INOM EXAMENSARBETE SAMHÄLLSBYGGNAD,AVANCERAD NIVÅ, 30 HP

, STOCKHOLM SVERIGE 2017

Mobility as a Service: Exploring Young People’s Mobility Demands and Travel Behavior

MÅRTEN JOHANSSON

KTHSKOLAN FÖR ARKITEKTUR OCH SAMHÄLLSBYGGNAD

TRITA SoM EX 2017-27

www.kth.se

1

2

AbstractIncreasing vehicular travel andenvironmental issues are trends increasing thepressure on urban transport systems. The new concept Mobility as a Service(MaaS)isoneapproachtotacklethesechallenges.TheaimofMaaSistoreducetheneedoftheprivatecarandincreasetheuseofsharedresourcesbyprovidingonesingleapplicationthatintegratesalltransportmodes,payment,andservices.Severalongoingsocietal trendssuchasurbanization, technologicdevelopment,andsharingeconomyareexamplesofreasonsfortheemergenceofMaaS.Youngpeople are often leading the development and are early adopters of newtechnologies.ThemobilitydemandsofyoungpeopletodayandinthefuturewillthereforeplayanimportantroleintheimplementationsofMaaS.Thisqualitativestudyusesfocusgroupstoexploremobilitydemandstodayandintheenvisionedfutureofyoungpeople(aged15-23) living inStockholm.Ourunderstandingoftravelbehaviourandmobilitydemandsamongyoungpeopleislimited,andthisstudyalsoaimstogetdeeperunderstandingoftheunderlyingvalues and attitudes towards mobility that influence those demands andbehaviours. This study aims to answer how young people’smobility demandslook likeand if theycorrespondtothevisionsofMaaSasstatedbydevelopersandexpertsoftheconcept.Findings indicate thatmobilitydemandsandbehaviourarestrongly influencedbyparents,andunderlyingvaluessuchas‘Freedom’and‘Comfortablelife’affectmobility more than factors such as availability and travel time. There is littleneedforincreasedaccessibilitytotransporttodayandintheenvisionedfuture.Findingsalsoindicatearelativelywidespreadenvironmentalawareness,butanunwillingness to convert awareness to change of behaviour. The demands ofyoung people correspond to some extent with the visions of MaaS, and theprobability of young people to adopt MaaS and to choose environmentallyfriendlyjourneyishighifdemandsforconvenienceandcomfortarefulfilled.

3

SammanfattningFler bilresor och miljöproblem är trender som ökar trycket påtransportsystemen i världens städer. Det nya konceptet Mobilitet som tjänst(MaaS)ärenpotentielllösningpådessaproblem.SyftetmedMaaSärattminskabehovetavdenprivatabilenochattökaanvändandetavgemensammaresursergenom att erbjuda en mobilapplikation som integrerar alla typer avtranspormedel, betalningar och tjänster. Pågående samhällstrender likturbanisering, teknisk utveckling och delningsekonomi främjar den pågåendeutvecklingenavMaaS.Ungamänniskorharoftaen ledanderoll idessatrenderoch är tidiga att anpassa sig till nya tekniska lösningar.Derasmobilitetsbehovoch beteende idag och i framtiden är av de anledningarna viktiga förimplementeringavMaaS.Denhärkvalitativastudienanvänderfokusgruppersommetodförattundersökaunga människor (15-23 år) i Stockholm och deras mobilitetsbehov ochresebeteende idag och i framtiden. Vår förståelse för unga människorsmobilitetsbehovochresebeteendeäridagbegränsatochstudiensyftarävenattökaförståelsenförunderliggandevärderingarochattitydersompåverkardessabehov och beteenden. Vidare syftar studien att jämföra dessa behov ochbeteendenmedvisionernaförMaaSochhurväldeöverensstämmer.Resultatenvisarattungamänniskorsbehovochbeteendeärstarktpåverkatavföräldrar, och att underliggande värderingar som ”frihet” och ”bekvämlighet”påverkar behovenmer än traditionella aspekter som tillgänglighet och restid.Resultatenvisarocksåattungamänniskors iStockholm inteharbehovavmermobilitet idag eller den uppmålade framtiden. Miljömedvetenheten är relativtutbredd bland unga människor samtidigt som medvetenheten inte påverkarbehov och beteende i någon större utsträckning. Visionerna för MaaSöverensstämmer relativt bra med unga människors behov. MaaS bör inteerbjudamermöjlighetertillökadmobilitetmenomtjänstenerbjuderbekvämaoch smidiga resor så är chanserna att ungamänniskor väljermermiljövänligaalternativgoda.

