage-prone vehicle that is allowed to enter the zone, by making replacement vehicles less affordable. In general, the case reveals how the views and experiences of those most likely affected by the policy measure are not fully taken into account.
... Naive solution We implemented an algorithm for naive trip planning based on people's common behavior [39]. Depending on the origin and destination, the estimated travel time for each of the (preferred) modes is computed using SUMO. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Multi-modal journey planning for large numbers of simultaneous travellers is a challenging problem, particularly in the presence of limited transportation capacity. Fundamental trade-offs exist between balancing the goals and preferences of each traveller and the optimization of the use of available capacity. Addressing these trade-offs requires careful coordination of travellers' individual plans. This paper assesses the viability of Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) applied to simulated mobility as a means of learning coordinated plans. Specifically, the paper addresses the problem of travel to large-scale events, such as concerts and sports events, where all attendees have as their goal to arrive on time. Multi-agent DRL is used to learn coordinated plans aimed at maximizing just-in-time arrival while taking into account the limited capacity of the infrastructure. Generated plans take account of different transportation modes' availability and requirements (e.g., parking) as well as constraints such as attendees' ownership of vehicles. The results are compared with those of a naive decision-making algorithm based on estimated travel time. The results show that the learned plans make intuitive use of the available modes and improve average travel time and lateness, supporting the use of DRL in association with a microscopic mobility simulator for journey planning.
... Collective demand responsive transportation (DRT) systems represent intermediate forms of public transportation, which identify and combine similar travel routes of customers (Brake et al. 2004;Durand et al. 2018). The pooling of passengers increases the number of travelers per vehicle, which reduces fossil fuels and emissions (see also Jokinen 2016;Santi et al. 2014;Nyga et al. 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper analyzes in a large-scale field experiment (N = 1425) whether gift vouchers stimulate the use of a demand responsive transportation (DRT) system. This scenario is compared to a situation where customers receive environmental certificates, which report the saved carbon dioxide as a consequence of the bus ride. In our two treatments, the gift vouchers and the environmental certificates could be gained by reaching to a certain threshold of rides with the DRT service (EcoBus). We find that the demand went up more by gift vouchers (83%) compared to certificates (65%). The data show that vouchers especially outperform the certificates at the end of the treatment phase.
Article
Full-text available
Mobility as a Service (MaaS) is expected to reorganise how we travel. To date, it is still unclear who will embrace these new mobility strategies, and how they will transform travellers’ behaviours. This study identifies the key drivers determining the adoption of MaaS in two European metropolitan areas, based on a survey taken in Madrid (Spain) and Randstad (The Netherlands). Overall, we found strong positive attitudes towards MaaS. The results highlight the role played by a set of demographic, socioeconomic, and travel-related variables, after their validation with a generalized ordered logit (gologit) model. The willingness to adopt MaaS appeared to be related to personal characteristics such as gender, age, education level, occupation, and household structure. Unexpectedly, the place of residence (city versus outskirts) was not found to be significant. The acceptance of MaaS was also influenced by individuals’ mobility patterns. We detected that private car users were not significantly attracted by MaaS, while individuals engaged with public transport and shared mobility services did intend to adopt it. Our final findings will help urban authorities and transport planners to predict the population segments with a higher (and lower) probability of using MaaS. Policy efforts could stimulate MaaS acceptability in the coming years by taking these insights into account.
Article
Full-text available
The Mobility as a Service (MaaS) concept has recently taken the transport industry by storm. However, as applications and research on it are limited, there is still little evidence on what this new phenomenon could bring to the transport sector. This paper aims to provide initial insights into whether MaaS product bundles (monthly subscription plans) can be used as a mobility management tool to promote shared modes. Data from an original survey, specifically designed to study MaaS plans, was used with Greater London as the case study area. The results show, that even though respondents do not prefer shared modes in their MaaS plans, a significant number of them are willing to subscribe to plans that include these modes. Once they have subscribed, over 60% of them indicated that they would be willing to try transportation modes that they previously did not use if their MaaS plans included them. These initial results show evidence that MaaS bundles can indeed be used as a mobility management tool to introduce more travelers to shared modes.
