Content uploaded by Risto Öörni
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Risto Öörni on Nov 17, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
14th ITS European Congress, Toulouse, France, 30 May-1 June 2022
Paper #125
Acceptance of mobility as a service by car users
Risto Öörni1*
1. risto.oorni@vtt.fi, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd, P.O. Box 1000, 02044 VTT, Finland
Abstract
New mobility services such as MaaS are expected to reduce the need to own a private car, to make
mobility more sustainable and to be better able to answer travellers’ needs. The objective of the study
was to analyse the willingness of car users to replace their cars with a MaaS service package. An
online survey (N=1135) aimed at active car users in the Helsinki region was carried out. About one in
eight car users who participated in the study were willing to give up his or her private car and replace
it with a MaaS service package. For most variables describing the demographic characteristics of the
car user, no statistically significant association with willingness to switch to MaaS was found.
Exceptions to this were car user’s age and type of dwelling.
Keywords:
Mobility as a service, acceptance, car ownership
Introduction
New mobility services such as mobility as a service (MaaS) have been expected to reduce the need to
own a private car [1]. There are also other expectations towards MaaS such as more sustainable
mobility, more efficient use of the resources of the transport system and increased ability to answer
travellers’ needs [2, 3]. While multiple definitions have been proposed for MaaS, a few key
characteristics of the service such as integration of multiple transport modes, availability of tariff
options (e.g. package or pay as you go) and use of a single platform for service implementation have
been identified [4]. The user acceptance of MaaS by travellers has been studied in several European
countries [5, 6, 7]. However, much less studies have focused on the acceptance of MaaS services by
existing car users and its potential to directly substitute car ownership even though many of the
impacts of MaaS are dependent on the potential of MaaS to replace trips previously carried out with a
private car. For this reason, it was important to analyse to what extent current car users would be
willing to replace their private vehicles with a MaaS service package and in which car users groups
this would be most likely.
Acceptance of mobility as a service by car users
2
Objectives
The objective of the study was to analyse the willingness of current car users to replace their cars with
a MaaS service package. Related to this objective, three research questions were identified:
- RQ1: to what extent are existing car users willing to substitute private cars for MaaS services
in the Helsinki region
- RQ2: what is the profile of a car user willing to give up his or her personal car and switch to a
MaaS service package in the Helsinki region
- RQ3: what are the most important reasons for not willing to switch to a MaaS service package
and give up car ownership?
Methods
Data collection
The data set used in the analysis was collected with an online survey. The online survey was targeted
to car users living in the Helsinki region and who had driven at least 1500 km during the last 12
months. The online questionnaire was implemented by a marketing research company, and the
respondents were recruited from a panel maintained by the company. The data collection took place in
late 2021, and the questionnaire was available in Finnish language.
The first part of the questionnaire focused on the mobility behaviour and car use of the respondent.
The second part of the questionnaire included questions on perceptions and practices related to vehicle
maintenance and repair. The third part included questions on new vehicle propulsion technologies.
Fourth part of the questionnaire covered user’s perception of new mobility services and car use in
future. The fifth and final part included questions related to respondent’s background such as
demographic variables such as number of persons in respondent’s household. In addition to the
information obtained from questionnaire, information on respondent’s background was obtained from
the database of the marketing research company (e.g. socio-economic status and level of education).
All the questions in the online survey were not asked from all respondents or analysed for all
respondents (N=1135). The question on the willingness to replace private car with a MaaS was
analysed only for respondents who used their own car, car owned by a family member, a company car
or a leased car (N=1128). The question on the willingness to replace a car with MaaS service package
included three response options: Yes, No and Do not know [kyllä, ei, en osaa sanoa].
