There is a broad consensus among researchers, industry and governmental actors that digitalization and other technological advances can enable a changed transport system, and that this transition has already begun. The changed transport system is often referred to as “smart mobility” (see e.g. [
12,
17,
41]). Mobility as a Service (MaaS) is often mentioned as an important part of future smart mobility. MaaS can be described as a service concept using a digital interface to offer a mix of mobility services and bring different types of transport options together, thereby enabling a seamless journey [
40]. Often, this concept includes some type of mobility subscription plans for various transport modes [
31,
39]. It has been suggested that these services offer alternatives to car ownership. Smart mobility proponents promise opportunities to create large economic benefits, while reducing the congestion and pollution problems associated with the private car. A recent study by Nalmpantis et al. [
40] evaluated new ideas for more attractive public transport with respect to utility, feasibility and innovativeness, and found Mobility as a Service to be the most promising such new idea from a perspective combining those factors. However, as argued by e.g. [
12,
43] a smart mobility transition may require thoughtful and well-informed governance if it is to support a sustainable transport transition and produce the desired results for society. Without regulation, digitalized mobility, including MaaS, will likely lead to a new hypermobile culture still based on individual vehicles, and thus increase congestion and pollution problems [
12].
Replacing individual motorized vehicles with shared modes of travel (especially Public Transport), bicycling and walking, is important to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, it is a difficult task to create public transport services that are as quick and comfortable as on-demand door-to-door services built on individual vehicles. Due to its promise of seamlessness and convenience, MaaS has been seen as a promising way to replace the private car, but development and uptake have been slow. Furthermore, successful new mobility services such as Uber are car-based, and mainly replace walking, bicycling and public transport [
10,
18]. There are also a number of specific travel needs where it is hard for the proposed new mobility services to compete with the private car, mostly due to individual destinations out of reach of public transport. Gärling and Schuitema [
21] suggest that coercive measures will be needed for a shift from car-based transportation, but that these need to be complemented with non-coercive measures if they are to be politically feasible. Economic incentives and regulations to support a shift from the car-based society may be politically difficult to impose without satisfactory mobility alternatives. MaaS could potentially play a part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by supporting a shift away from individual vehicles – hereafter, we refer to MaaS that manages to do this as sustainable MaaS. To design attractive and sustainable MaaS offerings, we need to understand which practical needs and mental images may affect mobility choices and practices. In this study, we specifically aimed to explore motivations and hindrances for an uptake of more sustainable mobility practices that could be enabled by MaaS.
This paper describes the results from the Living Lab “Future playing rules for everyday travel” performed in Stockholm, Sweden, June–November 2018. This Living Lab aimed to explore everyday mobility by use of mixed interventions.
Nine participants were introduced to three different economic incentives, designed to promote more environmentally friendly transportation choices. As this was an explorative study, the aim was not to evaluate the effectiveness of the incentives. Instead, their purpose was to trigger the participants to reflect upon their mobility practices and choices. In this way, the participants’ reflections and responses let us explore more complex underlying factors and identify barriers and opportunities to change, answering to Gärling and Schuitema’s [
21] call to disentangle the reasons why Traffic Demand Management measures may work or not.
Finding pathways for continued research, this study can also be seen as a first iteration in a longer research program, aiming to produce the knowledge needed to guide the development of sustainable MaaS.
1.1 Summary of existing literature related to the aim of this article
In the light of traffic-related challenges on both global, regional and local levels, how to break the trend of growing volumes of car traffic has become a major topic of research within several different fields. Different Traffic Demand Management measures have been tested. Jakobsson et al. [
30] find that “even substantial economic disincentives are unlikely to lead to any large reduction in private car use”. In a review of the field Gärling and Schuitema [
21] conclude that coercive measures such as costs or regulation are nevertheless needed, but are difficult to implement as they must be both acceptable to the public and politically feasible. Furthermore, a more recent review by Arnott et al. [
3] finds no evidence for the efficacy of behavioral interventions, aiming to change beliefs or attitudes, or providing economic incentives.