Article
Full-text available
The negative effects of transport in terms of pollution, congestion and climate change has urged the need for higher shares of cleaner and more efficient modes of transport, especially in urban settings. While new technology can solve some of these issues, behaviour changes has also been identified as an important factor to achieve a modal shift from cars to walking, cycling or public transport. This study investigates how ICT has been used to influence behaviour change and synthesizes key aspects into a conceptual model for creating a behaviour change support system (BCSS) for smartphone applications. A literature review concerning behaviour change and ICT in the fields of transport, health, energy and climate was conducted to gather empirical evidence which forms the foundation of the conceptual model. The empirical findings were tested and verified against a theoretical framework consisted of The Transtheoretical Model, Theory of Planned Behaviour, Diffusion of Innovations and the concept of Gamification. The results suggest that customization to the user, relevant and contextualised information and feedback, commitment, and appealing design are important aspects when influencing users to behaviour change through smartphone applications. The conceptual model provides further knowledge of key aspects to consider when developing persuasive tools that aims to encourage more sustainable modes of transport.
Article
Full-text available
The role of governments in the regulation of potentially beneficial low carbon practices, such as car sharing, has proved difficult, as there are many different actors involved and as existing practices can be undermined. The mobility sector provides clear evidence of these dilemmas, as a wide range of users need to be engaged in the discourse over the innovations, and as existing governance structures may be unsuitable for addressing both the opportunities and limitations of innovation. This paper focuses on the sustainability implications of shared mobility and the need for new approaches to governance. A qualitative study of car sharing in London is used to examine the ideas, incentives, and institutions of the key actors involved in this sharing sector. The elements of change and continuity in the emerging sharing economy indicate the different possibilities for enhancing sustainable mobility. Any search for an alternative governance regime should take account of the ideational factors that would require an understanding of the different incentives needed to accommodate the full range of actors involved with the sharing economy.
Article
Over the past years a substantial amount of studies has indicated that travel satisfaction is affected by a wide range of elements such as trip duration, travel mode choice and travel-related attitudes. However, what is less explored is that this travel satisfaction is not only an outcome of travel-related preferences and choices, but that travel satisfaction can also be a predictor of travel-related components. In this conceptual paper we tend to fill the gaps in the existing − albeit rather fragmented − literature concerning travel satisfaction. We provide an overview of the elements explaining travel satisfaction, and possible outcomes of travel satisfaction, with a focus on (i) subjective well-being, (ii) travel mode choice, (iii) travel-related attitudes, and (iv) the residential location. Furthermore, we suggest a continuous cyclical process including the four above mentioned elements in which travel satisfaction plays an essential role; a process which can result in the formation of travel habits.
Article
Given the innovative nature of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS), various uncertainties are surrounding the possibilities for implementing MaaS. This includes uncertainties about alternative MaaS-system functionalities, about how the implementation of alternative MaaS systems might affect the overall transport system performance and about the preferences of stakeholders regarding alternative MaaS system implementation strategies. This paper contributes to this niche by collecting expert opinions about these uncertainties, using the Delphi method. The expert panel expected a fully-integrated MaaS to start operating in urban areas before 2020 and to expand to rural areas and nationally within the period of 2020–2030. In contrast to the common expectation that MaaS will attract regular car driver from their vehicles, our panel expected youth, current public transport users, and flexible travellers to be early adopters of MaaS. Transport operators are seen as the most important actors and the most preferred MaaS service integrator. Local authorities are expected to have an important role in enabling MaaS. The main objectives for implementing MaaS are to reduce car dependency and to provide a flexible and more customised transport system accessibility to the general public. The implementation of MaaS as a pilot project is considered the most preferred policy in the next phase. These findings largely support earlier reported findings on MaaS implementation. This study report new findings regarding the levels of consensus and how the experts changed their individual opinions in light of the group results on the studied topics. Regarding certain topics, such as the early market, there are higher levels of agreements among the panel with lower proportions of them changing their selections in light of the group results. Whereas in other topics, such as planning for future implementation, the level of agreement are lower with higher proportions of experts changing their selections. These two attributes can be combined to infer how certain the panel is on the topics studied. The study also provides new insights into the possible vulnerabilities and opportunities that can arise in relation to MaaS implementation, the associated levels of importance and uncertainty, and the possible responding actions. The experts also identified potential social issues and challenges in scaling-up the pilot. The findings of this study are of interest to practitioners and researchers in the field of MaaS planning and can be used to initiate a discussion among actors and stakeholders to formulate implementation plans for different MaaS concepts.
