SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Akıllı Ulaşım Sistemleri ve Uygulamaları Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1

Experiencing MaaS (mobility-as-a-service): The role of usefulness, trust, and intention to use in MaaS systems

MaaS (mobility-as-a-service) deneyimi: MaaS sistemlerinde kullanışlılık, güven ve kullanma niyetinin rolü

Şehnaz Okkıran(Gaziantep Üniversitesi)0000-0002-3026-7836
Pages
42–61
Publication Date
2026-03-25
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that PU and PT are significant determinants of MaaS service adoption intentions, while IT strongly predicts users' CUB.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) represents an integrated transportation infrastructure system designed to combine multiple transportation modalities, enabling seamless and consistent mobility service delivery.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study included 205 MaaS service users, with data analyzed through Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that PU and PT are significant determinants of MaaS service adoption intentions, while IT strongly predicts users' CUB.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:tüketici davranışı · Hizmet olarak hareketlilik · algılanan kullanışlılık

Abstract

Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) represents an integrated transportation infrastructure system designed to combine multiple transportation modalities, enabling seamless and consistent mobility service delivery. Research documented in academic literature has emphasized the initial adoption phase of MaaS services, while factors determining long-term service utilization have received limited scholarly attention. This investigation employs an exploratory methodology to examine how Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Trust and Security (PT) influence users' Continuance Use Behavior (CUB), and the mediating role of Intention to Use (IT) in this relationship. The study included 205 MaaS service users, with data analyzed through Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). The findings indicate that PU and PT are significant determinants of MaaS service adoption intentions, while IT strongly predicts users' CUB. Both constructs directly influenced users' CUB, demonstrating the presence of partial mediation effects in the model. The model explained 59.4% of the variance in IT and 77.8% of the variance in users' CUB.

Özet

Hizmet Olarak Mobilite (Mobility-as-a-Service – MaaS), farklı ulaşım türlerini entegre ederek kesintisiz ve tutarlı bir mobilite hizmeti sunmayı amaçlayan bütünleşik bir ulaşım altyapı sistemi olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Akademik literatürde yer alan çalışmalar, ağırlıklı olarak MaaS hizmetlerinin ilk benimsenme aşamasına odaklanmış; buna karşın hizmetin uzun vadeli kullanımını belirleyen faktörlere yönelik sınırlı sayıda araştırma yapılmıştır. Bu çalışma, Algılanan Fayda (PU) ile Algılanan Güven ve Güvenlik (PT) değişkenlerinin kullanıcıların Sürekli Kullanım Davranışı (CUB) üzerindeki etkisini ve bu ilişkide Kullanım Niyeti’nin (IT) aracılık rolünü incelemek amacıyla keşfedici bir yöntem benimsemektedir. Araştırma kapsamında 205 MaaS kullanıcısından veri toplanmış ve veriler Kısmi En Küçük Kareler Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi (PLS-SEM) ile analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, PU ve PT’nin MaaS hizmetlerini kullanma niyetinin anlamlı belirleyicileri olduğunu, IT’nin ise kullanıcıların CUB’sini güçlü biçimde açıkladığını göstermektedir. Her iki yapı da CUB üzerinde doğrudan etkiye sahip olup modelde kısmi aracılık etkisinin varlığına işaret etmektedir. Model, IT’deki varyansın %59,4’ünü, kullanıcıların CUB’sindeki varyansın ise %77,8’ini açıklamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Okkıran, Ş. (2026). Experiencing MaaS (mobility-as-a-service): The role of usefulness, trust, and intention to use in MaaS systems. Akıllı Ulaşım Sistemleri ve Uygulamaları Dergisi, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 42–61. https://doi.org/10.51513/jitsa.1844916

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (59)

