SavedAdd your journal

Journals / EUropean Journal of Managerial Research (EUJMR) / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 18

MAPPING SMART MOBILITY USER BEHAVIOR RESEARCH: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF WEB OF SCIENCE PUBLICATIONS

AKILLI HAREKETLİLİKTE KULLANICI DAVRANIŞLARININ ARAŞTIRILMASI: WEB OF SCİENCE YAYINLARININ BİBLİYOMETRİK ANALİZİ

Ahmet Tuğrul Tuğer(İSTANBUL BİLGİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1006-1435
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-10-18
🏛️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 study demonstrates that smart mobility user behavior research has evolved into a multidisciplinary, rapidly developing field that plays a critical role in understanding the transition toward sustainable, user-centered urban mobility systems.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study provides an overview of the smart mobility user behavior literature through a bibliometric analysis of 166 Web of Science-indexed studies and a thematic analysis of the 25 most cited articles.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The bibliometric results reveal a rapidly expanding research field, particularly after 2019, reflecting the growing academic and societal interest in smart mobility systems, digital mobility platforms, and sustainable transportation solutions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study demonstrates that smart mobility user behavior research has evolved into a multidisciplinary, rapidly developing field that plays a critical role in understanding the transition toward sustainable, user-centered urban mobility systems.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Akıllı hareketlilik · tüketici davranışı · bibliyometrik analiz

Abstract

This study provides an overview of the smart mobility user behavior literature through a bibliometric analysis of 166 Web of Science-indexed studies and a thematic analysis of the 25 most cited articles. The bibliometric results reveal a rapidly expanding research field, particularly after 2019, reflecting the growing academic and societal interest in smart mobility systems, digital mobility platforms, and sustainable transportation solutions. Descriptive analyses show that literature is dominated by journal articles and is strongly interdisciplinary, with major contributions from transportation research, environmental sciences, engineering, computer science, and behavioral studies. Citation and co-citation analyses identify several influential theoretical foundations, including technology acceptance models, behavioral theories such as the Theory of Planned Behavior, and innovation diffusion theory, which are widely applied to explain mobility adoption and user behavior. Keyword co-occurrence and bibliographic coupling analyses further reveal several key research themes, including shared mobility and collaborative consumption, mobility-as-a-service (MaaS), micromobility systems, autonomous vehicle adoption, and sustainable urban mobility transitions. The thematic analysis of the top 25 articles supports these findings, highlighting the central role of user acceptance, travel behavior, digital mobility services, and sustainability-oriented mobility innovations. The study demonstrates that smart mobility user behavior research has evolved into a multidisciplinary, rapidly developing field that plays a critical role in understanding the transition toward sustainable, user-centered urban mobility systems.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Web of Science'ta indekslenmiş 166 çalışmanın bibliyometrik analizi ve en çok atıf alan 25 makalenin tematik analiziyle akıllı ulaşım kullanıcı davranışlarına ilişkin literatüre genel bir bakış sunmaktadır. Bibliyometrik sonuçlar, özellikle 2019'dan sonra hızla genişleyen bir araştırma alanını ortaya koymakta ve akıllı ulaşım sistemlerine, dijital mobilite platformlarına ve sürdürülebilir ulaşım çözümlerine yönelik artan akademik ve toplumsal ilgiyi yansıtmaktadır. Tanımlayıcı analizler, literatürün dergi makaleleri tarafından domine edildiğini ve ulaşım araştırmaları, çevre bilimleri, mühendislik, bilgisayar bilimleri ve davranış çalışmalarından gelen önemli katkılarla güçlü bir şekilde disiplinlerarası olduğunu göstermektedir. Alıntı ve eş-alıntı analizleri, ulaşım benimseme ve kullanıcı davranışını açıklamak için yaygın olarak uygulanan teknoloji kabul modelleri, Planlı Davranış Teorisi gibi davranış teorileri ve inovasyon yayılım teorisi dahil olmak üzere birkaç etkili teorik model belirlemektedir. Anahtar kelime eş-ortaklığı ve bibliyografik eşleşme analizleri, paylaşımlı mobilite ve iş birliğine dayalı tüketim, hizmet olarak mobilite (MaaS), mikro-mobilite sistemleri, otonom araç benimseme ve sürdürülebilir kentsel mobilite geçişleri dahil olmak üzere birkaç önemli araştırma temasını ortaya koymaktadır. En iyi 25 makalenin tematik analizi bu bulguları desteklemekte ve kullanıcı kabulü, seyahat davranışı, dijital mobilite hizmetleri ve sürdürülebilirlik odaklı mobilite yeniliklerinin merkezi rolünü vurgulamaktadır. Çalışma, akıllı hareketlilikte kullanıcı davranışı araştırmasının, sürdürülebilir, kullanıcı merkezli kentsel mobilite sistemlerine geçişi anlamada kritik bir rol oynayan, çok disiplinli ve hızla gelişen bir alana dönüştüğünü göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Tuğer, A. T. (2026). MAPPING SMART MOBILITY USER BEHAVIOR RESEARCH: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF WEB OF SCIENCE PUBLICATIONS. EUropean Journal of Managerial Research (EUJMR), Cilt: 10 Sayı: 18. https://doi.org/10.62666/eujmr.1982084