The question on reasons for not switching from private car to a MaaS service package was presented
only to respondents who had answered negatively to question “Would you be ready to give up your
own car and start using a service package including shared vehicles and other mobility services (e.g.
taxi and public transport)? When analysing the barriers for switching from private car to MaaS, the
focus of the study was on barriers for using a shared vehicle. In total, seven statements related to
barriers for using a shared vehicle were presented, and the respondent was asked why he or she would
Acceptance of mobility as a service by car users
3
not be willing to replace a private car with MaaS and how important each of the presented reasons are
his or her decision making (Likert scale from 1 to 5, 1: very little, 5: very much).
The characteristics of the sample obtained with the online survey are presented in Table 1. When
looking at the table, it is possible to see that respondents older than 60 years and those who reported
“pensioner” as their socio-economic status were overrepresented in the sample. For this reason, the
analysis presented in the paper was carried out separately for respondents younger than 60 years,
respondents who have turned 60 years and all age groups.
Table 1 – Characteristics of respondents
Gender N Share [%] Cumulative share [%]
Male 727 64.1 64.1
Female 408 35.9 100.0
Total 1135 100.0
Age group N Share [%] Cumulative share [%]
<30 years 39 3.4 3.4
30–39 years 70 6.2 9.6
40–49 years 126 11.1 20.7
50–59 years 221 19.5 40.2
60–69 years 316 27.8 68.0
70v+ years 363 32.0 100.0
Total 1135 100.0
Socio-economic status N Share [%] Cumulative share [%]
Managerial position
[Johtavassa asemassa toisen palveluksessa] 53 4.7 4.7
Upper non-manual employee
[Ylempi toimihenkilö] 188 16.6 21.2
Lower non-manual employee
[Alempi toimihenkilö] 106 9.3 30.6
Manual worker [Työntekijä] 126 11.1 41.7
Entrepreneur or self-employed
[Yrittäjä tai yksityinen ammatinharjoittaja] 75 6.6 48.3
Unemployed [Työtön] 25 2.2 50.5
Student [Koululainen tai opiskelija] 15 1.3 51.8
Pensioner [Eläkeläinen] 528 46.5 98.3
Homemaker [Kotiäiti tai koti-isä] 4 0.4 98.7
Other [Muu] 13 1.1 99.8
Cannot tell [Ei osaa sanoa] 20.2 100.0
Total 1135 100.0
The data set used in the analysis was collected as a part of the CLEMET project (Cleantech Mobility
Education for Tomorrow) [8]. The aim of the CLEMET project was to develop vocational and tertiary
education in automotive sector. The CLEMET project included a consumer study whose aim was to
study the user acceptance of greener propulsion technologies, car users’ practices related to vehicle
maintenance and repair, acceptance of purchasing vehicle as a service and willingness to replace a
Acceptance of mobility as a service by car users
4
private car with MaaS service package. The results presented in this paper have earlier been discussed
in a technical report published by the CLEMET project [9]. The results of the CLEMET consumer
study on acceptance of fully electric vehicles have been included in another paper [10].
Statistical methods
Respondents who used their own car, a car owned by a family member, a company car or a leased car
(N=1128) were selected for analysis. The analysis was then carried out separately for respondents
younger than 60 years (N=435), respondents 60 years or older (N=657) and for all age groups
(N=1128). The analysis was started by calculating the shares of different answers to the question
whether the respondent was ready to replace his or her private car with a MaaS service package.
The next phase of the analysis was crosstabulation of answers to the question on the readiness to
replace car with a MaaS service package with the demographic variables of respondents (age, gender,
socio-economic status, pre-tax household income, education level, marital status, household size and
type of dwelling). Chi-square test of independence [11] was then calculated to find out whether the car
users willing to substitute their private vehicles with a MaaS service package were different from other
car users participating in the study.
The results of a Chi-square test indicate whether there is a statistically significant association between
two categorical variables. However, it does not tell which groups being analysed differ from each
other and how much. For this reason, odds ratios and confidence intervals for odds ratios [11] were
calculated for certain combinations of willingness to replace private car with MaaS and demographic
variables related to demographic characteristics of respondents. Cramer’s V [11] was also calculated
for each Chi-square test to measure the strength of association between categorical variables. The
analysis was carried out with SPSS statistical package.