  1. Agarwal, N., & Steinmetz, R. (2019). Sharing economy: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 16(6), 1930002. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877019300027
  2. Akbar, P., & Hoffmann, S. (2023). Collaborative space: Framework for collaborative consumption and the sharing economy. Journal of Services Marketing, 37(4), 496–509. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-03-2021-0078
  3. Andersen, R., Thomakos, D., & Wood, G. (2025). Common method variance (CMV) bias: Its implications, how to detect it, and how to handle it. Human Resource Development International. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2025.2537161
  4. Arteaga-Sánchez, R., Belda-Ruiz, M., Ros-Galvez, A., & Rosa-Garcia, A. (2018). Why continue sharing: Determinants of behavior in ridesharing services. International Journal of Market Research, 60(3), 311–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785318805300
  5. Avcı, İ., Özarpa, C., Özdemir, M., Kınacı, B. F., & Kara, S. A. (2022). Akıllı ulaşım araçlarında siber güvenlik ve çok katmanlı güvenlik önlemi. Akıllı Ulaşım Sistemleri ve Uygulamaları Dergisi, 5(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.48069/jitsa.1078586
  6. Becker, H., Balac, M., Ciari, F., & Axhausen, K. W. (2017). Assessing the welfare impacts of Shared Mobility and Mobility as a Service (MaaS). Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 96, 386–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.12.009
  7. Benoit, S., Baker, T. L., Bolton, R. N., Gruber, T., & Kandampully, J. (2017). A triadic framework for collaborative consumption (CC): Motives, activities and resources & capabilities of actors. Journal of Business Research, 79, 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.05.004
  8. Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370.
  9. Cherry, C. E., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2018). Is sharing the solution? Exploring public acceptability of the sharing economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 195, 939–948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.278
  10. Cheung, M. S., Lau, R. S., & Hui, C. H. (2024). Advancing discriminant validity assessment in PLS-SEM: A review and practical recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41(2), 567–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y
  11. Choi, S., & Kim, S. H. (2021). An exploratory study of the participation in the sharing economy: What are the influencing variables? In Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 794–803). https://hdl.handle.net/10125/70709
  12. Clemens, V., Sabel, C. A., Foege, J. N., & Nüesch, S. (2022). System design choice in the sharing economy: How different institutional logics drive consumer perception and consumers’ intention to use sharing systems. Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, 74(2), 201–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41471-022-00133-z
  13. Cohen, B., & Kietzmann, J. (2014). Ride on! Mobility business models for the sharing economy. Organization & Environment, 27(3), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026614546199
  14. Dabbous, A., & Tarhini, A. (2019). Does sharing economy promote sustainable economic development and eco-friendly consumption? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 135, 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.03.013
  15. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
  16. Ecevit, M. Z. (2023). Son adım teslimat yöntemi olan otonom teslimat araçlarının tüketiciler tarafından kabulü: Teknolojiye hazırlığın düzenleyici rolü. Akıllı Ulaşım Sistemleri ve Uygulamaları Dergisi, 6(1), 169–194. https://doi.org/10.48069/jitsa.1203692
  17. Engin, T. (2022). İstanbul ticari taksi hizmeti üzerine ulaşım politikası çözümleri. Akıllı Ulaşım Sistemleri ve Uygulamaları Dergisi, 5(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.48069/jitsa.1078567
  18. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
  19. Ferreira, C. R., & Fernandes, P. O. (2023). Exploring theoretical lineages on collaborative consumption: A bibliometric review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 192, 122570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122570
  20. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
  21. Fota, A., Wagner, K., & Schramm-Klein, H. (2019a). Is renting the new buying? A quantitative investigation of the determinants of the rental-commerce intention. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 29(5), 582–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2019.1664616
  22. Fota, A., Wagner, K., & Schramm-Klein, H. (2019b). Will renting substitute buying? Drivers of user intention to participate in rental-commerce. In Proceedings of the 27th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS). AIS Electronic Library. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2019_rp/80
  23. Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016). Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3192–3198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008
  24. Gao, S., Jing, J., & Guo, H. (2017). The role of trust with car-sharing services in the sharing economy in China: From the consumers’ perspective. In P.-L. P. Rau (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Design: Applications in Business, Communication, Health, Well-being, and Inclusiveness (pp. 634–646). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57931-3_51
  25. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51–90.
  26. Guyader, H. (2018). No one rides for free!: Three styles of collaborative consumption. Journal of Services Marketing, 32(6), 664–676. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-11-2016-0402
  27. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2017). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.
  28. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24.