4

AcknowledgementsIwouldliketothankmysupervisorAndrewKarvonenforhelpingmestructurethisthesis,butalsoforvaluablecritiqueandinputduringthewritingprocess.Iam also grateful for the fun conversations during our meetings and for youalwaysbeingavailabletoanswermyquestions.IalsowanttothankmyexternalsupervisorLenaSmidfeldtRosqvistatTrivectorTrafficinLundforhelpingmetodeveloptheideaofthisstudyandforvaluableinputswithinthefieldofMobilityasaService.AlsothankstoTrivector inStockholmforprovidingmeaworkingspaceandtoallemployeeswhowelcomedme.Iwillalsothankallparticipantswho gave me the opportunity to discuss with them and to the teachers whohelpedmetogetincontactwiththeirstudents.Lastly, thanks to Elisabeth who has been very supportive and boosting myconfidencethroughoutthewholeprocess.MårtenJohanssonStockholm,September2017

5

Contents

1.Introduction&Aim .................................................................................61.1Scope&Limitations ........................................................................................................... 71.2StructureoftheReport ..................................................................................................... 7

2.LiteratureReview ....................................................................................82.1IntroductionandDefinitionofMaas ............................................................................ 82.2TheEmergenceandVisionsofMaaS ............................................................................ 92.3TheFrameworkofMaaS.................................................................................................112.3.1DesignofMaaSApplications.................................................................................................12

2.4PotentialRiskswithMaaS..............................................................................................122.5MaaSandYoungPeople..................................................................................................132.6MobilityDemands.............................................................................................................142.6.1InfluencesofYoungPeople’sMobilityDemands .........................................................142.6.2AttitudesandBehaviourofYoungPeople ......................................................................16

2.7AttitudesTowardsCarOwnershipandPrivateCars ............................................162.7.1AttitudesTowardsAutonomousVehicles.......................................................................17

3.Methodology ........................................................................................... 193.1FocusGroups ......................................................................................................................193.2Methods................................................................................................................................203.2.1RecruitmentofParticipants ..................................................................................................203.2.2SelectionandSampleofRespondents ..............................................................................213.2.3TheStructureoftheFocusGroups.....................................................................................233.2.4ConductingtheFocusGroups...............................................................................................243.2.5Transcription...............................................................................................................................243.2.6AnalysisoftheData ..................................................................................................................24

4.FindingsandDiscussion ..................................................................... 264.1MobilityDemands.............................................................................................................264.2AttitudesandBehavior ...................................................................................................284.3InfluencesofYoungPeople’sMobilityDemandsandTravelModeChoices .304.3.1TheCostofMobility..................................................................................................................304.3.2Availability,TravelTime,FrequencyandSafety..........................................................314.3.3EnvironmentalAwareness ....................................................................................................32

4.4AttitudesTowardsDrivingandOwnershipofPrivateCars ...............................344.4.1Driving ............................................................................................................................................344.4.2Ownership.....................................................................................................................................36

4.5AttitudestowardsAutonomousVehicles .................................................................384.6EnvisionedMobilityDemand........................................................................................394.7DesignofMaasApplications .........................................................................................40

5.Conclusions ............................................................................................. 425.1.SuggestionsforImplementationofMaaS ................................................................435.2.SuggestedFurtherResearch ........................................................................................43

6.Bibliography ........................................................................................... 45