In case of Chi-square test of independence, there is no universally accepted criterion or criteria for
minimum values of expected frequencies in the contingency table [11]. The criteria mentioned by
statistics textbooks [11, 12] (the table of expected frequencies should not contain frequencies less than
1 and more than 20% of the cells should not contain frequencies less than 5) was used in the study. For
this reason, some columns and rows were combined in the contingency tables between willingness to
replace private car with MaaS and demographic variables describing the respondents. First, answers
“No” and “Do not know” to the question “Would you be ready to give up your own car and start using
a service package including shared vehicles and other mobility services (e.g. taxi and public
transport)?” [“Olisitko valmis luopumaan omasta autosta ja siirtymään yhteiskäyttöisiä autoja ja muita
liikkumispalveluita (esim. taksi ja joukkoliikenne) sisältävän palvelupaketin käyttäjäksi?”] were
combined to the same category, leaving only two categories “Yes” and “No or do not know”. Then,
categories were combined for demographic variables describing the respondents when needed to
satisfy the criteria for minimum expected frequencies in contingency tables.
Acceptance of mobility as a service by car users
5
Barriers for switching from a private cars to a MaaS service package (and shared vehicle) were
analysed by summarising the distribution of responses regarding the importance of different barriers
and calculating basic statistical figures (mean and standard deviation).
Results
Readiness to give up a private car and replace it with a MaaS service package
Results on car users’ willingness to give up their private cars and replace them with a MaaS service
package are presented in Table 2. Only about 12% of the car users who participated in the online
survey were willing to give up their own cars and replace it with a service package with potential
elements of MaaS (shared vehicles, public transport and taxi).
Table 2 – Answers to question “Would you be ready to give up your own car and start using a service
package including shared vehicles and other mobility services (e.g. taxi and public transport)?”, results for
respondents younger than 60 years, respondents 60 years or older and all age groups
Yes No Do not know Total
<60 years 71
(15.7%)
327
(72.2%)
55
(12.1%)
453
(100%)
60 years or
older
64
(9.5%)
519
(76.9%)
92
(13.6%)
675
(100%)
All age groups 135
(12.0%)
846
(75.0%)
147
(13.0%)
1128
(100%)
Profile of a car user willing to give up his or her personal car and switch to a MaaS service package
The results of Chi-square tests between demographic variables of car users and the willingness to
substitute a private car with MaaS service package are summarised in Table 3. A statistically
significant association was found for two of the analysed variables (age and type of dwelling) to the
willingness to give up a private car and replace it with a MaaS service package.
Acceptance of mobility as a service by car users
6
Table 3 – Results of Chi-Square tests – Readiness to replace car with a MaaS service package, association
with age, gender, socio-economic status, household income, education level, marital status, number of cars
in household, household size and type of dwelling
Readiness to replace car with a MaaS service package, association with age, gender, socio-economic status,
household income, education level, marital status, number of cars in household, household size and type of
dwelling
Respondents <60 years
(N=453)
Respondents 60 years or
older (N=675)
All age groups
(N = 1128)
only respondents who use their own car, car owned by a family member, a
company car or a leased car
Age (13 classes) p=0.001
Chi-square = 24.929
df=7
Cramer's V = 0.235
p=0.825
Chi-square=0.903
df=3
p<0.001
Chi-square = 41.872
df=11
Cramer's V = 0.193
Age (6 classes) p=0.001
Chi-square = 15.967
df=3
Cramer's V = 0.188
p=0.533
Chi-square=0.388
df=1
p<0.001
Chi-square = 30.359
df=5
Cramer's V = 0.164
Gender p=0.480
Chi-square=0.499
df=1
p=0.727
Chi-square=0.122
df=1
p=0.844
Chi-square = 0.039
df=1
Social group p=0.203
Chi-square = 8.516
df=6
p=0.298
Chi-square=2.424
df=2
p=0.201
Chi-square = 11.012
df=8
Pre-tax household income p=0.138
Chi-square=11.016
df=7
p=0.496
Chi-square=4.379
df=5
p=0.135
Chi-square = 11.094
df=7
