Developing mobility as a service – user, operator and governance perspectives,European Transport Research Review

当前位置： X-MOL 学术 › Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. › 论文详情

Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)

Developing mobility as a service – user, operator and governance perspectives
European Transport Research Review ( IF 5.1 ) Pub Date : 2021-06-23 , DOI: 10.1186/s12544-021-00496-0
Heikki Liimatainen , Miloš N. Mladenović

Mobility as a Service (MaaS) can be briefly described as an emerging concept that aims to fulfil individual’s mobility needs in a sustainable way by combining different transport services to seamless trips [1], offering an appealing alternative to owning and using a private car [2]. The core characteristics of MaaS include integration of multiple transport modes, various payment options, and use of various technologies enabling the use of single interface and platform, while catering for personalization and customization to offer user-centric mobility services [3]. The history of MaaS by name is not long, but MaaS can be seen as an evolutionary continuation of integrating mobility services [2], having its origins in Intelligent Transport Systems concepts [4]. In addition, these integration and customization efforts enabled by wider digitalization are related to many collaboration opportunities and challenges across diverse sets of actors in the mobility sector and beyond.

As we are witnessing MaaS emergence across the world, research on MaaS is accumulating rapidly [5,6,7,8]. Under the umbrella of an emerging concept, we can see that MaaS concept is evolving, as the technological aspects are changing simultaneously with the societal understanding of the underlying problems and needs. Thus, we are witnessing a phase of interpretative flexibility [9], where many actors have a surface agreement on MaaS conceptualization, but in fact have underlying conflicting perspectives. Similarly, previous research on MaaS has been quite diverse, ranging from studies of user perspectives and bundling design [10, 11], potential systemic effects such as welfare losses [12], as well as challenges of networked governance [13] and the need for responsible innovation practices [4].

This topical collection aims to provide additional breadth and depth to the rapidly developing MaaS literature. The papers can be clustered around three main themes. Firstly, three papers provide an overview of the state of MaaS development and discuss governance issues [14,15,16]. Secondly, three papers provide pilot and survey results with a focus on rural, urban and work-related mobility [17,18,19]. Thirdly, there are four papers which explore including new mobility offerings, in particular ridesourcing and automated transport, into mobility services [20,21,22,23].

Esztergar-Kiss et al. [14] analyze the features of more than 30 MaaS services and identify three cluster groups, of which the route planners usually include few transport modes but lack payment solutions, while the public systems include payments for public transport but have limited information on other modes. The third parties have most diverse services, including comprehensive mobility packages. Esztergar-Kiss et al. [14] and Murati [15] both highlight the importance of opening access to information and payment data services of transport operators for third-party resale and use. Such regulation already exists in Finland and France. However, providing comprehensive mobility packages encounters various governance issues. Murati [15] notes that there is no harmonised legal base for multimodal travel chains. Thus, passenger rights cannot be guaranteed on events delaying one segment of the journey and causing the passenger to miss the following segment. Hence, it is necessary to amend transport regulations from a multimodal perspective.

Van den Hurk et al. [16] identify through a case study in Utrecht responsibilities for public and private actors in cities to develop digital mobility platforms. They identify open questions about the roles of stakeholders, ambiguous understanding of the mobility platform and highlight the need for public and landowner participation in the development process to enable market-based demand for MaaS in cities.

Eckhardt et al. [17] widen the traditionally city-based scope of MaaS pilots and research to rural areas through two case studies in Finland. This research presents a demand-responsive transport pilot in Finland aimed to combine self-paying customers with government subsidized statutory social and health service transport customers. Based on the comprehensive key performance indicators, the integration may result in cost savings for public sector, improve vehicle occupancy rates and reduce vehicle mileage and emissions.