Appendix1................................................................................................... 51

6

1.Introduction&AimNearly all predictions of future mobility on a global level assume that bothoverall vehicular travel and car ownershipwill continue to rise. Research alsoincreasingly acknowledges the environmental and resource problems facingtransport in a future where urbanization and densification of our cities arecontinuing trends (Moriarty & Honnery, 2008). To tackle the challenge ofincreasing pressure on urban transport systems and the environment oneapproachhasbeenashifttowardssharedmobilityservices,suchascarsharingandbikesharing,withtheaimtoreducetheneedofaprivatecar.Autonomousvehicles(AVs)havealsothepotentialtoreducetheneedofprivatecarsandwillplay a big part of future transport system (McCluskey, 2016). However, thecomplexity today of using a variety of transport modes, different paymentmethods,differentmobileapplicationsforeachoperator,andalackofintegratedinformation discourages many people to use those services. As a response tothese complexities the development ofmobility services go faster thanmaybeeverbefore(Bernetal,2016),and in the forefrontofdelivering individualizedand integrated mobility services is what we today call Mobility as a Service(MaaS) (Hensher,2017).TheaimofMaaSasaconcept is to integrateall thoseelementsof future transport systemandprovideonesinglemobileapplicationthatprovidesitsuserswithseamlessandaccessiblemobility(Kamargiannietal,2016).Thisstudyhasitsfoundationinseveralsocietaltrendsthatoccurinpartsoftheworldtoday,whichhavethepotentialtofacilitateadoptionofMaaS.Thisstudyexplores theroleofyoungpeople in thisdevelopment,which is thepopulationgroupthat inmanycasesis leadingthedevelopmentofthesetrendsinsociety.Firstly,youngpeopleoftodayshowdifferentattitudesandbehaviourstowardscar ownership and driving. Despite the increasing global trend of both overallvehicular travelandcarownershipyoungpeople tend todrive lessanddonothavesameintentiontoowntheircarasearliergenerations,whichwillprobablyincreasetheirdemandforalternativemobilitysolutionssuchasMaaS.Secondly,youngpeopleare the first toadoptnewtechnologies (Blumenbergetal,2012)andare the first generation thathasnot experienceda lifewithout themobilephone.Their lifestyle,where themobilephone isoften constantlypresent,hasboth reduced the demand for some kind of trips, due to a shift in how theysocialize,butalso increased thedemand fora transportsystemwhereyoucanwork, text or talk on the phonewhile travelling (Davis et al, 2012; TransportSystemsCatapult,2016).Thetravelbehaviourofyoungpeopletodaywillpersistwhentheymoveintoadulthood(Lineetal,2010;Blumenbergetal,2012;Smart&Klein,2017), and thereforedevelopmentofMaaSaccording todemandsandvisionsofyoungpeoplecouldhavethepotentialtoincreaselong-termusageandadoption of such mobility services. Also, today most of existing research onmobilityandtravelbehaviourhasbeenconductedonadultpopulationsandourknowledge of young people’s travel behaviour is surprisingly limited(Blumenbergetal,2012;Skrbisetal,2013).Thisqualitativestudyusesfocusgroupsasmethodtoexploremobilitydemandsoftodayandintheenvisionedfutureofyoungpeople(age15-23)inStockholm.It also aims to gaindeeperunderstandingof theunderlyingpatternsof values

7

and attitudes that influence thosedemands andvisions. Further it aims toputthosefindingsinthecontextofMaaSandexploreifmobilityneedsandvisionsofyoung people correspond to the visions of MaaS as stated by experts anddevelopers.Thestudyaimstoanswerthefollowingresearchquestions:

-Howdothemobilitydemandsofyoungpeoplelookliketodayandintheenvisionedfuture?

-DothevisionsofMaaScorrespondtothemobilitydemandsandvisionsofyoung

people?

