Development and implementation of Mobility-as-a-Service – A qualitative study of barriers and enabling factors

Abstract Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) has been argued as part of the solution to prevalent transport problems. However, progress from pilots to large-scale implementation has hitherto been slow. The aim of the research reported in this paper was to empirically and in-depth investigate how, and to what extent, different factors affect the development and implementation of MaaS. A framework was developed, with a basis in institutional theory and the postulation that formal as well informal factors on different analytical levels (macro, meso and micro) must be considered. The research was organised as a multiple case study in Finland and Sweden and a qualitative approach was chosen for data collection and analysis. A number of factors with a claimed impact on the development and implementation of MaaS was revealed. At the macro level, these factors included legislation concerning transport, innovation and public administration, and the presence (or not) of a shared vision for MaaS. At the meso level, (the lack of) appropriate business models, cultures of collaboration, and assumed roles and responsibilities within the MaaS ecosystem were identified as significant factors. At the micro level, people’s attitudes and habits were recognised as important factors to be considered. However, how the ‘S’ in MaaS fits (or not) the transport needs of the individual/household appears to play a more important role in adoption or rejection of MaaS than what has often been acknowledged in previous papers on MaaS. The findings presented in this paper provide several implications for public and private sector actors. Law-making authorities can facilitate MaaS developments by adjusting relevant regulations and policies such as transport-related subsidies, taxation policies and the definition of public transport. Regional and local authorities could additionally contribute to creating conducive conditions for MaaS by, for example, planning urban designs and transport infrastructures to support service-based travelling. Moreover, private actors have key roles to play in future MaaS developments, as both public and private transport services are needed if MaaS is to become a viable alternative to privately owned cars. Thus, the advance of MaaS business models that benefit all involved actors is vital for the prosperity of the emerging MaaS ecosystem.

[1]  L. Bertolini,et al.  From integrated aims to fragmented outcomes: Urban intensification and transportation planning in the Netherlands , 2016 .

[2]  Robert E. Stake,et al.  Multiple Case Study Analysis , 2005 .

[3]  MariAnne Karlsson,et al.  Travelers’ Motives for Adopting a New, Innovative Travel Service: Insights from the UbiGo Field Operational Test in Gothenburg, Sweden , 2014 .

[4]  W. Scott,et al.  INSTITUTIONAL THEORY AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL RESEARCH FORUM , 2002 .

[5]  Laurent Dauby,et al.  The Future of Urban Mobility 2.0: Imperatives to Shape Extended Mobility Ecosystems of Tomorrow , 2014 .

[6]  Jörg Balsiger,et al.  Logic of appropriateness , 2014 .

[7]  Yanying Li,et al.  Mobility as a Service (MaaS): Challenges of Implementation and Policy Required , 2017 .

[8]  Jenni Eckhardt,et al.  State-of-the-art survey on stakeholders’ expectations for Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) – highlights from Europe , 2016 .

[9]  David Byrne Introduction: Case-Based Methods: Why We Need Them; What They Are; How to Do Them , 2009 .

[10]  Goran Smith,et al.  Governing Mobility-as-a-Service: Insights from Sweden and Finland , 2018, The Governance of Smart Transportation Systems.

[11]  Annica Kronsell,et al.  Municipalities as enablers in urban experimentation , 2019, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning.

[12]  B. Jacobsson,et al.  Governing the Embedded State: The Organizational Dimension of Governance , 2015 .

[13]  W. Gibb Dyer,et al.  Better Stories, Not Better Constructs, To Generate Better Theory: A Rejoinder to Eisenhardt , 1991 .

[14]  Robert K. Yin,et al.  Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods , 2017 .

[15]  Jillian Anable,et al.  'Complacent Car Addicts' or 'Aspiring Environmentalists'? Identifying travel behaviour segments using attitude theory , 2005 .

[16]  Annica Kronsell,et al.  Experimental governance: the role of municipalities in urban living labs , 2018 .

[17]  Till Koglin,et al.  Institutional conditions for integrated mobility services (IMS): Towards a framework for analysis. K2 Working Papers 2016:16 , 2016 .

[18]  Steven Sarasini,et al.  Mobility as a service - MAAS: describing the framework , 2016 .