Maas [18] confirms the previous findings on the importance of public transport as the backbone of MaaS offerings and highlight car and bike sharing as enhancing the overall utility. His study from Dresden shows significant differences in the preferred type of subscription and shows a method for segmenting user groups. He also finds that private car costs are massively underestimated, which leads to prices for MaaS offerings to be considered too high. Günther et al. [19] conducted a 22-month study with 93 university employees on corporate mobility as a service (CMaaS) and show that experiences of electric vehicles and mobility services on business travel may help to positively influence users’ attitudes towards new mobility concepts. Integrated in-company multimodal mobility offerings also enable possibility of significant reductions in mobility costs for the business travel.

In order to analyze the effects of mobility services on transport systems, it is necessary to incorporate travel chains into travel demand models. Wilkes et al. [20] show how ridesourcing services can be simulated in a microscopic travel demand model. They highlight that decision parameters for ridesourcing may differ from those for public transport and more data on willingness to pay and travel times is needed to improve the modelling. One solution for future last-mile service within MaaS offerings may be shared automated vehicles, which, according to Eppenberger & Richter [21], may improve equity in accessibility if the complementarity to public transport is ensured. Bellone et al. [22] report the results of user surveys conducted during automated vehicle pilots in four cities. Overall experience of the automated minibuses were very positive and passengers felt safe on-board. However, increased speed, improved service level and smoother operation were commonly wished for future services. Automated vehicle pilots have mostly focused on minibuses, but Hang Rong et al. [23] present an analysis of waterborne automated vehicle services to visit museums in Amsterdam. Waterborne automated services would somewhat increase the total travel time compared to land public transport, but significantly decrease the walking distance. Survey results highlight that waterborne automated service could be preferred over land transport and traditional canal boats.

Presenting the papers together in this topical collection has the added value of giving the readers a wide understanding on the complex set of issues related to MaaS, while also giving specific examples from case studies. Given that developing MaaS is intertwined with the development of sustainable transport system as a whole, including specifically public transport system and new forms of micro-mobility together with the challenges of digitalisation, the papers of this topical collection are relevant to European transport researchers, practitioners, and policymakers.

Research collected under the banner of this topical collection has pushed the boundary of our understanding of MaaS, but also opened up new and highlighted old pathways for further research and development. To begin, we need further evaluation of various MaaS design variations, with or without bundling, in both stated preference and in living lab settings. This pathway goes hand in hand with longer pilot duration and higher emphasis on responsible innovation principles. For example, wider citizen engagement in pilots would help with expanding sample sizes and their representativeness by moving away from participants that are by default interested in new technologies. More responsible experimentation would also deploy mixed methods besides using only questionnaires, relying on focus group and even more engaging, co-creation and service design, methods. Furthermore, evaluation frameworks used in the future would need to expand to include a wider set of sustainability indicators. Simultaneously, as MaaS is emerging over time, we need further studies evaluating business models and market constellations as services and actors are evolving. For this aspect, we also need further governance studies, both in-depth cases and cross-comparison, accounting for diverse and changing networks of actors in operations, planning and policy. Finally, there is a further need for legislative studies on user rights and operator responsibilities, but also more fundamental studies on ethical principles for the ongoing digitalization of mobility services. With this in mind, we hope that this topical collection is an encouragement for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to continue seeking future MaaS development pathways that are in line with a rich diversity of European cultures, and being grounded in European values of human dignity, equality, freedom and democracy.

