Reflections on Sustainable Urban Mobility, Mobility as a Service (MaaS) and Adoption Models
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- RQ1: What topics are addressed most frequently in the scientific literature on sustainable mobility in order to frame this phenomenon and analyze its different consequences?
- RQ2: Considering the importance of adoption models in technological products, what theoretical framework could be most useful for conducting future research into this issue?
2. Materials and Methods
- Temporary scope. Papers published between 2016 and 2022 were searched for and selected. Specifically, in 2016 the first MaaS application appeared.
- Quality of research. Only scientific articles published in journals available in the two main databases mentioned above were selected.
- Knowledge area. Sustainable mobility is a multidisciplinary field of study. For example, sustainability, marketing, psychology, logistics and transportation, geography, energy, technology, among others. This leads us to use databases related to different areas of knowledge.
- Language of publication. Papers published in English are analyzed.
- Keywords. Taking the research questions as a reference, the following keywords were used: “sustainable mobility”, “smart mobility”, “smart cities”, “micro mobility”, “mobility as a service”, “MaaS”, and “technology acceptance models”.
- Search strategy in the databases. The combination of the keywords in the databases was carried out in the following fields: subject (for the WOS) and titled, abstract and keywords (for Scopus). In addition, it was limited by publication date (2016–2022), and English language.
3. Results
3.1. Smart Cities and Mobility
3.2. Private Vehicles versus Shared Micromobility
3.3. Sustainable Development and Mobility
3.4. Sustainable Mobility and MaaS
3.5. Marketing and Mobility
3.6. Sustainable Mobility and Explanatory Models of Adoption
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- European Comission. Digital Single Market. Smart City Smart Living. 2020. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/smart-cities (accessed on 25 November 2020).
- European Comission. Smart Cities. 2020. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/eu-regional-and-urban-development/topics/cities-and-urban-development/city-initiatives/smart-cities_en (accessed on 7 December 2020).
- Ejdys, J.; Szpilko, D. European Green Deal–research directions. a systematic literature review. Ekon. I Środowisko-Econ. Environ. 2022, 81, 8–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aguilera, Á.; Gómez, J.; Sobrino, N. Exploring the adoption of moped scooter-sharing systems in Spanish urban areas. Cities 2020, 96, 1022424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cledou, G.; Estevez, E.; Barbosa, L.S. A taxonomy for planning and designing smart mobility services. Gov. Inf. Q. 2018, 35, 61–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ismagilova, E.; Hughes, L.; Dwivedi, Y.; Raman, K. Smart cities: Advances in research. An information systems perspective. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 47, 88–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gkoumas, K.; Marques dos Santos, F.L.; Stepniak, M.; Pekár, F. Research and Innovation Supporting the European Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy: A Technology Perspective from Recent European Union Projects. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 11981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kotler, P. Reinventing Marketing to manage the environmental imperative. J. Mark. 2011, 75, 132–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Do Paço, A.; Shiel, C.; Alves, H. A new model for testi green consumer behaviour. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 998–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Araujo-Morera, J.; Verdejo, R.; López-Manchado, M.A.; Santana, M.H. Sustainable mobility: The route of tires through the circular economy model. Waste Manag. 2021, 126, 309–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, J.P.; Campbell, L. Developing a knowledge management policy for ISO 9001: 2015. J. Knowl. Manag. 2016, 20, 829–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Criado-García, F.; Calvo-Mora, A.; Martelo-Landroguez, S. Knowledge management issues in the EFQM excellence model framework. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2020, 37, 781–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krippendorff, K.; Bock, M. The Content Analysis Reader; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Harwood, T.G.; Garry, T. An overview of content analysis. Mark. Rev. 2003, 3, 479–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suárez, E.; Calvo-Mora, A.; Roldán, J.L.; Periánez-Cristóbal, R. Quantitative research on the EFQM excellence model: A systematic literature review (1991–2015). Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2017, 23, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Israilidis, J.; Odusanya, K.; Mazhar, M.U. Exploring knowledge management perspectives in smart city research: A review and future research agenda. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 56, 101989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Ren, H.; Dong, L.; Park, H.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, Y. Smart solutions shape for sustainable low-carbon future: A review on smart cities and industrial parks in China. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 144, 103–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobides, M.G.; Cennamo, C.; Gawer, A. Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strateg. Manag. J. 2018, 39, 2255–2276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Martin, C.; Evans, J.; Karvonen, A. Smart and sustainable? Five tensions in the visions and practices of smart sustainable city. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 133, 269–278. [Google Scholar]
- Trencher, G. Towards the smart city 2.0: Empirical evidence of using smartness as a tool for tackling social challenges. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 142, 117–128. [Google Scholar]
- Giffinger, C.; Fertner, H.; Kramar, R.; Kalasek, N.; Pichler, N.; Meijers. Smart Cities: Ranking European Medium-Sized Cities; Centre Regional Science, Vienna University of Technology: Vienna, Austria, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, B. The Smart City Wheel. 2013. Available online: https://smart-circle.org/smartcity/blog/boyd-cohen-the-smart-city-wheel/ (accessed on 23 September 2021).