Habit has been described as a powerful predictor of present behaviour [
42]. Gärling and Axhausen [
20] show how car-use habit can be an important barrier to reducing car use, but in the same special issue Bamberg et al. [
5] show that even habitual car users may react positively to interventions to promote public transport, when in a new decision context such as when moving residences.
Graham-Rowe et al. [
19] describe such changing contexts as one of few promising exceptions, finding that the evidence for structural interventions to reduce car-use is generally weak, and the effects limited.
In the present study we aim to understand more about which contextual factors and individual understandings may influence the efficacy of efforts to reduce car use and promote alternatives, such as Sustainable MaaS. Also, many studies in this field focus on measures to convert car commuters to use public transport, but the largest opportunities for MaaS to replace the car may be in non-work-related travel. In Stockholm, as in many cities in developed countries, many already commute by public transport but mostly use the car in the spare time. In Stockholm 43% of commuting trips are made by public transport, but only 23% of trips made in the leisure time [
49]. This study aims to explore reasons behind this.
Lättman et al. [
35] question the commonly used “objective” measuring of accessibility and have instead worked to capture perceived accessibility, “the individual perspective of accessibility with a certain travel mode” (p. 501) defined as “how easy it is to live a satisfactory life with the help of the transport system” ([
34], p. 36). This perspective does not only take objectively measurable factors such as travel time into account, but also subjective factors such as feelings of security and access to information [
35]. Comparison between measurements of accessibility measured objectively and subjectively showed that these often do not correspond [
35]. As MaaS proposes to contribute with improved route planning and more seamless travel, it may improve perceived accessibility even when only connecting existing travel modes. Therefore, we aim at examining such individual perceptions of ease of travel.
It has been known for decades that people generally have very limited active knowledge of the full cost of owning and operating private cars. Car owners are known to consciously or unconsciously repress parts of the costs (see for example [
7]). Many car owners only calculate operational costs, such as fuel, and disregard the car’s depreciation in value, which is often the single largest cost of car ownership. A recent study shows that limited understanding of the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is a barrier to the uptake of electric cars [
24]. In this study only 42% of potential car-buyers estimated the cost of ownership, and only 8% included depreciation of value. Other studies indicate that car costs can have an impact on car-driving choices, but that people mostly only calculate with the cost of fuel [
6]. In our study, we investigate such potential impacts.
Recent research indicates that the costs of public transport are increasing [
15], and that the cost of accommodating to the maximal traffic volumes during rush hours is a significant part of the increase [
36]. Many attempts have been made to curb these peaks. For example, in an experiment in Singapore, a large group of people were offered to travel for free if they exited the public transport-system before 7.45 am. This resulted in a 5.5% reduction in travel during peak hours – a rather small shift that could however imply long-term financial savings on infrastructure investments [
53]. Tyrinopoulos and Antoniou [
50] have also found that crowding is one of the most important factors that may discourage public transport use, which suggests that it might be important to even out the load on public transport. In this study, we aim to understand more about which circumstances make such incentives work or not.
According to [
45], positive societal effects of bicycling on e.g. health and environment, are so large that building bicycling lanes is profitable for society. Bicycles take up less space than cars, and bicycling can help reduce pressure on highways and commuter trains alike. However, research shows that comfort factors regarding for example weather, physical effort and perceived safety affect bicycling, both for recreation and for transportation [
44,
52]. To put it simply, despite its advantages bicycling can be perceived by many as inconvenient.
In the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, and France, there are programs to incentivize bicycling to work by offering bicyclists 0.2–0.25 €/travelled kilometre. The results this far have been modest but positive. The Dutch Brabant Region has around 2 million inhabitants, and the B-Riders program is estimated to have made 8500 motorists shift to commuting by bicycle. ([
4,
13]). In the UK however, a large survey (stated preference) suggested that payments for cycling to work could be very effective, and that a £2 daily payment could potentially almost double the level of cycling [
51]. In this study, we aim to learn more about how such rewards are experienced, and which factors may influence their effect.