1.
Utriainen, R., & Pöllänen, M. (2018). Review on mobility as a service in scientific publications. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 27, 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2018.10.005.
Article Google Scholar
2.
Lyons, G., Hammond, P., & Mackay, K. (2019). The importance of user perspective in the evolution of MaaS. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 121, 22–36.
Google Scholar
3.
Jittrapirom, P., Caiati, V., Feneri, A. M., Ebrahimigharehbaghi, S., Alonso González, M. J., & Narayan, J. (2017). Mobility as a service: A critical review of definitions, assessments of schemes, and key challenges. Urban Planning, 2(2), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v2i2.931.
Article Google Scholar
4.
Pangbourne, K., Mladenović, M. N., Stead, D., & Milakis, D. (2020). Questioning mobility as a service: Unanticipated implications for society and governance. Transportation research part A: policy and practice, 131, 35–49.
Google Scholar
5.
Liimatainen, H., & Mladenović, M. N. (2018). Understanding the complexity of mobility as a service. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 27, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2018.12.004.
Article Google Scholar
6.
Amaral, A. M., Barreto, L., Baltazar, S., Silva, J. P., & Gonçalves, L. (Eds.) (2019). Implications of mobility as a service (MaaS) in urban and rural environments: Emerging research and opportunities: Emerging research and opportunities. IGI global. Hershey: USA.
Google Scholar
7.
Hensher, D. A., & Mulley, C. (2020). Special issue on developments in mobility as a service (MaaS) and intelligent mobility. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 131, 1–4.
Article Google Scholar
8.
Hensher, D. A., Mulley, C., Ho, C., Smith, G., Wong, Y., & Nelson, J. D. (2020). Understanding mobility as a service (MaaS): Past, present and future. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Google Scholar
9.
Mladenović, M. N., & Haavisto, N. (2021). Interpretative flexibility and conflicts in the emergence of mobility as a service: Finnish public sector actor perspectives. Case Studies on Transport Policy.
Google Scholar
10.
Liljamo, T., Liimatainen, H., Pöllänen, M., & Utriainen, R. (2020). People’s current mobility costs and willingness to pay for mobility as a service offerings. Transp Res A Policy Pract, 136, 99–119.
Article Google Scholar
11.
Hensher, D. A., Ho, C. Q., & Reck, D. J. (2021). Mobility as a service and private car use: Evidence from the Sydney MaaS trial. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 145, 17–33.
Google Scholar
12.
Hörcher, D., & Graham, D. J. (2020). MaaS economics: Should we fight car ownership with subscriptions to alternative modes? Economics of Transportation, 22, 100167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecotra.2020.100167.
Article Google Scholar
13.
Smith, G., Sochor, J., & Karlsson, I. M. (2020). Intermediary MaaS integrators: A case study on hopes and fears. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 131, 163–177.
Google Scholar
14.
Esztergar-Kiss, D., Kerenyi, T., Matrai, T., & Aba, A. (2020). Exploring the MaaS market with systematic analysis. European Transport Research Review, 12(1), 67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-020-00465-z.
Article Google Scholar
15.
Murati, E. (2020). Mobility –as-a-service (MaaS) digital marketplace impact on EU passengers’ rights. European Transport Research Review, 12(1), 62. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-020-00447-1.
Article Google Scholar
16.
Van den Hurk, M., Pelzer, P., & Riemens, R. (2021). Governance challenges of mobility platforms: The case of Merwede, Utrecht. European Transport Research Review, 13(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-021-00483-5.
Article Google Scholar
17.
Eckhardt, J., Lauhkonen, A., & Aapaoja, A. (2020). Impact assessment of rural PPP MaaS pilots. European Transport Research Review, 12(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-020-00443-5.
Article Google Scholar
18.
Maas, B. (2021). Conjoint analysis of mobility plans in the city of Dresden. European Transport Research Review, 13(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-021-00478-2.
Article Google Scholar
19.
Günther, M., Jacobsen, B., Rehme, M., Götze, U., & Krems, J. F. (2020). Understanding user attitudes and economic aspects in a corporate multimodal mobility system: Results from a field study in Germany. European Transport Research Review, 12(1), 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-020-00456-0.
Article Google Scholar
20.
Wilkes, G., Briem, L., Heilig, M., Hilgert, T., Kagerbauer, M., & Vortisch, P. (2021). Determining service provider and transport system related effects of ridesourcing services by simulation within the travel demand model mobiTopp. European Transport Research Review, 13(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-021-00493-3.
Article Google Scholar
21.
Eppenberger, N., & Richter, M. A. (2021). The opportunity of shared autonomous vehicles to improve spatial equity in accessibility and socio-economic developments in European urban areas. European Transport Research Review, 13(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-021-00484-4.
Article Google Scholar
22.
Bellone, M., Ismailogullari, A., Kantala, T., Mäkinen, S., Soe, R.-M., & Åman Kyyrö, M. (2021). A cross-country comparison of user experience of public autonomous transport. European Transport Research Review, 13(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-021-00477-3.
Article Google Scholar
23.
Hang Rong, H., Tu, W., Duarte, F., & Ratti, C. (2020). Employing waterborne autonomous vehicles for museum visits: A case study in Amsterdam. European Transport Research Review, 12(1), 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-020-00459-x.
Article Google Scholar