Education p=0.295
Chi-square=6.114
df=5
p=0.515
Chi-square=3.260
df=4
p=0.173
Chi-square = 7.703
df=5
Marital status p=0.657
Chi-square = 2.429
df=4
p=0.213
Chi-square=3.092
df=2
p=0.444
Chi-square = 3.731
df=4
Number of cars in
household
p=0.065
Chi-square = 5.479
df=2
p=0.141
Chi-square=3.914
df=2
p=0.076
Chi-square = 5.156
df=2
Household size p=0.308
Chi-square=5.983
df=5
p=0.454
Chi-square=1.580
df=2
p=0.097
Chi-square = 9.305
df=5
Type of dwelling
p=0.282
Chi-square=3.819
df=3
p=0.025
Chi-square=9.373
df=3
Cramer's V=0.118
p=0.024
Chi-square = 11.233
df=4
Cramer's V = 0.100
For three variables with a statistically significant relationship for all age groups (age expressed as 13
classes, age expressed as 6 classes and type of dwelling), odds ratios and confidence intervals for odds
ratios are presented in Figures 1–3. In general, the willingness to replace car with a MaaS service
package seems to decrease with the age of the respondent (Figure 1). The only exception seems to be
respondents who are 30–34 years old, but this may also be due to random variation and limited
number of respondents in this age group in the data. For the type of dwelling, the only statistically
Acceptance of mobility as a service by car users
7
significant difference was between respondents who live in an apartment building and respondents
who live in a detached house.
Figure 1 – Readiness to replace car with a MaaS service package – odds ratio as a function of age (13
categories)
Figure 2 – Readiness to replace car with a MaaS service package – odds ratio as a function of age (7
categories)
Acceptance of mobility as a service by car users
8
Figure 3 – Readiness to replace car with a MaaS service package – odds ratio as a function of type of
dwelling
Reasons for not switching to a MaaS service package and giving up car ownership
The perceived importance of different reasons for not giving up vehicle ownership and switching to a
MaaS service package is presented in Table 4. In this study, only barriers for using a shared vehicle,
which may be a part of the service package, were covered.
Acceptance of mobility as a service by car users
9
Table 3 – Reasons for not giving up private car and switching to a MaaS service package (all age groups,
N=846)
Distribution of responses [N] N Mean Standard
deviation
12345
All shared vehicles may be
reserved or in use, and a
vehicle will not be available
when one needs it.
[Kaikki yhteiskäyttöiset
autot voivat olla varattuina,
eikä autoa saa käyttöön
silloin, kun sitä tarvitsee]
18
(2.1%)
28
(3.3%)
66
(7.8%)
222
(26.2%)
512
(60.5%)
846
(100%) 4.40 0.922
A shared vehicle needs to be
picked up from a defined
place
[Yhteiskäytössä oleva auto on
erikseen noudettava
määrätystä paikasta]
17
(2.0%)
24
(2.8%)
79
(9.3%)
226
(26.7%)
500
(59.1%)
846
(100%) 4.38 0.914
A shared vehicle needs to be
reserved in advance
[Yhteiskäytössä oleva auto
pitää varata etukäteen]
16
(1.9%)
20
(2.4%)
91
(10.8)
234
(27.7%)
485
(57.3)
846
(100%) 4.36 0.903
A shared vehicle needs to be
picked up and returned at
agreed time
[Yhteiskäytössä oleva auto
pitää noutaa ja palauttaa
sovittuun aikaan]
13
(1.5%)
26
(3.1%)
76
(9.0%)
216
(25.5%)
515
(60.9%)
846
(100%) 4.41 0.890
Unclear liability issues
regarding wear or damage
of a shared vehicle
[Vastuukysymykset
yhteiskäyttöisen auton
kulumisesta ja vaurioista
ovat epäselviä]
43
(5.1%)
74
(8.7%)
198
(23.4%)
226
(26.7%)
305
(36.1%)
846
(100%) 3.80 1.168
It is cheaper to use one’s
own car
[Oman auton käyttö on
halvempi vaihtoehto]
74
(8.7%)
119
(14.1%)
311
(36.8%)
149
(17.6%)
193
(22.8%)
846
(100%) 3.32 1.217
A person with my social
status must have his or her
own car
[Sosiaalisessa asemassani
olevalla ihmisellä on oltava
oma auto]
465
(55.0%)
152
(18.0%)
124
(14.7%)
49
(5.8%)
56
(6.6%)
846
(100%) 1.91 1.232
Discussion of results
The results presented in Table 2 look relatively similar for respondents younger than 60 years and
respondents 60 years or older. The results also showed that about 12% of the car users who
participated in the study were ready to replace a private car with a MaaS service package. While the
Acceptance of mobility as a service by car users
10
data set used in the study was to some extent self-selected and not a truly random sample of car users
in Helsinki region, the magnitude of the result (about one in eight car users) is most likely correct.
