Identifying Barriers and Expectations in MaaS: Users’ and Stakeholders’ Perspective
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Description of the Undertaken Research
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Data Collection
- Local authorities: representatives of 4 Municipalities of Thessaloniki’s Metropolitan Area participated in the survey.
- Mobility service providers: representatives of 2 shared mobility services participated in the survey, as well as a representative of an IT company specialized in shared mobility. This IT company also operates by its own bike-sharing systems in various Greek cities and it also has developed expertise in digitally integrating mobility services
- Other organizations: this category includes a representative of a public transport authority, as well as 2 representatives of research/academia and 2 representatives of professional organizations that serve as technical advisors in issues related to transportation engineering and planning.
- Section A: Questions regarding the socioeconomic characteristics of respondents are included (gender, age, monthly household income, place of residence). It also includes questions about the access/possession of a private vehicle and car driving license.
- Section B: It consists of four questions concerning the mobility profile of the respondents. In particular, this section examined the frequency of usage of specific transport modes, the average number of trips and transfers, and the number of kilometers traveled by the respondents daily.
- Section C: This is the most important part of the questionnaire, as it attempts to identify the respondents’ needs and preferences related to the implementation of a MaaS scheme in Thessaloniki. More specifically, its questions refer to the implementation scenario of a MaaS scheme with only shared electric mobility services. The intention of using this system is, therefore, examined, as well as the factors that would lead the respondents to use it. In addition, the citizens are asked about the ideal way of paying.
- Section D: The last part of the questionnaire contains questions regarding the future expansion of the MaaS system. In particular, respondents are asked about which modes they consider essential for integrating in a MaaS scheme in Thessaloniki and about their willingness to use a MaaS system with various modes of transport (not only shared electric services, as asked in Section C).
3. Results
3.1. Stakeholders’ Analysis
3.2. End-Users’ Analysis
3.2.1. Descriptive Analysis
3.2.2. Modeling Intention to Use Maas
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Butler, L.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Paz, A. Barriers and risks of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) adoption in cities: A systematic review of the literature. Cities 2021, 109, 103036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newman, P.W.; Kenworthy, J.R. The land use-transport connection. Land Use Policy 1996, 13, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamargianni, M.; Weibo, L.; Schafer, A.; Vavlas, N.; Matyas, V.; Grainger, C.; Butler, P.; Loizou, M.; Matyas, M.; Li, W. Feasibility Study for MaaS as a Concept in London; UCL Energy Institute: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Kamargianni, M.; Matyas, M. The Business Ecosystem of Mobility as a Service. In Proceedings of the 96th Transportation Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 8–12 January 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Hietanen, S. “Mobility as a Service”—The new transport model? Eurotransport 2014, 12, 2–4. [Google Scholar]
- Russo, F. Sustainable Mobility as a Service: Dynamic Models for Agenda 2030 Policies. Information 2022, 13, 355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nuzzolo, A.; Comi, A. Dynamic Optimal Travel Strategies in Intelligent Stochastic Transit Networks. Information 2021, 12, 281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matyas, M.; Kamargianni, M. Survey Design for Exploring Demand for Mobility as a Service Plans. MaaSLab Working Paper Series Paper No. 17-01; MaaS Publications: Irvine, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Jittrapirom, P.; Marchau, V.; van der Heijden, R.; Meurs, H. Dynamic adaptive policymaking for implementing mobility-as-a service (MaaS). Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2018, 27, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polydoropoulou, A.; Pagoni, I.; Tsirimpa, A. Ready for Mobility as a Service? Insights from stakeholders and end-users. Travel Behav. Soc. 2020, 21, 295–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitropoulos, L.; Kortsari, A.; Mizaras, V.; Ayfantopoulou, G. Mobility as a Service (MaaS) Planning and Implementation: Challenges and Lessons Learned. Future Transp. 2023, 3, 498–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MaaS Alliance. Recommendations on a User-Centric Approach for MaaS, Vision Paper of the MaaS Alliance—Users & Rules Working Group; MaaS Alliance: Irvine, CA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Ho, C. Can MaaS change users’ travel behaviour to deliver commercial and societal outcomes? Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2022, 165, 76–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, C.; Hensher, D.; Mulley, C.; Wong, Y. Prospects for switching out of conventional transport services to mobility as a service subscription plans—A stated choice study. In Proceedings of the International Conference Series on Competition and Ownership in Land Passenger Transport, Delft, The Netherlands, 20–25 December 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Brezovec, P.; Hampl, N. Electric Vehicles Ready for Breakthrough in MaaS? Consumer Adoption of E-Car Sharing and E-Scooter Sharing as a Part of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS). Energies 2021, 14, 1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Narayanan, S.; Antoniou, C. Shared mobility services towards Mobility as a Service (MaaS): What, who and when? Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2023, 168, 103581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hensher, D. The reason MaaS is such a challenge: A note. Transp. Policy 2022, 29, 137–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xi, H. Mobility as a Service: A Review on Recent Development and Future Envision. Preprints 2021, 2021010109. [Google Scholar]
- Alyavina, E.; Nikitas, A.; Tchouamou Njoya, E. Mobility as a service (MaaS): A thematic map of challenges and opportunities. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2022, 43, 100783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, X.; Vaddadi, B.; Sjöman, M.; Hesselgren, M.; Pernestål, A. Key barriers in MaaS development and implementation: Lessons learned from testing Corporate MaaS (CMaaS). Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2020, 8, 100227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Berg, V.; Meurs, H.; Verhoef, E. Business models for Mobility as an Service (MaaS). Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2022, 157, 203–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasselwander, M.; Bigotte, J. Transport Authorities and Innovation: Understanding Barriers for MaaS Implementation in the Global South. Transp. Res. Procedia 2022, 62, 475–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MaaS Alliance. Main Challenges Associated with MaaS & Approaches for Overcoming Them. Study of MaaS Alliance Governance & Business Models Working Group; MaaS Alliance: Irvine, CA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Crozet, Y.; Santos, G.; Coldefy, J. Shared Mobility and MaaS: Regulatory Challenges of Urban Mobility; Research Report; CERRE: Bruxelles, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Alonso-González, M.; Hoogendoorn-Lanser, S.; van Oort, N.; Cats, O.; Hoogendoorn, S. Drivers and barriers in adopting Mobility as a Service (MaaS)—A latent class cluster analysis of attitudes. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2020, 132, 378–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsouros, I.; Tsirimpa, A.; Pagoni, I.; Polydoropoulou, A. MaaS users: Who they are and how much they are willing-to-pay. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2021, 148, 470–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zijlstra, T.; Durand, A.; Hoogendoorn-Lanser, S.; Harms, L. Early adopters of Mobility-as-a-Service in the Netherlands. Transp. Policy 2020, 97, 197–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haunstrup Christensen, T.; Friis, F.; Vang Nielsen, M. Shifting from ownership to access and the future for MaaS: Insights from car sharing practices in Copenhagen. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2022, 10, 841–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoerler, R.; Stunzi, A.; Patt, A.; Del Duce, A. What are the factors and needs promoting mobility-as-a-service? Findings from the Swiss Household Energy Demand Survey (SHEDS). Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2020, 12, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kayikci, Y.; Kabadurmus, O. Barriers to the adoption of the mobility-as-a-service concept: The case of Istanbul, a large emerging metropolis. Transp. Policy 2022, 129, 219–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Athanasopoulou, A.; Deijkers, T.; Ozkan, B.; Turetken, O. MaaS platform features: An exploration of their relationship and importance from supply and demand perspective. J. Urban Mobil. 2022, 2, 100028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, E.; Vanoutrive, T. Does MaaS address the challenges of multi-modal mothers? User perspectives from Brussels, Belgium. Transp. Policy 2022, 127, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Musolino, G. Sustainable Mobility as a Service: Demand Analysis and Case Studies. Information 2022, 13, 376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matowicki, M.; Amorim, M.; Kern, M.; Pecherkova, P.; Motzer, N.; Přibyl, O. Understanding the potential of MaaS—An European survey on attitudes. Travel Behav. Soc. 2022, 27, 204–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rindone, C. Sustainable Mobility as a Service: Supply Analysis and Test Cases. Information 2022, 13, 351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vitetta, A. Sustainable Mobility as a Service: Framework and Transport System Models. Information 2022, 13, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Centre for Research and Technology Hellas—Hellenic Institute of Transport. Thessaloniki’s Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan, 1st ed.; Centre for Research and Technology Hellas: Thessaloniki, Greece, 2019; Available online: https://www.svakthess.imet.gr/Portals/0/Diavoulefseis/Diavoulefsi03/SVAK_Thessalonikis.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2023).