Download references

Affiliations

Tampere University, Tampere, Finland
Heikki Liimatainen
Aalto University, Espoo, Finland
Miloš N. Mladenović

Authors

Heikki LiimatainenView author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Miloš N. MladenovićView author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heikki Liimatainen.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

Cite this article

Liimatainen, H., Mladenović, M.N. Developing mobility as a service – user, operator and governance perspectives. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 13, 37 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-021-00496-0

Download citation

Received: 27 May 2021
Accepted: 03 June 2021
Published: 23 June 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-021-00496-0

中文翻译：

开发移动即服务——用户、运营商和治理视角

出行即服务 (MaaS) 可以简要描述为一种新兴概念，旨在通过将不同的交通服务与无缝旅行相结合，以可持续的方式满足个人的出行需求 [1]，为拥有和使用私家车提供了一种有吸引力的替代方案 [1]。 2]。MaaS 的核心特征包括多种交通方式的集成、多种支付方式以及各种技术的使用，以实现单一界面和平台的使用，同时满足个性化和定制化以提供以用户为中心的移动服务 [3]。MaaS 的历史并不长，但 MaaS 可以被视为集成移动服务的演进延续 [2]，其起源于智能交通系统概念 [4]。此外，

随着我们目睹 MaaS 在世界范围内的兴起，对 MaaS 的研究正在迅速积累 [5,6,7,8]。在一个新兴概念的保护伞下，我们可以看到 MaaS 概念正在演变，因为技术方面正在随着社会对潜在问题和需求的理解同时发生变化。因此，我们正在目睹一个解释灵活性的阶段 [9]，在这个阶段，许多参与者对 MaaS 概念化有表面上的共识，但实际上有潜在的相互冲突的观点。同样，之前对 MaaS 的研究也非常多样化，从用户视角和捆绑设计的研究 [10, 11]、福利损失等潜在的系统性影响 [12]，以及网络治理的挑战 [13] 和需求负责任的创新实践 [4]。

本专题合集旨在为快速发展的 MaaS 文献提供更多的广度和深度。这些论文可以围绕三个主要主题。首先，三篇论文概述了 MaaS 的发展状况并讨论了治理问题 [14,15,16]。其次，三篇论文提供了试点和调查结果，重点关注农村、城市和与工作相关的流动性 [17,18,19]。第三，有四篇论文探讨了将新的移动产品，特别是乘车服务和自动运输纳入移动服务中 [20,21,22,23]。

Esztergar-Kiss 等。[14] 分析了 30 多个 MaaS 服务的特征并确定了三个集群组，其中路线规划者通常包括很少的交通方式但缺乏支付解决方案，而公共系统包括公共交通支付但对其他方式的信息有限。第三方拥有最多样化的服务，包括全面的移动套餐。Esztergar-Kiss 等。[14] 和 Murati [15] 都强调了为第三方转售和使用开放交通运营商的信息和支付数据服务访问权限的重要性。芬兰和法国已经存在这样的规定。但是，提供全面的移动包会遇到各种治理问题。Murati [15] 指出，多式联运旅行链没有统一的法律基础。因此，如果发生延误某一航段并导致乘客错过下一航段的事件，则无法保证乘客权利。因此，有必要从多式联运的角度修改运输法规。