1.1Scope&LimitationsThestudywasconductedbetweenMarch2017andSeptember2017andequals20 weeks of fulltime work. The study uses focus groups to explore mobilitydemands and travel behavior of 22 young people (15-23 years of age) inStockholmCounty,allwithgenerallygoodaccess topublic transportandothertransportmodes.Theresultsarelimitedtobevalidonlyforyoungpeoplelivingin an urban environment with good availability of mobility, and the resultscannot be generalized and valid for other population groups or young peoplelivingincitieswithlessdevelopedpublictransportsystem.

1.2StructureoftheReportThe structure of this report includes five main sections. The first one is theintroduction and the aimof the study.The secondone is the literature reviewandearlier researchonMaaS,mobility and travelbehaviour.The third sectiondescribes the methodology and the methods used to collect data. The fourthsection isacombinedsectionof the findingsanddiscussion. In the lastsectionthe conclusions drawn from this study are presented which also containssuggestions for implementationofMaaSbasedon the findingsof this study aswellassuggestionsforfurtherresearch

8

2.LiteratureReviewThis section introduces and defines the concept ofMaaS. It also describes thedifferentcomponentsthattogetherformtheconceptandwhatservicesitaimstodeliver.Thissectionalsodescribes theemergence,potentials,visionsandriskswith theconcept.Further this sectiongivesabriefoverviewofyoungpeople’smobilityneedsandpatternstoday,attitudesandbehaviourtheoryamongyoungpeople, anddescribesother aspects that influence travelbehaviour. Lastly thissection introduces attitudes towards private cars and towards autonomousvehicles(AVs).

2.1IntroductionandDefinitionofMaasMaaS is a relatively new concept and does not have a commonly agreeddefinition(Holmbergetal,2016).Thisstudywillneitherattempttogiveastrictdefinitionof the concept.However, this sectionwill introduce the concept andpresenttheinterpretationoftheconceptasusedinthisstudy.MaaS is today a broad concept that could theoretically refer to all kinds ofmobility services, even occasionally single-mode services such as Uber or carsharing(Mukhtar-Landgrenetal,2016).Alsotermslikemultimodalmobility,asdescribedbySpickermannetal (2014),combinesdifferenttravelmodesandissimilar to MaaS. However, the concept lacks the service component that isregardedasanimportantaspectofMaaS(Karlssonetal,2016).Anotherrelatedconcept is Shared mobility that refers to different transport modes sharedbetweenusers.ThisconceptlackstheintegrationofdifferentmodestobefullyconsideredasaMaaS(Mukhtar-Landgrenetal,2016).In broad terms MaaS refers to a co-operative and interconnected transportsystem where services, infrastructure, information, and payment are allimportantaspectsoftheconcept.Theideaisalsotoblurtheboundariesbetweentransport modes and between private and public operators (Karlsson et al,2016).McCluskey(2016,p.40)summarizetheideaofMaaSbystating:“Insteadoflocating,bookingandpayingfortrains,busesandtaxisseparately,multimodalplatformslettravellersplanandbookdoor-to-doorjourneysfromasingleapp,providingreal-timejourneyinformationatthetouchofabutton”.MaaSwillmostlybedevelopedasanapplication(usedonphonesortablets),andtheconceptinvolvesbuyingmobilityservicesaspackagesbasedonusersneedsinsteadofbuyingthemeansoftransport(Karlssonetal,2016).However,astheconcept is relatively new there are varying definitions and varying startingpointsforthepurposeofMaaS.Forexample,theSwedishKnowledgeCentreforPublic Transport (K2) seesMaaS as a tool tomakeprivate car ownership lessattractive, whereas the Transport Systems Catapult (2016) and MaaS-Alliance(n.d) focus on users and their expectations for a well functioning transportservice.Kamargiannietal(2016)highlightstheneedsanddemandsofusers,butfocus on the growing pressure on the personal transport system of cities as astarting point, and see MaaS as a solution to insufficient capacity within thatsystem.