- Tsavdari, D.; Klimi, V.; Georgiadis, G.; Fountas, G.; Basbas, S. The Anticipated Use of Public Transport in the Post-Pandemic Era: Insights from an Academic Community in Thessaloniki, Greece. Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nikiforiadis, A.; Ayfantopoulou, G.; Stamelou, A. Assessing the Impact of COVID-19 on Bike-Sharing Usage: The Case of Thessaloniki, Greece. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nikiforiadis, A.; Paschalidis, E.; Stamatiadis, N.; Raptopoulou, A.; Kostareli, A.; Basbas, S. Analysis of attitudes and engagement of shared e-scooter users. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 94, 102790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nikiforiadis, A.; Paschalidis, E.; Stamatiadis, N.; Paloka, N.; Tsekoura, E.; Basbas, S. E-scooters and other mode trip chaining: Preferences and attitudes of university students. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2023, 170, 103636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sochor, J.; Arby, H.; Karlsson, M.; Sarasini, S. A topological approach to mobility as a service: A proposed tool for understanding requirements and effects, and for aiding the integration of societal goals. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Mobility as a Service (ICoMaaS) 2017, Tampere, Finland, 28–29 November 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Qiuchen, W.; Baalsrud Jannicke, H.; Sebastiaan, M. The complexity of stakeholder influence on MaaS: A study on multi-stakeholder perspectives in Shenzhen self-driving mini-bus case. Res. Transp. Econ. 2022, 94, 101070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Department for Communities and Local Government. Multi-Criteria Analysis: A Manual; Communities and Local Government Publications: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Xing, L.J.; Xian, W.; Lee, J. Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) Business Model and Its Role in a Smart City. 2019. Available online: https://surbanajurong.com/perspective/mobility-as-a-service-maas-business-model-and-its-role-in-a-smart-city/ (accessed on 1 September 2023).
- Arias-Molinares, D.; Garcia-Palomares, J.C.; Gutierrez, J. On the path to mobility as a service: A MaaS-checklist for assessing existing MaaS-like schemes. Transp. Lett. 2023, 15, 142–151. [Google Scholar]
- Lopez-Carreiro, I.; Monzon, A.; Lois, D.; Lopez-Lambas, M. Are travellers willing to adopt MaaS? Exploring attitudinal and personality factors in the case of Madrid, Spain. Travel Behav. Soc. 2021, 25, 246–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feneri, A.M.; Rasouli, S.; Timmermans, H. Modeling the effect of Mobility-as-a-Service on mode choice decisions. Transp. Lett. 2022, 14, 324–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Criterion | Total | Local Authorities | Mobility Service Providers | Other Organizations |
---|---|---|---|---|
The widely spread use of cars | 22.0% | 25.0% | 35.2% | 13.9% |
Insufficient collaboration among the stakeholders involved (e.g., different mobility service providers) | 25.7% | 21.9% | 16.9% | 33.7% |
Institutional framework for public transport fare | 16.0% | 14.5% | 16.5% | 15.9% |
The reluctance of operators/companies to share data | 17.0% | 20.7% | 8.2% | 19.4% |
The possible feeling of deficient security of the users of the system (e.g., personal data, online transactions) | 6.6% | 4.4% | 5.9% | 8.6% |
Absence of a common view among the organizations involved (e.g., different mobility service operators) | 12.7% | 13.5% | 17.4% | 8.6% |