范登赫克等。[16] 通过乌得勒支的案例研究确定城市公共和私人参与者在开发数字移动平台方面的责任。他们确定了有关利益相关者角色的开放性问题，对移动平台的模糊理解，并强调了公众和土地所有者参与开发过程的必要性，以实现城市对 MaaS 的市场需求。

埃克哈特等人。[17] 通过芬兰的两个案例研究，将传统上基于城市的 MaaS 试点和研究范围扩大到农村地区。本研究介绍了芬兰的需求响应交通试点，旨在将自费客户与政府补贴的法定社会和健康服务交通客户结合起来。根据综合关键绩效指标，整合可能会为公共部门节省成本，提高车辆占用率，减少车辆行驶里程和排放。

Maas [18] 证实了之前关于公共交通作为 MaaS 产品支柱的重要性的发现，并强调了汽车和自行车共享可以提高整体效用。他在德累斯顿的研究显示了首选订阅类型的显着差异，并展示了一种细分用户组的方法。他还发现私家车成本被严重低估，导致 MaaS 产品的价格被认为过高。冈瑟等人。[19] 对 93 名大学员工进行了为期 22 个月的企业移动即服务 (CMaaS) 研究，结果表明电动汽车和移动服务在商务旅行中的体验可能有助于积极影响用户对新移动概念的态度。

为了分析出行服务对交通系统的影响，有必要将旅行链纳入旅行需求模型。威尔克斯等人。[20] 展示了如何在微观旅行需求模型中模拟乘车服务。他们强调，拼车的决策参数可能与公共交通的决策参数不同，需要更多关于支付意愿和旅行时间的数据来改进建模。MaaS 产品中未来最后一英里服务的一种解决方案可能是共享自动驾驶汽车，根据 Eppenberger 和 Richter [21] 的说法，如果确保与公共交通的互补性，这可能会提高可达性的公平性。贝隆等人。[22] 报告了在四个城市自动驾驶汽车试点期间进行的用户调查结果。自动小巴的整体体验非常积极，乘客在车上感到安全。然而，未来的服务普遍希望提高速度、提高服务水平和更顺畅的操作。自动驾驶汽车驾驶员主要关注小巴，但 Hang Rong 等人。[23] 对阿姆斯特丹博物馆的水上自动驾驶车辆服务进行了分析。与陆地公共交通相比，水上自动化服务会在一定程度上增加总旅行时间，但会显着减少步行距离。调查结果强调，与陆路运输和传统运河船相比，水上自动化服务可能更受欢迎。自动驾驶汽车驾驶员主要关注小巴，但 Hang Rong 等人。[23] 对阿姆斯特丹博物馆的水上自动驾驶车辆服务进行了分析。与陆地公共交通相比，水上自动化服务会在一定程度上增加总旅行时间，但会显着减少步行距离。调查结果强调，与陆路运输和传统运河船相比，水上自动化服务可能更受欢迎。自动驾驶汽车驾驶员主要关注小巴，但 Hang Rong 等人。[23] 对阿姆斯特丹博物馆的水上自动驾驶车辆服务进行了分析。与陆地公共交通相比，水上自动化服务会在一定程度上增加总旅行时间，但会显着减少步行距离。调查结果强调，与陆路运输和传统运河船相比，水上自动化服务可能更受欢迎。

在本专题集中展示论文具有附加价值，可以让读者广泛了解与 MaaS 相关的一系列复杂问题，同时还提供案例研究中的具体示例。鉴于发展 MaaS 与整个可持续交通系统的发展交织在一起，特别包括公共交通系统和新形式的微型交通以及数字化的挑战，本专题合集的论文与欧洲交通研究人员、从业人员有关和政策制定者。