9

This study adopts MaaS as defined by Sochor et al (2015, cited in Mukhtar-Landgrenetal,2016,p.8):A service that not only integrates a range of mobility services, both public andprivate, but also provides one-stop access to all services through a commoninterface (hence creating a seamless customer experience, i.e. the service). Theservice component could be more or less developed, ranging from simply thepossibilitytofindtravelinformationandpayfordifferentmobilityserviceswithinonetechnicalsystem, toprovidingmore far-reachingmobilityserviceofferssuchas subscriptions to different mobility packages, perhaps also involving otherservicecomponentssuchasgoodsdeliveryorbicyclerepairservices.

The main difference to other concepts, like multimodal mobility and sharedmobility is the integrationof all kindsof travelmodes, integrationofpayment,andthepotentialofinvolvingotherservicecomponents.EvenifthestartingpointsandaimoftheservicedifferamongdeveloperstherearemoredefinitionsthatdescribeMaaSsimilartotheinterpretationusedinthisstudy.MaaSAlliance (n.d.) defines it as: “MaaS fulfils users’ needs formobilitywith awide rangeof transport services for both travellers and goods, offeringtailor-made transportondemand.Tomeeta customer’sneeds, aMaaS serviceproviderarrangesthemostsuitabletransportmeans,beitpublictransport,taxior car rental, or even ride-, car- or bike-sharing”. This definition adds to theformeronethedimensionof“suitabletransportmeans”.EveniftheoverallaimofMaaSistoreducethenumberoftripsbyprivatecars,thisdefinitionindicatesthatnotravelmodeisfavouredoverothers,andthattheterm“suitable”variesfromeachindividualtrip.TheabovedefinitionsofMaaSsuggestthatsingle-modeservices(suchasUberorcarsharing)shouldnotberegardedasMaaSbutratherascomponentsofMaaS.The same can be said for route planners and booking systems that are animportantpartofacompleteMaaSplatform.

2.2TheEmergenceandVisionsofMaaSHolmbergetal(2016)andBurrowsetal(2015)arguethereareseveralreasonsfor the emergence of MaaS. On a societal level there is an ongoing trend ofurbanization and densification of our cities and the need to tackle climatechange.Thereisalsoanemergingtrendofthesharingeconomy,andtheyoungpeople of today are a generation characterized by for example decliningconsumption patterns and a higher demand for personalized and on-demandservices. Further,we also experience some economical changes in society thatdrives thedevelopmentofMaaS.The first andmainone is the excess capacityand idle transport assets, which allows profitablemarkets in the forms of forexample car sharing, which is one part of MaaS, and the most developed ofsharedmobility services in Sweden today. The second economic driver is theincreased financial flexibility that allows start-ups as well as various digitalpayments solutions.According to Felländeret al (2015) another driver entailstechnical development. The increased usage of smartphone’s and access toInternet is the main enabler of the transformation of the transport sector