Criterion | Total | Local Authorities | Mobility Service Providers | Other Organizations |
---|---|---|---|---|
Private car use limitation in Thessaloniki | 38.1% | 38.7% | 20.9% | 45.6% |
Promotion of electromobility | 16.5% | 11.6% | 35.4% | 11.3% |
The economic progress of transport service operators | 7.5% | 7.3% | 8.8% | 5.6% |
Provision of personalized mobility solutions for MaaS users | 20.6% | 21.2% | 29.5% | 13.4% |
Mitigation of social inequalities in terms of citizens’ mobility | 17.3% | 21.2% | 5.4% | 24.1% |
Not at All Important | Slightly Important | Important | Very Important | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Public buses | 6.4% | 13.2% | 39.1% | 41.4% |
Metro | 5.5% | 6.4% | 33.2% | 55.0% |
Taxi | 7.7% | 25.9% | 39.1% | 27.3% |
Maritime public transport | 8.6% | 36.4% | 34.1% | 20.9% |
Ride-hailing | 12.3% | 33.2% | 35.5% | 19.1% |
Ridesharing | 20.0% | 32.3% | 31.8% | 15.9% |
Estimate | Std. Error | Wald | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age | - | - | - | - |
18–24 (reference) | - | - | - | - |
55–64 | −1.111 | 0.521 | 4.546 | 0.033 |
Monthly household income | - | - | - | - |
>2000 € (reference) | - | - | - | - |
0–400 € | −1.330 | 0.530 | 6.291 | 0.012 |
Taxi usage frequency | - | - | - | - |
Never (reference) | - | - | - | - |
Rarely | −0.875 | 0.400 | 4.787 | 0.029 |
Sometimes | 1.452 | 0.438 | 10.987 | 0.001 |
Often | 1.697 | 0.585 | 8.417 | 0.004 |
Very often | 2.743 | 0.979 | 7.857 | 0.005 |
Number of daily trips | - | - | - | - |
>6 (reference) | - | - | - | - |
5–6 | 2.358 | 0.747 | 9.972 | 0.002 |
3–4 | 2.033 | 0.631 | 10.375 | 0.001 |
1–2 | 2.259 | 0.660 | 11.706 | 0.001 |
Number of mode transfers within a week | - | - | - | - |
0 (reference) | - | - | - | - |
1–6 | 0.507 | 0.298 | 2.891 | 0.089 |
>14 | 2.885 | 1.404 | 4.222 | 0.040 |
McFadden’s Pseudo-R2 = 9.3% |
Estimate | Std. Error | Wald | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age | - | - | - | - |
18–24 (reference) | - | - | - | - |
25–39 | −0.929 | 0.385 | 5.807 | 0.016 |
40–54 | −1.172 | 0.454 | 6.659 | 0.010 |
55–64 | −1.750 | 0.589 | 8.839 | 0.003 |
Income | - | - | - | - |
>2000 € (reference) | - | - | - | - |
1600–2000 € | 0.734 | 0.425 | 2.979 | 0.084 |
0–400 € | −1.898 | 0.570 | 11.083 | 0.001 |
Taxi usage frequency | - | - | - | - |
Never (reference) | - | - | - | - |
Rarely | 0.713 | 0.418 | 2.912 | 0.088 |
Sometimes | 1.439 | 0.450 | 10.236 | 0.001 |
Very often | 4.335 | 1.334 | 10.554 | 0.001 |
Car usage frequency | - | - | - | - |
Very often (reference) | - | - | - | - |
Often | 0.669 | 0.373 | 3.213 | 0.073 |
Number of daily trips | - | - | - | - |
>6 (reference) | - | - | - | - |
0 | −2.248 | 1.099 | 4.185 | 0.041 |
McFadden’s Pseudo-R2 = 11.9% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nikiforiadis, A.; Tsavdari, D.; Mizaras, V.; Ayfantopoulou, G. Identifying Barriers and Expectations in MaaS: Users’ and Stakeholders’ Perspective. Future Transp. 2023, 3, 1240-1252. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp3040068
Nikiforiadis A, Tsavdari D, Mizaras V, Ayfantopoulou G. Identifying Barriers and Expectations in MaaS: Users’ and Stakeholders’ Perspective. Future Transportation. 2023; 3(4):1240-1252. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp3040068
Chicago/Turabian StyleNikiforiadis, Andreas, Despoina Tsavdari, Vasilis Mizaras, and Georgia Ayfantopoulou. 2023. "Identifying Barriers and Expectations in MaaS: Users’ and Stakeholders’ Perspective" Future Transportation 3, no. 4: 1240-1252. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp3040068