- Brockfeld, E.; Barlovic, R.; Schadschneider, A.; Schreckenberg, M. Optimizing traffic lights in a cellular automaton model for city traffic. Phys. Rev. E. 2001, 64, 056132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tran, C.N.; Tat, T.T.H.; Tam, V.W.; Tran, D.H. Factors affecting intelligent transport systems towards a smart city: A critical review. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2022, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Francini, M.; Chieffallo, L.; Palermo, A.; Viapiana, M.F. Systematic Literature Review on Smart Mobility: A Framework for Future “Quantitative” Developments. J. Plan. Lit. 2021, 36, 283–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagy, S.; Csiszár, C. The quality of smart mobility: A systematic review. Zesz. Nauk. Transp./Politech. Śląska 2020, 109, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nava, A.; Giuliano, D.; Papa, A.; Rossi, M. Traffic models and traffic-jam transition in quantum (N + 1)-level systems. SciPost Phys. Core 2022, 5, 022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kerner, B.S. Breakdown in Traffic Networks. In Complex Dynamics of Traffic Management. A Volumen in the Encyclopedia of Compexity and System Science, 2nd ed.; Kerner, B.S., Ed.; Springer Science + Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 21–77. [Google Scholar]
- Zagorskas, J.; Burinskiené, M. Challenges caused by increased use of e-powered personal mobility vehicles in European cities. Sustainability 2020, 12, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shaheen, S.; Cohen, A. Shared Micromobility Policy Toolkit: Docked and Dockless Bike and Scooter Sharing; UC Berkeley Transportation Sustainability Research Center: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Aguiléra, A.; Pigalle, E. The Future and Sustainability of Carpooling Practices. An Identification of Research Challenges. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kakderi, C.; Oikonomaki, E.; Papadaki, I. Smart and resilient urban futures for sustainability in the post COVID-19 era: A review of policy responses on urban mobility. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campisi, T.; Basbas, S.; Skoufas, A.; Akgün, N.; Ticali, D.; Tesoriere, G. The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on the Resilience of Sustainable Mobility in Sicily. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Storme, T.; Casier, C.; Azadi, H.; Witlox, F. Impact assessments of new mobility services: A critical review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bardhi, F.; Eckhardt, G.M. Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing. J. Consum. Res. 2012, 39, 881–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tyrinopoulos, Y.; Antoniou, C. Review of factors affecting transportation systems adoption and satisfaction. In Demand for Emerging Transportation Systems; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 11–36. [Google Scholar]
- Barnes, S.J.; Mattsson, J. Understanding collaborative consumption: Test of a theoretical model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 118, 281–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ganapati, S.; Reddick, C.G. Prospects and challenges of sharing economy for the public sector. Gov. Inf. Q. 2018, 35, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muñoz, P.; Cohen, B. Mapping out the sharing economy: A configurational approach to sharing business modeling. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 125, 21–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hamari, J.; Sjöklint, M.; Ukkonen, A. Sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2016, 67, 2047–2059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, Y.; Kim, J. Data-centered persuasion: Nudging user’s prosocial behaviour and designing social innovation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 80, 168–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruutu, S.; Casey, T.; Kotovirta, V. Development and competition of digital service platforms: A system dynamics approach. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 117, 119–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ertz, M.; Lecompte ADurif, F. It’s not my fault, I am in the right! Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 134, 254–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKenzie, G. Spatiotemporal comparative analysis of scooter-share and bike-share usage paterns in Washington, DC. J. Transp. Geogr. 2019, 78, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metais, M.O.; Jouini, O.; Perez, Y.; Berrada, J.; Suomalainen, E. Too much or not enough? Planning electric vehicle charging infrastructure: A review of modeling options. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 153, 111719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González, K.; Castro, M. Evaluating pedestrians' safety on urban intersections: A Visibility analysis. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chakraborty, S.; Kumar, N.M.; Jayakumar, A.; Dash, S.K.; Elangovan, D. Selected Aspects of Sustainable Mobility Reveals Implementable Approaches and Conceivable Actions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruggieri, R.; Ruggeri, M.; Vinci, G.; Poponi, S. Electric mobility in a smart city: European overview. Energies 2021, 14, 315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gobierno de España. Estrategia Española de Movilidad Sostenible. 2009. Available online: https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/calidad-y-evaluacion-ambiental/participacion-publica/290409_eems_definitiva_tcm30-184109.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2021).