  29. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2022). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 34(3), 337–354. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2020-0414
  30. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.
  31. Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20.
  32. Jerónimo, R. M. S. S. L. (2017). Evolution, roots and influence of the literature of sharing economy and its relevance in innovation studies: A bibliometric account (Master’s thesis). University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
  33. Jiang, J., Feng, R., & Li, E. Y. (2021). Uncovering the providers’ continuance intention of participation in the sharing economy: A moderated mediation model. Sustainability, 13(9), 5095. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095095
  34. Kamargianni, M., Matyas, M., Li, W., & Muscat, J. (2016). Londoners’ attitudes towards car-ownership and Mobility-as-a-Service: Impact assessment and development of a MaaS adoption model. Transportation Research Record, 2542(1), 95–103.
  35. Kim, D. J., Ferrin, D. L., & Rao, H. R. (2008). A trust-based consumer decision-making model in electronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents. Decision Support Systems, 44(2), 544–564.
  36. Küper, I., & Edinger-Schons, L. M. (2020). Is sharing up for sale? Monetary exchanges in the sharing economy. Journal of Business Research, 121, 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.020
  37. Lang, C., Li, M., & Zhao, L. (2020). Understanding consumers’ continuance intention in the sharing economy: An integrated model of value-based adoption and expectation–confirmation theories. Sustainability, 12(22), 9505. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229505
  38. Liu, C., Chan, R. K. H., Wang, M., & Yang, Z. (2020). Mapping the sharing economy in China. Sustainability, 12(16), 6333. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166333
  39. Minami, A. L., Ramos, C., & Bortoluzzo, A. B. (2021). Sharing economy versus collaborative consumption: What drives consumers in the new forms of exchange? Journal of Business Research, 128, 124–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.01.035
  40. Möhlmann, M. (2015). Collaborative consumption: Determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14(3), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1512
  41. Murillo, D., Buckland, H., & Val, E. (2017). When the sharing economy becomes neoliberalism on steroids: Unravelling the controversies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 66–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.024
  42. Nitzl, C., Roldán, J. L., & Cepeda, G. (2016). Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling: Helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(9), 1849–1864. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-10-2015-0443
  43. Oliveira, V. M. de, Costa-Nascimento, D. V. da, Teodósio, A. dos S. de S., & Correia, S. É. N. (2022). Collaborative consumption as sustainable consumption: The effects of Uber’s platform in the context of Brazilian cities. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption, 5, 100064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2022.100064
  44. Palan, S., & Schitter, C. (2018). Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22–27.
  45. Pan, D., Wang, B., Li, J., & Wu, F. (2024). Exploring the user adoption mechanism of green transportation services in the context of the electricity–carbon market synergy. Energies, 17(1), 274. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17010274
  46. Park, J., Amendah, E., Lee, Y., & Hyun, H. (2019). M‐payment service: Interplay of perceived risk, benefit, and trust in service adoption. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 29(1), 31-43.
  47. Paundra, J., van Dalen, J., Rook, L., & Ketter, W. (2020). Ridesharing platform entry effects on ownership-based consumption in Indonesia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 265, 121535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121535
  48. Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153–163.
  49. Pereira, V. (2024). Revisiting discriminant validity in PLS-SEM: Integrating Fornell–Larcker, HTMT, and cross-loading diagnostics. Applied Sciences, 14(2), 628. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14020628
  50. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
  51. Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2020). Partial least squares structural equation modeling. In H. B. Cooper (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 621–644). Oxford University Press.
  52. Shao, X., Jiménez, A., Lee, J. Y., & Taras, V. (2023). The impact of the perceived value of the sharing economy on consumer usage behavior: Evidence from shared mobility in China. Asian Business & Management, 22(3), 1962–2003. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-023-00236-3
  53. Singh, A. (2021). Socio-technological system of sharing economy. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Management, 20(2), 192–215. https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu08.2021.203
  54. Singh, S. (2021). A framework of the sharing economy. Electronic Commerce Research, 21(1), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-019-09361-6
  55. Talih, O., & Tektaş, N. (2022). Bir hizmet olarak hareketlilik (MaaS) perspektifi ve Türkiye analizi. Journal of Transportation and Logistics, 7(2), 431–463. https://doi.org/10.26650/JTL.2022.1197450
  56. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
  57. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
  58. Voorhees, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: An analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0455-4
  59. Wang, D., Yan, L., Ruan, F., & Zeng, X. (2022). An abductive analysis of debates on the impact of the sharing economy: A systematic review in a sustainable framework. Sustainability, 14(7), 3996. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073996