在这个专题收集的旗帜下收集的研究已经推动了我们对 MaaS 的理解的边界，但也为进一步的研究和发展开辟了新的和突出的旧途径。首先，我们需要进一步评估各种 MaaS 设计变体，无论是否捆绑，无论是在陈述偏好还是在实验室环境中。这条途径与更长的试点持续时间和对负责任的创新原则的高度重视密切相关。例如，通过远离默认对新技术感兴趣的参与者，更广泛的公民参与试点将有助于扩大样本规模及其代表性。更负责任的实验也将采用混合方法，除了仅使用问卷、依靠焦点小组，甚至更具参与性、共同创造和服务设计，方法。此外，未来使用的评估框架需要扩展以包括更广泛的可持续性指标。同时，随着 MaaS 不断涌现，我们需要进一步研究评估随着服务和参与者不断发展的商业模式和市场星座。在这方面，我们还需要进一步的治理研究，包括深入案例和交叉比较，以解释运营、规划和政策中不同和不断变化的参与者网络。最后，需要进一步对用户权利和运营商责任进行立法研究，还需要对正在进行的移动服务数字化的伦理原则进行更基础的研究。考虑到这一点，我们希望本专题合集对研究人员、从业人员、

1.
Utriainen, R., & Pöllänen, M. (2018)。科学出版物中关于移动即服务的评论。研究交通运输业务与管理，27，15-23。https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2018.10.005。
文章谷歌学术
2.
Lyons, G.、Hammond, P. 和 Mackay, K.（2019 年）。用户视角在 MaaS 演进中的重要性。交通研究A部分：政策和实践，121，22-36。
谷歌学术
3.
Jittrapirom, P., Caiati, V., Feneri, AM, Ebrahimigharehbaghi, S., Alonso González, MJ, & Narayan, J. (2017)。移动即服务：对定义、方案评估和关键挑战的严格审查。城市规划，2（2），13-25。https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v2i2.931。
文章谷歌学术
4.
Pangbourne, K.、Mladenović, MN、Stead, D. 和 Milakis, D.（2020 年）。质疑流动即服务：对社会和治理的意外影响。交通研究A部分：政策和实践，131，35-49。
谷歌学术
5.
Liimatainen, H. 和 Mladenović, MN (2018)。了解移动即服务的复杂性。研究交通运输业务和管理，27，1-2。https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2018.12.004。
文章谷歌学术
6.
Amaral, AM、Barreto, L.、Baltazar, S.、Silva, JP 和 Gonçalves, L.（编辑）（2019 年）。城市和农村环境中移动即服务 (MaaS) 的影响：新兴研究和机遇：新兴研究和机遇。IGI 全球. 好时：美国。
谷歌学术
7.
Hensher, DA, & Mulley, C. (2020)。关于移动即服务 (MaaS) 和智能移动发展的特刊。交通研究A部分：政策和实践，131，1-4。
文章谷歌学术
8.
Hensher, DA、Mulley, C.、Ho, C.、Smith, G.、Wong, Y. 和 Nelson, JD（2020 年）。了解移动即服务 (MaaS)：过去、现在和未来。阿姆斯特丹：爱思唯尔。
谷歌学术
9.
Mladenović, MN, & Haavisto, N. (2021)。流动即服务出现时的解释灵活性和冲突：芬兰公共部门参与者的观点。交通政策案例研究。
谷歌学术
10.
Liljamo, T.、Liimatainen, H.、Pöllänen, M. 和 Utriainen, R.（2020 年）。人们当前的移动成本和支付移动即服务产品的意愿。运输资源A政策PRACT，136，99-119。
文章谷歌学术
11.
Hensher, DA, Ho, CQ, & Reck, DJ (2021)。出行即服务和私家车使用：来自悉尼 MaaS 试验的证据。交通研究A部分：政策和实践，145，17-33。
谷歌学术
12.
Hörcher, D. 和 Graham, DJ (2020)。MaaS 经济学：我们是否应该通过订阅替代模式来对抗汽车所有权？交通经济学, 22 , 100167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecotra.2020.100167.
文章谷歌学术
13.
Smith, G.、Sochor, J. 和 Karlsson, IM（2020 年）。中介 MaaS 集成商：关于希望和恐惧的案例研究。交通研究A部分：政策和实践，131，163-177。
谷歌学术
14.
Esztergar-Kiss, D.、Kerenyi, T.、Marai, T. 和 Aba, A.（2020 年）。通过系统分析探索MaaS市场。欧洲交通研究评论，12（1），67。https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-020-00465-z。