- Chakraborty, S.; Dash, S.K.; Elavarasan, R.M.; Kaur, A.; Elangovan, D.; Meraj, S.T.; Said, Z. Hydrogen Energy as Future of Sustainable Mobility. Front. Energy Res. 2022, 10, 893475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dash, S.K.; Chakraborty, S.; Roccotelli, M.; Sahu, U.K. Hydrogen Fuel for Future Mobility: Challenges and Future Aspects. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyons, G.; Hammond, P.; Mackay, K. The importance of user perspective in the evolution of MaaS. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 121, 22–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chao, W.P.; Yang, K.C. From Smart Card to Mobility as A Service (MaaS): A Case Study from Kaohsiung City, Taiwan. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), Singapore, 13–16 December 2021; pp. 1671–1675. [Google Scholar]
- García, J.; Lenz, G.; Haveman, S.; Bonnema, G. State of the art of electric Mobility as a Service (eMaaS). In Proceedings of the 32nd International Electric Vehicle Symposium 2019: A World of e-Motion, Lyon, France, 19–22 May 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Eckert, C.; Pechlnaer, H. Alternative product development as strategy towards sustainability in tourism: The case of Lanzarote. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Signorile, P.; Larosa, V.; Spiru, A. Mobility as a service: A new model for sustainable mobility in tourism. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. 2018, 10, 185–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guyader, H.; Friman, M.; Olsson, L.E. Shared Mobility: Evolving Practices for Sustainability. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stankov, I.; Stefanova-Stoyanova, V. Urban Intelligent Transport Management Systems. In Proceedings of the 2021 29th National Conference with International Participation (TELECOM), Sofia, Bulgaria, 28–29 October 2021; pp. 113–116. [Google Scholar]
- Santos, G.; Nikolaev, N. Mobility as a service and public transport: A rapid literature review and the case of Moovit. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muller, M.; Park, S.; Lee, R.; Fusco, B.; Correia, G.H.D.A. Review of whole system simulation methodologies for assessing mobility as a service (MaaS) as an enabler for sustainable urban mobility. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, V. Evolution of Marketing as a discipline: What has happened and what to look out for. J. Mark. 2015, 79, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, V. Transformative Marketing: The next 20 years. J. Mark. 2018, 82, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Davis, B.; Ozanne, J. Measuring the impact of transformative consumer research: The relational engagement approach as a promising avenue. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 100, 311–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, R. Reflections on Transformative Marketing. J. Mark. 2018, 82, 13–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, V.; Christodoulopoulou, A. Sustainability and branding: An integrated perspective. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2014, 43, 6–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kotler, P.; Kartajaya, H.; Setiawan, I. Marketing 3.0, 2nd ed.; Lid: Madrid, Spain, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Kotler, P.; Kartajaya, H.; Setiawan, I. Marketing 4.0: Moving from Traditional to Digital; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Boca Raton, NJ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Kotler, P.; Kartajaya, H.; Setiawan, I. Marketing 4.0; Lid: Madrid, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- White, K.; Habib, R.; Hardisty, D.J. How to shift consumer behaviours to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. J. Mark. 2019, 83, 22–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dash, G.; Kiefer, K.; Paul, J. Marketing-to-Millennials: Marketing 4.0, customer satisfaction and purchase intention. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 122, 608–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghonim, M.A.; Zakaria Elsawy, W.; Elsotouhy, M.M.; Khashan, M.A. The Impact of Marketing 4.0 on Customer Satisfaction and Engagement: The Distinctive Role of Brand Interaction in the Egyptian Hotel Industry. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 2022, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maniatis, P. Investigating factors influencing consumer decision-making while choosing green products. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 132, 215–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moser, A.K. Thinking green, buying green? Drivers of proenvironmental purchasing behaviour. J. Consum. Mark. 2015, 32, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Achrol, R.S.; Kotler, P. Frontiers of the marketing paradigm in the third millennium. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2012, 40, 35–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sovacool, B.K.; Daniels, C.; AbdulRafiu, A. Transitioning to electrified, automated and shared mobility in an African context: A comparative review of Johannesburg, Kigali, Lagos and Nairobi. J. Transp. Geogr. 2022, 98, 103256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulusoy, E. Experiential responsible consumption. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 284–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paul, J.; Modi, A.; Patel, J. Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behaviour and reasoned action. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 29, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haws, K.; Winterich, K.; Naylor, R. Seeing the world through Green tinted glasses: Green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products. J. Consum. Psychol. 2014, 24, 336–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bailey, A.; Mishra, A.; Tiamiyu, M.F. Green consumption values and Indian consumers’ response to marketing communications. J. Consum. Mark. 2016, 33, 562–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Limayen, M.; Hirtz, S.; Cheung, C. How habit limits the predictive power of intention: The case of information systems continuance. MIS Q. 2007, 31, 705–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, H.; Kanhanhalli, A. Investigating user resistance to information systems implementation: A Status Quo Bias Perspective. MIS Q. 2009, 33, 567–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, Z.; Su, C.; Fam, K.-S. Dealing with Institutional Distances in International Marketing Channels: Governance Strategies That Engender Legitimacy and Efficiency. J. Mark. 2012, 76, 41–55. [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]
- Verplancken, B.; Aarts, H. Habit, attitude and planned behavior: Is habit an empty construct or an interesting case of goal-directed automaticity? Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 10, 101–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Kamargianni, M. A review on the factors influencing the adoption of new mobility technologies and services: Autonomous vehicle, drone, micromobility and mobility as a service. Transp. Rev. 2022, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsie, P.J. An empirical investigation of patients’ acceptance and resistance toward the health cloud: The dual factor perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 63, 959–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cenfetelli, R. Inhibitors and enablers as dual factors concpets in technology usage. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2004, 5, 472–492. [Google Scholar]
- Medina-Molina, C.; Pérez-Macías, N. The Identification of Causal Mechanisms in Sustainable Urban Transitions—A Systematic Approach to Case Selection. Mathematics 2022, 10, 2438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bushell, J.; Merkert, R.; Beck, M.J. Consumer preferences for operator collaboration in intra-and intercity transport ecosystems: Institutionalising platforms to facilitate MaaS 2.0. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2022, 160, 160–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.; Davis, G.; Davis, F. Use acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Venkatesh, V.; Thong, J.; Xu, X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 2012, 36, 157–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abbasi, H.A.; Johl, S.K.; Shaari, Z.B.H.; Moughal, W.; Mazhar, M.; Musarat, M.A.; Rafiq, W.; Farooqi, A.S.; Borovkov, A. Consumer Motivation by Using Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology towards Electric Vehicles. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curtale, R.; Liao, F.; van der Waerden, P. User acceptance of electric car-sharing services: The case of the Netherlands. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2021, 149, 266–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dichabeng, P.; Merat, N.; Markkula, G. Factors that influence the acceptance of future shared automated vehicles—A focus group study with United Kingdom drivers. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2021, 82, 121–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altay, B.C.; Okumuş, A. User adoption of integrated mobility technologies: The case of multimodal trip-planning apps in Turkey. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2022, 43, 100706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oulette, J.; Wood, W. Habit and intention in everday life. Psychol. Bull. 1998, 124, 54–74. [Google Scholar]