Article
On-demand ride services, such as those offered by Uber and Lyft, are transforming transportation supply and demand in many ways. As the popularity and visibility of Uber/Lyft grow, an understanding of the factors affecting the use of these services becomes more important. In this paper, we investigate the factors affecting the adoption of on-demand ride services among millennials (i.e. young adults born between 1981 and 1997), and members of the preceding Generation X (i.e. middle-aged adults born between 1965 and 1980) in California. We estimate binary logit models of the adoption of Uber/Lyft with and without the inclusion of attitudinal variables, using the California Millennials Dataset (N = 1975). The results are consistent across models: we find that highly educated, older millennials are more likely to use on-demand ride services than other groups. We also find that greater land-use mix and regional accessibility by car are associated with greater likelihood of adopting on-demand ride services. Respondents who report higher numbers of long-distance business trips and have a higher share of long-distance trips made by plane are also more likely to have used these services, as are frequent users of smartphone transportation-related apps, and those who have previously used taxi and carsharing services. Among various attitudinal factors that were investigated, individuals with stronger pro-environmental, technology-embracing, and variety-seeking attitudes are more inclined to use ridehailing. These findings provide a starting point for efforts to forecast the adoption of on-demand services and their impacts on overall travel patterns across various regions and sociodemographics.
Article
Kutsuplus was a novel, flexible micro transit service (FMTS) operating in Helsinki during 2012 to 2015. The service included a range of new technological development, ranging from routing algorithm to marketing and user interface. However, at the end of 2015, the service ceased due to budgetary constraints. In the context of service discontinuation, and the lack of in-depth understanding of user perspectives about urban FMTS, this paper aims to uncover the perspectives of the users of the service, users that discontinued using the service during its operation, and persons who did not use the service. The methodological approach is based on a questionnaire, with mapping capabilities enabling collection of georeferenced data. Questionnaire results are validated using actual Kutsuplus trip analysis. The results show that Kutsuplus users were a diverse group both when considering socio-economic status and travel behavior. In addition, the results include detailed analysis of stated trip characteristics, including spatial analysis of trip origins and destinations. Furthermore, the results include qualitative analysis of respondents' opinions and recommendations about positive and lacking FMTS features. The paper ends with a summary of positive Kutsuplus features, followed by the discussion of aspects for future deployment, including end-user and service area analysis, marketing strategy, and service usability. Finally, the paper provides recommendations for further research on FMTS.
Article
Bundled offerings that facilitate using multiple means for solving everyday travel needs are proposed to hold potential to facilitate a modal shift from private cars to servitized transport modes, including public transport (PT). This type of offering, often coined Mobility as a Service (MaaS), may require new forms of partnerships, in which private actors play a larger role in the creation of public value. Accordingly, based on input from 19 interviews with MaaS actors active in West Sweden, this paper explores how MaaS could develop and how PT might be affected. Three predictive scenarios are identified – market-driven, public-controlled and public-private – and the implications for future PT, in terms of the scope, usage, access, business model, competence structure and brand value, are discussed in relation to these. The authors conclude that finding a regulatory ‘sweet spot’ that drives innovation and secures public benefits will be key for future developments.
Article
Traffic congestion continues to be the bane of many metropolitan areas and has exercised the minds of experts for at least the last 60 years. With the advent of smart (intelligent) mobility, aligned with digital disruption and future connected and collaborative transport including extensions to autonomous vehicles, the question of whether we have a new window of opportunity to tame congestion is now high on the list of possibilities. It is however very unclear what the future will look like in respect of congestion on the roads, especially if we rely on 'smart' technology and continue to reject reform of road user charging and new opportunities to fund the sharing model. This paper looks at a number of themes as a way of highlighting possibilities and challenges and promotes a position that congestion may not be reduced, especially without a significant switch to the sharing economy and relinquishing of private car ownership; the urgent need for government to define the institutional setting within which smart mobility can deliver reductions in congestion; and the crucial role that road pricing reform must play to ensure that those who benefit (suppliers and travellers) contribute to pay for the infrastructure (in particular) that they gain benefit from.