10

towardsmobility services such asMaaS and a sharing economywithin it. TheUK’s Technology and Innovation Centre for IntelligentMobility also highlightstechnicaldevelopmentasadrivingforceandstates:“theopeningupoftransportdatasets has already added significant value to travellers in terms of newapplications. As a result of the Internet of Things, transport datawill becomemore pervasive. Combining big data with new autonomous transport systemswill enable opportunities to innovate and refine MaaS offerings” (TransportSystem Catapult, 2016, p. 31). Lastly, the increased usage of social networksfacilitates new MaaS services by offering for example different ways ofmarketingthatcouldintensifythedevelopment(Holmbergetal,2016).The transport sector is traditionally conservative and has historically avoidedmajorchangeup tonow(Holmbergetal,2016).This isdue toaseveral setofcircumstancesinthetransportsector,whichaccordingtoBurrowsetal(2016,p.2) are: “the cost and time to develop transport infrastructure, the cost andcomplexityofentryintothemarket,theregulatoryenvironmentanddifficultyoftaking on relatively large and (usually)well-establishedbusinesses”. ButMaaSand new technologies nowhave the potential to break down such barriers byinnovativesolutions,whichforexamplerequirelessinvestmentininfrastructure(for example by integration of travelmodes andmobility operators), and newcompanieswho finds newways to enter themarket ofmobility and transport(forexampleUber)(ibid.).Public transport routeshave also traditionally been fixed, the stopshavebeenfixedandrunonafixedtimetable.Fixedtransportservicesmeanthatpassengershavetoorganizetheirdoor-to-doorjourneywiththe ‘lastmile’elementalwaysbeing outside the system, requiring separate planning and information.Traditionally there has also been a clear and established range of transportmodes (Burrows et al, 2015), and users are locked in to a single mode oftransportwhen theybuya caror apublic transportpass (Sochor et al, 2016).The vision of MaaS is to change this structure of mobility and the transportsectorandturnitintoamorecustomer-centricsector,andtohelpthemchoosethemostsuitabletravelmodeforeachindividualtrip(ibid.),andbysoblurtheboundaries between different transport modes (Burrows et al, 2016). TheoverallvisionandaimofMaaScouldalsobearguedtobetodecreaseprivatecarownershipandincreasetheuseofsharedresources(Sochoretal,2015;Kerttuet al, 2017). The vision of the firstMaaS company in theworld (MaaS Ltd) isdividedintofourmainobjectives;thefirstistogiveback90minutesofthedayto the users by reducing daily travelling time, maintain the freedom ofmovement,takeawaythepainof“howdoIgetthere?”andtomakesuretheuserisnotapolluter(Hietanen,2014).MaaShasthepotentialtochangeattitudesandbehaviours,aswellasthenormstobothprivateandpublictransportation(Bernetal,2016).However,forthevisionsandpotentialstobefulfilledMaaSneedstobebothcommerciallyviablebutalsoadoptedby its futureusers (Sochoretal,2015).

11

2.3TheFrameworkofMaaSTheframeworkofMaascontainsofinfrastructure,transportationproviders,andthe MaaS services (i.e. the application) (See figure 1). All these sectors willchangeinthefutureandadapttofuturemobilityneeds.

Figure1.ConceptualvisualizationovertheframeworkofMaaS(Source:MaaSGlobal,2017)The infrastructure is themost rigidpart,but therewillbechangeseven in theinfrastructure in order to adapt to future mobility demands. Additions to theinfrastructurecouldbevarioussensorsforAVsandchargingstationsforfutureelectrifiedvehicles.Withinthesectoroftransportationprovidersalotofchangeswillhappen.Newcarsharing,bikesharingandself-serviceswilloccuraswellasnewserviceswithinpublictransport.NewtransportmodessuchasAVswillalsoplay a big role in this sector. Within the MaaS sector all information andcommunication technology will occur and the software applications (See nextsection for examples of two existing applications)will be developed. Payment,navigation, tolls, booking, and scheduling are examples of components withinthatsector.(FinnishTransportAgency,2015).