- Sheeran, P. Intention behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 12, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kroenung, J.; Eckhardt, A.; Kuhlenkasper, T. Conflicting behavioral paradigms and predicting IS adoption and non adoption. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 67, 10–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maas, B. Literature review of mobility as a service. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polites, G.; Karahanna, E. Shackled to the Status Quo: Inhibiting effects of incumbent system habit, switching costs and inertia on new system acceptance. MIS Q. 2012, 36, 21–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, H.; Gupta, S. Investigating customer resistance to change in transaction relationship with and Internet vendor. Psychol. Mark. 2012, 29, 257–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patsiotis, A.G.; Patsiotis, A.; Hughes, T.; Webber, D.J. An examination of consumers' resistance to computer-based technologies. J. Serv. Mark. 2013, 27, 294–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geng, S. Decision time, consideration time and SQB. Econ. Inq. 2016, 54, 433–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerasimou, G. Asymmetric dominance, deferral and Status Quo Bias in a behavioural model of choice. Theory Decis. 2016, 80, 295–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chernev, A.; Bockenholt, U.; Goodman, J. Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis. J. Consum. Psychol. 2015, 25, 333–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, C.C. Status quo bias in information system adoption: A meta-analytic review. Online Inf. Rev. 2016, 40, 998–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wieringa, J.; Verhoef, P. Understanding customer switching behaviour in a liberating service market. An exploratory study. J. Serv. Res. 2007, 10, 174–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khedhaouria, A.; Thurik, R.; Gurau, C.; van Heck, E. Customers’ continuance intention regarding mobile service providers: A Status Quo Bias perspective. J. Glob. Inf. Manag. 2016, 24, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, K.; Joshi, K. Examining the use of Status Quo Bias perspective in IS research: Need for re-conceptualizing and incorporating biases. Inf. Syst. J. 2017, 27, 733–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Medina-Molina, C.; Pérez-Macías, N.; Gismera-Tierno, L. The multi-level perspective and micromobility services. J. Innov. Knowl. 2022, 7, 100183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buerke, A.; Straatmann, T.; Lin-Hi, N.; Müller, K. Consumer awareness and sustainability-focused value orientation as motivating factors of responsible consumer behavior. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2017, 11, 959–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y.; Thogersen, J.; Ruan, Y.; Huang, G. The moderating role of human values in planned behavior. J. Consum. Mark. 2013, 30, 335–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Attributes | Meaning |
---|---|
Flexibility | Allows users to choose between multiple modes of transport that suit their needs through a navigation system |
Efficiency | Provides efficient mobility options with minimal disruption, low cost, and minimal travel time |
Integration | Guarantees end to end route plans, regardless of modes of transport |
Sustainability | Promotes cleaner, more sustainable operations with minimal greenhouse gas emissions |
Safety and Protection | Helps to improve road safety |
Social Benefits | Offers citizens equal opportunities to use public transport |
Automation | Facilitates the automation of all processes |
Connectivity | Generates a network of connected entities |
Accessibility | Is affordable to everyone |
User Experience | Ensures a better user experience |
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. |
© 2022 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
Rey-Moreno, M.; Periáñez-Cristóbal, R.; Calvo-Mora, A. Reflections on Sustainable Urban Mobility, Mobility as a Service (MaaS) and Adoption Models. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 274. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010274
Rey-Moreno M, Periáñez-Cristóbal R, Calvo-Mora A. Reflections on Sustainable Urban Mobility, Mobility as a Service (MaaS) and Adoption Models. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(1):274. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010274
Chicago/Turabian StyleRey-Moreno, Manuel, Rafael Periáñez-Cristóbal, and Arturo Calvo-Mora. 2023. "Reflections on Sustainable Urban Mobility, Mobility as a Service (MaaS) and Adoption Models" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 1: 274. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010274
APA StyleRey-Moreno, M., Periáñez-Cristóbal, R., & Calvo-Mora, A. (2023). Reflections on Sustainable Urban Mobility, Mobility as a Service (MaaS) and Adoption Models. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(1), 274. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010274