Respondents older than 60 years were overrepresented in the data set. For this reason, the analysis was
carried out separately for respondents younger than 60 years, respondents 60 years or older and all age
groups. The study results were also analysed with methods (chi-square test and odds ratios) which are
not particularly sensitive to overrepresentation of certain groups in the sample.
Only few statistically significant associations were found between the demographic background of the
car user and his or her willingness to replace private car with a MaaS service package. The only
variables with a statistically significant association were car user’s age and type of dwelling. On
average, younger age groups are more proficient with the use of information technology and digital
services, and this has possibly contributed to the result. On the other hand, there may be differences
between age groups in values and opinions regarding mobility and its impacts on environment. The
connection between the willingness to replace a private car with a MaaS service package and the type
of dwelling was not very strong, but the difference between two groups (car users living in an
apartment building and car users living in a detached house) was statistically significant. A likely
explanation for this difference is the availability of public transport services and shared vehicles in
different parts of the city, consisting of mainly apartment blocks or detached houses.
The number of respondents who expressed willingness to replace a private car with MaaS service
package was relatively small in the study (135 car users). This involves the possibility of type II errors,
in other words, that all relevant associations between the willingness to switch from private car to
MaaS and the variables describing the background of the respondent were not recognised when the
Chi-square tests, odds ratios and confidence intervals for odds ratios were calculated. The data
collection was also carried out in autumn 2020 in Helsinki region during the Covid-19 pandemic. It
has probably had an impact on the results, due to fear of infection in public transport and possibly also
via changes in travel demand and travel patterns.
The most important barriers for switching from a private car to use of a shared vehicle (potentially a
part of a MaaS service package) seem to be the uncertain availability of a shared vehicle, need to pick
up the vehicle from a defined place, the need to make a reservation in advance and the need to pick up
and return the vehicle at agreed time (mean: 4.40, 4.38, 4.36 and 4.41). Unclear liability for wear and
accidents and the perceived lower cost of using one’s own vehicle were also important barriers for
many respondents (mean: 3.80 and 3.32) while the social status of owning a car was reported to have
less importance (mean: 1.91). In future research, further analyses should be carried out to determine
which of the barriers reported by car users differ from each other in a statistically significant way.
Acceptance of mobility as a service by car users
11
Conclusions
The results indicate that most car users living in the Helsinki region would not be ready to replace
their private cars with a MaaS service package. The group of car users, who are willing to give up their
private cars and switch to a MaaS service package, exists but it is relatively small at least at the
moment (about one in eight car users). However, this does not necessarily mean a negative outlook for
MaaS services, if new users can be attracted from age cohorts reaching the minimum age required to
obtain driver’s license, travellers considering to purchase a car or if the attractiveness of the service to
existing car users can be increased. For most variables describing the demographic characteristics of
the car user, no statistically significant association with willingness to switch to MaaS was found.