文章谷歌学术
15.
穆拉蒂，E.（2020 年）。移动即服务 (MaaS) 数字市场对欧盟乘客权利的影响。欧洲交通研究评论，12（1），62。https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-020-00447-1。
文章谷歌学术
16.
Van den Hurk, M.、Pelzer, P. 和 Riemens, R. (2021)。移动平台的治理挑战：乌得勒支 Merwede 的案例。欧洲交通研究评论，13（1），23。https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-021-00483-5。
文章谷歌学术
17.
Eckhardt, J.、Lauhkonen, A. 和 Aapaoja, A.（2020 年）。农村 PPP MaaS 试点的影响评估。欧洲交通研究评论，12（1），49。https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-020-00443-5。
文章谷歌学术
18.
马斯，B.（2021 年）。德累斯顿市出行计划的联合分析。欧洲交通研究评论，13（1），25。https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-021-00478-2。
文章谷歌学术
19.
Günther, M., Jacobsen, B., Rehme, M., Götze, U., & Krems, JF (2020)。了解企业多模式移动系统中的用户态度和经济方面：德国实地研究的结果。欧洲交通研究评论，12（1），64。https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-020-00456-0。
文章谷歌学术
20.
Wilkes, G., Briem, L., Heilig, M., Hilgert, T., Kagerbauer, M., & Vortisch, P. (2021)。通过在出行需求模型 mobiTopp 中进行仿真，确定与服务提供商和交通系统相关的乘车服务影响。欧洲交通研究评论，13（1），34。https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-021-00493-3。
文章谷歌学术
21.
Eppenberger, N., & Richter, MA (2021)。共享自动驾驶汽车改善欧洲城市地区可达性和社会经济发展的空间公平性的机会。欧洲交通研究评论，13（1），32。https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-021-00484-4。
文章谷歌学术
22.
Bellone, M., Ismailogullari, A., Kantala, T., Mäkinen, S., Soe, R.-M., & Åman Kyyrö, M. (2021)。公共自主交通用户体验的跨国比较。欧洲交通研究评论，13（1），19。https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-021-00477-3。
文章谷歌学术
23.
Hang Rong, H.、Tu, W.、Duarte, F. 和 Ratti, C.（2020 年）。使用水上自动驾驶汽车参观博物馆：阿姆斯特丹的案例研究。欧洲交通研究评论，12（1），63。https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-020-00459-x。
文章谷歌学术

下载参考

隶属关系

芬兰坦佩雷坦佩雷大学
海基·利马泰宁
阿尔托大学，埃斯波，芬兰
米洛斯·N·姆拉德诺维奇

作者

Heikki Liimatainen查看作者出版物
您也可以在PubMed Google Scholar中搜索此作者
Miloš N. Mladenović查看作者出版物
您也可以在PubMed Google Scholar中搜索此作者

贡献

作者阅读并批准了最终手稿。

通讯作者

与 Heikki Liimatainen 的通信。

利益争夺

作者声明没有竞争利益。

出版商说明

Springer Nature 对已发布地图和机构附属机构中的管辖权主张保持中立。

开放获取本文根据知识共享署名 4.0 国际许可协议获得许可，允许以任何媒体或格式使用、共享、改编、分发和复制，只要您适当注明原作者和来源，提供链接到知识共享许可，并指出是否进行了更改。本文中的图像或其他第三方材料包含在文章的知识共享许可中，除非在材料的信用额度中另有说明。如果文章的知识共享许可中未包含材料，并且您的预期用途未得到法律法规的允许或超出允许的用途，则您需要直接从版权所有者处获得许可。要查看此许可证的副本，请访问 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/。

重印和许可