[19]  Alexander Paulsson Making the sustainable more sustainable: public transport and the collaborative spaces of policy translation , 2018 .

[20]  MariAnne Karlsson,et al.  Deliverable 3: Business and operator models for MaaS. MAASiFiE project funded by CEDR. , 2016 .

[21]  Melinda Matyas,et al.  Stated Preference Design for Exploring Demand for “Mobility as a Service” Plans , 2017 .

[22]  Samia Khan,et al.  Cultivating the Under-Mined: Cross-Case Analysis as Knowledge Mobilization , 2008 .

[23]  Hanna Ratilainen Mobility-as-a-Service: Exploring Consumer Preferences for MaaS Subscription Packages Using a Stated Choice Experiment , 2017 .

[24]  John W. Kingdon Agendas, alternatives, and public policies , 1984 .

[25]  M. Kamargianni,et al.  The Business Ecosystem of Mobility-as-a-Service , 2017 .

[26]  Yale Z. Wong,et al.  Prospects for switching out of conventional transport services to mobility as a service subscription plans – A stated choice study , 2017 .

[27]  Fredrik Pettersson,et al.  How to create functioning collaboration in theory and in practice – practical experiences of collaboration when planning public transport systems , 2018, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation.

[28]  Alexander Paulsson,et al.  Collaboration in public transport planning – Why, how and what? , 2018, Research in Transportation Economics.

[29]  H. Baldersheim,et al.  From Guided Democracy to Multi-Level Governance: Trends in Central-Local Relations in the Nordic Countries , 2002 .

[30]  Jana L. Sochor,et al.  Mobility as a Service: Development scenarios and implications for public transport , 2018, Research in Transportation Economics.

[31]  Helena Strömberg,et al.  Developing the ‘Service’ in Mobility as a Service: Experiences from a Field Trial of an Innovative Travel Brokerage , 2016 .

[32]  Från värdekedja till värdecykel - så får Sverige en mer cirkulär ekonomi , 2017 .

[33]  Goran Smith,et al.  Procuring Mobility as a Service: Exploring dialogues with potential bidders in West Sweden , 2017 .

[34]  J. Sochor,et al.  Inviting travelers to the smorgasbord of sustainable urban transport: evidence from a MaaS field trial , 2018, Transportation.

[35]  J. Sochor,et al.  CHALLENGES IN INTEGRATING USER, COMMERCIAL, AND SOCIETAL PERSPECTIVES IN AN INNOVATIVE MOBILITY SERVICE , 2015 .

[36]  Helena Strömberg Creating space for action - Supporting behaviour change by making sustainable transport opportunities available in the world and in the mind , 2015 .

[37]  Linda Steg,et al.  Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use , 2005 .

[38]  Jana L. Sochor,et al.  Public–private innovation: barriers in the case of mobility as a service in West Sweden , 2019 .

[39]  Johan P. Olsen,et al.  Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics , 1989 .

[40]  Lynda M. Baker,et al.  Observation: A Complex Research Method , 2006, Libr. Trends.

[41]  Goran Smith,et al.  Perceived action spaces for public actors in the development of Mobility as a Service , 2019, European Transport Research Review.

[42]  J. Sochor,et al.  What characterises a sustainable MaaS business model , 2017 .

[43]  Pamela Baxter,et al.  Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers , 2008 .

[44]  A. van Knippenberg,et al.  Habit versus planned behaviour: a field experiment. , 1998, The British journal of social psychology.

[45]  Steven Sarasini,et al.  Mobility as a service: Comparing developments in Sweden and Finland , 2018, Research in Transportation Business & Management.

[46]  J. Sochor,et al.  Mobility as a Service business and operator models , 2017 .

[47]  Fredrik Pettersson,et al.  Soft space regional planning as an approach for integrated transport and land use planning in Sweden – challenges and ways forward , 2016 .

[48]  K. Eisenhardt Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[49]  Jason Monios,et al.  The interplay of formal and informal institutions between local and regional authorities when creating well-functioning public transport systems , 2017 .

[50]  Helena Strömberg,et al.  Trying Out Mobility as a Service: Experiences from a Field Trial and Implications for Understanding Demand , 2016 .