Exceptions to this were car user’s age and type of dwelling. According to the car users who
participated in the study, the most important barriers for switching from a private car to use of a shared
vehicle, potentially provided by a MaaS package, are uncertain availability of a shared vehicle, need to
pick up the vehicle from a defined place, the need to make a reservation in advance and the need to
pick up and return the vehicle at agreed time.
Acknowledgements
The study has been carried out as a part of the CLEMET project (Cleantech Mobility Education for
Tomorrow) [8]. The work of VTT in the CLEMET project has been supported by European Social
Fund (project number: S21912). The writing process of the paper has been supported by the AI4DI
project (Artificial Intelligence for Digitizing Industry) of the Horizon 2020 research programme (grant
agreement ID: 826060).
References
1. Utriainen, R. and Pöllänen, P. 2018. Review on mobility as a service in scientific publications.
Research in Transportation Business & Management, Vol. 27, June 2018, pp 15–23.
doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2018.10.005
2. Heikkilä, S. 2014. Mobility as a Service – A Proposal for Action for the Public Administration,
Case Helsinki. Master’s thesis, Aalto University School of Engineering.
https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/123456789/13133 [accessed 30th June 2021]
3. Durand, A., Harms, L., Hoogendoorn-Lanser, S. and Zijlstra, T. 2018. Mobility-as-a-Service and
changes in travel preferences and travel behaviour: a literature review. KiM Netherlands Institute
for Transport Policy Analysis, Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, The Hague, The
Netherlands. ISBN: 978-90-8902-195-3.
https://maas-alliance.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2018/11/Mobility-as-a-Serviceandchangesintra
velpreferencesandtravelbehaviour.pdf
4. Jittrapirom, P., Caiati, V., Feneri, A-M., Ebrahimigharehbaghi, S., Alonso-González, M-J. and
Narayan, J. 2017. Mobility as a Service: A Critical Review of Definitions, Assessments of
Acceptance of mobility as a service by car users
12
Schemes, and Key Challenges. Urban Planning, Vol. 2, Issue 2, pp. 13–25.,
doi:10.17645/up.v2i2.931
5. Fioreze, T., de Gruijter, M. and Geurs, K. 2019. On the likelihood of using Mobility-as-a-Service:
A case study on innovative mobility services among residents in the Netherlands. Case Studies on
Transport Policy, Vol. 7, Issue 4, pp. 790–801.
6. Hoerler, R., Stünzi, A., Patt, A. and Del Duce, A.. 2020. What are the factors and needs promoting
mobility-as-a-service? Findings from the Swiss Household Energy Demand Survey (SHEDS).
European Transport Research Review, Vol. 12, Paper 27. pp. 1–16.
7. Schikofskya, J., Dannewaldb, T. and Kowaldc M. 2020. Exploring motivational mechanisms
behind the intention to adopt mobility as a service (MaaS): Insights from Germany. Transportation
Research Part A, Vol. 131, pp. 296–312. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2019.09.022.
8. Cleantech Mobility Education for Tomorrow. 2022. https://www.clemet.fi/ [accessed 18th January
2022]
9. Lang, T., Malinen, A., Åman Kyyrö, M. ja Öörni, R. (eds.). 2021. Kiihdytyskaistalla tulevaisuuden
osaamiseen, Reittejä autoalan koulutuksen ja työelämän kehittämiseen.
Metropolia-ammattikorkeakoulun julkaisuja, TAITO-sarja 84, Helsinki, Finland, ISBN
978-952-328-317-6 (pdf) ISSN 2669-8021 (pdf). https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-328-317-6
[accessed 19th January 2022]
10. Öörni, R. Barriers for adoption of a fully electric vehicle – a study on car users in Helsinki region.
Unpublished draft version.
11. Sheskin, D. J. 2011. Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, Florida, United States. ISBN 978-1-4398-5801-1
12. Milton, J. S. and Arnold, J. C. 1995. Introduction to probability and statistics. McGraw-Hill,
Singapore. ISBN 0-07-042623-6.