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (52)

  1. Acheampong, R. A., & Cugurullo, F. (2019). Capturing the behavioural determinants behind the adoption of autonomous vehicles: Conceptual frameworks and measurement models to predict public transport, sharing and ownership trends of self-driving cars. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 62, 349–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.01.009
  2. Acheampong, R. A., & Siiba, A. (2020). Modelling the determinants of car-sharing adoption intentions among young adults: The role of attitude, perceived benefits, travel expectations and socio-demographic factors. Transportation, 47(5), 2557–2580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-019-10029-3
  3. An, C., & Shen, J. (2025). Assessing the impact of mobility-as-a-service (MaaS) on sustainable urban travel behaviors: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2025.1645488
  4. Archer, J., & Kosonen, I. (2000). The potential of micro-simulation modeling in relation to traffic safety assessment. In Proceedings of the ESS Conference (pp. 427–443).
  5. Axsen, J., & Sovacool, B. K. (2019). The roles of users in electric, shared and automated mobility transitions. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 71, 1–21.
  6. Bao, C. (2026). Digital nudging and eco-friendly choices: A cross-national study on sustainable consumer behavior in mobility-as-a-service (MaaS) platforms. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 92, 104779.
  7. Barnes, S. J., & Mattsson, J. (2017). Understanding collaborative consumption: Test of a theoretical model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 118, 281–292.
  8. Bıyık, C., Abareshi, A., Paz, A., Ruiz, R. A., Battarra, R., Rogers, C. D., & Lizarraga, C. (2021). Smart mobility adoption: A review of the literature. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(2), 146. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7020146
  9. Bieliński, T., & Ważna, A. (2020). Electric scooter sharing and bike sharing user behaviour and characteristics. Sustainability, 12(22), 9640. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229640
  10. Birkle, C., Pendlebury, D. A., Schnell, J., & Adams, J. (2020). Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 363–376.
  11. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
  12. Bree, R. T., & Gallagher, G. (2016). Using Microsoft Excel to code and thematically analyse qualitative data: A simple, cost-effective approach. All Ireland Journal of Higher Education, 8(2).
  13. Brock, C., Lallement, J., Findeisen, L., & Soulat, U. (2025). Bridging the green gap: Understanding the intention-behavior gap in mobility and urban mobility. In C. McNally, P. Carroll, B. Martinez-Pastor, B. Ghosh, M. Efthymiou, & N. Valantasis-Kanellos (Eds.), Transport transitions: Advancing sustainable and inclusive mobility. Springer.
  14. Catulli, M. (2012). What uncertainty? Further insight into why consumers might be distrustful of product service systems. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 23(6), 780–793.
  15. Christoforou, Z., De Bortoli, A., Gioldasis, C., & Seidowsky, R. (2021). Who is using e-scooters and how? Evidence from Paris. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 92, 102708.
  16. Chung, C., Kim, M. J., Chung, N., & Olya, H. (2025). Motivations to reuse smart mobility: Unpacking behavioral dynamics through a multi-analytical approach. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 16(3), 549–564.
  17. Degli Esposti, P., Mortara, A., & Roberti, G. (2021). Sharing and sustainable consumption in the era of COVID-19. Sustainability, 13(4), 1903.
  18. Dichabeng, P., Merat, N., & Markkula, G. (2021). Factors that influence the acceptance of future shared automated vehicles: A focus group study with United Kingdom drivers. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 82, 121–140.
  19. Djafarova, E., & Foots, S. (2022). Exploring ethical consumption of generation Z: Theory of planned behaviour. Young Consumers, 23(3), 413.
  20. Docherty, I., Marsden, G., & Anable, J. (2018). The governance of smart mobility. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 115, 114–125.
  21. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296.
  22. Elmashhara, M. G., Silva, J., Sá, E., Carvalho, A., & Rezazadeh, A. (2022). Factors influencing user behaviour in micromobility sharing systems: A systematic literature review and research directions. Travel Behaviour and Society, 27, 1–25.
  23. Fleury, S., Tom, A., Jamet, E., & Colas-Maheux, E. (2017). What drives corporate carsharing acceptance? A French case study. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 45, 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.12.004
  24. Fong, B., Fong, A. C., & Hong, G. Y. (2023). Sustainable micromobility management in smart cities. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 24(12), 15890–15896.
  25. Gabrielli, S., Forbes, P., Jylhä, A., Wells, S., Sirén, M., Hemminki, S., & Jacucci, G. (2014). Design challenges in motivating change for sustainable urban mobility. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 416–423.
  26. Ghosh, R., Pragathi, R., Ullas, S., & Borra, S. (2017). Intelligent transportation systems: A survey. In 2017 International Conference on Circuits, Controls, and Communications (CCUBE) (pp. 160–165). IEEE.
  27. Golalikhani, M., Oliveira, B. B., Carravilla, M. A., Oliveira, J. F., & Antunes, A. P. (2021). Carsharing: A review of academic literature and business practices toward an integrated decision-support framework. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 149, 102280.
  28. Helmus, J. R., Lees, M. H., & Van Den Hoed, R. (2020). A data driven typology of electric vehicle user types and charging sessions. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 115, 102637.
  29. Javines, T. I., Ong, A. K. S., Mesina, S. G. D., Padilla, J. N., Onia, J. L. C., Alayra, R. J. N., Calimag, B. C. R., & Tomas, D. Q. (2025). Utility intention and acceptance evaluation of self-driving cars and its technology in the Philippines. Acta Psychologica, 262, 106133.
  30. Kriswardhana, W., & Esztergár-Kiss, D. (2023). A systematic literature review of mobility as a service: Examining the socio-technical factors in MaaS adoption and bundling packages. Travel Behaviour and Society, 31, 232–243.
  31. Larue, G. S., Rakotonirainy, A., Haworth, N. L., & Darvell, M. (2015). Assessing driver acceptance of intelligent transport systems in the context of railway level crossings. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 30, 1–13.
  32. 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.
  33. Mangiaracina, R., Perego, A., Salvadori, G., & Tumino, A. (2017). A comprehensive view of intelligent transport systems for urban smart mobility. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 20(1), 39–52.
  34. Matowicki, M., Amorim, M., Kern, M., Pecherkova, P., Motzer, N., & Pribyl, O. (2022). Understanding the potential of MaaS: A European survey on attitudes. Travel Behaviour and Society, 27, 204–215.
  35. Meyer, D. Z., & Avery, L. M. (2009). Excel as a qualitative data analysis tool. Field Methods, 21(1), 91–112.
  36. Mitieka, D., Luke, R., Twinomurinzi, H., & Mageto, J. (2023). Smart mobility in urban areas: A bibliometric review and research agenda. Sustainability, 15(8), 6754.
  37. Münzel, K., Piscicelli, L., Boon, W., & Frenken, K. (2019). Different business models—Different users? Uncovering the motives and characteristics of business-to-consumer and peer-to-peer carsharing adopters in the Netherlands. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 73, 276–306.
  38. Öztaş Karlı, R. G., Ayaz, R., & Artar, M. (2026). Navigating urban mobility: A topic modeling analysis of shared micromobility trends. Sage Open, 16(1), 21582440251411137.
  39. Panagiotopoulos, I., & Dimitrakopoulos, G. (2018). An empirical investigation on consumers’ intentions towards autonomous driving. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 95, 773–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.08.013
  40. Pazzini, M., Cameli, L., Lantieri, C., Vignali, V., Dondi, G., & Jonsson, T. (2022). New micromobility means of transport: An analysis of e-scooter users’ behaviour in Trondheim. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(12), 7374.
  41. Schaefers, T. (2013). Exploring carsharing usage motives: A hierarchical means-end chain analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 47, 69–77.
  42. Si, H., Duan, X., Cheng, L., & Zhang, Z. (2022). Determinants of consumers’ continuance intention to use dynamic ride-sharing services. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 104, 103201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103201
  43. Si, H., Shi, J., Hua, W., Cheng, L., De Vos, J., & Li, W. (2023). What influences people to choose ridesharing? An overview of the literature. Transport Reviews, 43(6), 1211–1236.
  44. Szpilko, D., Budna, K., Drmeyan, H., & Remiszewska, A. (2023). Sustainable and smart mobility: Research directions. A systematic literature review. Economics and Environment, 86(3), 31–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.34659/eis.2023.86.3.584
  45. Tunn, V. S., van den Hende, E. A., Bocken, N. M., & Schoormans, J. P. (2020). Digitalised product-service systems: Effects on consumers’ attitudes and experiences. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 162, 105045.
  46. Useche, S. A., O’Hern, S., Gonzalez-Marin, A., Gene-Morales, J., Alonso, F., & Stephens, A. N. (2022). Unsafety on two wheels, or social prejudice? Proxying behavioral reports on bicycle and e-scooter riding safety: A mixed-methods study. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 89, 168–182.
  47. Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.
  48. Vega-Gonzalo, M., Gómez, J., Christidis, P., & Vassallo, J. M. (2023). The role of shared mobility in reducing perceived private car dependency. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 126, 104023.
  49. Vejchodská, E., Brůhová Foltýnová, H., & Rybičková, A. (2024). Carsharing users’ behaviour and attitudes: The role of car availability in households. Transportation, 51(5), 1785–1807.
  50. Wilhelms, M. P., Henkel, S., & Falk, T. (2017). To earn is not enough: A means-end analysis to uncover peer-providers’ participation motives in peer-to-peer carsharing. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 38–47.
  51. Ye, J., Zheng, J., & Yi, F. (2020). A study on users’ willingness to accept mobility as a service based on UTAUT model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 157, 120066.
  52. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472.