12

2.3.1 Design of MaaS Applications Thissection isbasedontheassumptionthataMaaSapplicationneedstomeetthecommercialdemandsoftheusersinordertoobtainitsaimsandpotentials(Sochoretal,2016).Whenlaterdiscussed,thissectionshouldberegardedasasummaryofalltheaspectsofyoungpeople’smobilitydemandsandvisionsandhow these should be met in terms of services provided, design, cost andpayment, and usability in form of a potential MaaS application. To increaseunderstanding of the design of a MaaS service this section introduces twoexamplesofexistingapplicationsandbrieflydescribestheirfunctions.ThefirstoneistheFinnishapplicationWhim.ThesecondoneistheUbiGoservice,whichwasapilotprojectlaunchedinGothenburgin2014.Whim is currently available in the Helsinki region and gives access to buses,commuter trains, trams,metro, ferries, taxis and rental cars. Servicesas rentalbikes and car sharing are not included yet but will be in the future. Theapplication is free to download and service is offered with three differentmonthlysubscriptions,whileapayperridesolutionalsoisavailable.Thebasicpackagecost€89permonthand isconvertedto94Whimpoints.Thepackageincludes unlimited travel on public transport,which equals 55 points, and therest of the points could be used for other modes and equals for example 2median length taxi rides.Thesecondpackagecost€149permonthandequals179Whimpoints.Thepackageincludesunlimitedtravelonpublictransportandpointsthatcoverforexample6medianlengthtaxiridesor4daysofcarrental.Thereisalsoabusinesspackageofferedwithunlimitedpublictransportandtaxirides. It is possible to change the subscription on amonthly basis andunusedWhim points will be lost and not transferred to the following month (MaaSGlobal,2017).The UbiGo test project contained 83 households and 195 individuals whobecametestpilotsfortheservice.Theywererecruitedindifferentwaysbuthadall already relatively good access to public transport and car sharing service.UbiGoprovidedasimilarserviceasWhimeveniftherewereseveraldifferences.ThetravelmodesofferedtotheusersincludedalltheonesofferedinWhim,butitalsoincludedbike-andcarsharingservices.Thetestincludedonlyonesinglesubscription to a minimum cost of €135, which was converted to credits. Indifference to Whim, the UbiGo service were adapted and personalized to thetransportneedsofeachindividualuser.Also,unusedcreditcouldbetransferredtonextmonth.Intheapplicationtheusercouldactivatetickets/trips,makeandcheckbookings,checkcreditbalance,triphistoryandsoforth.Theservicealsoincludedacustomerservice lineandan improvedsocalledtravellerguarantee(Karlssonetal,2016).

2.4PotentialRiskswithMaaSThe concept of Mobility as a Service has been proposed as a feasible way toachievemoresustainable transport in termsof reducedenvironmental impact,mainly due to its potential to reduce the need of private cars by increasingaccessibilitytoothertransportmodes(Sochoretal,2016).However,predictionsindicate that depending on the aim of theMaaS service the outcomemight be

13

different. If the aim is to reduce carusage and traffic congestion, byprovidingalternativestotheprivatecar,thereispotentialtoreducethegenerationofcartrafficand increase theshareof tripsbypublic transportandothermodes.Onthe other hand, if the aim of the service is to attract as many customers aspossibletheamountoftripsmightincrease.Evenifthetripswithprivatecarwilldecrease the amount of trips with other travel modes might be higher thantoday, andby so thepossiblepositive environmental effects ofMaaSaremoreunpredictable(Kerttuetal,2017).AlsoHolmbergetal(2016)claimsthatMaaShas the potential to reduce environmental impact, but there is also a risk forinduceddemandandMaaSwillenlargethemarketformobilityproviders.Thatmeans thatMaaS risk to provide opportunity for a biggermarket formobilityoperatorsduetotheincreasedaccessibilitytomobilitygivenbyMaaS,andifsotheenvironmentalbenefitscouldbeoverstated.The potential of MaaS to reduce emissions lies partly in the increasedaccessibilitytodifferenttransportmodesotherthantheprivatecar.However,toachievetheaimsthereisaneedforchangeofattitudestowardscarownership–wherepeoplechoosetosharecarsindifferentwaysinsteadofowningtheirown.IfthatisnotchangedthepositiveeffectsofMaaSaremoreunpredictable(Kerttuet al, 2017; Sochoret al, 2014).Due to the limited implementationofMaaS todate,littleresearchhasevaluatedtheimpactsfromsuchaserviceonbothtravelbehaviourchangeandenvironmentalimpacts(Kamargianietal,2016).

2.5MaaSandYoungPeopleExploring young people’s mobility needs and visions in relation to MaaS isrelevant for several reasons.Firstly, there isagap in the research literature ininvestigating travel behaviour among young people, because the majority ofexisting researchaddressesadults (Blumenbergetal, 2012;Kamargiannietal,2012; Skrbis et al, 2013). Young people of today are “members of the firstgeneration to have never known a world without instantaneous and nearlyubiquitousmobilephoneaccess”(Blumenbergetal,2012,p.12),andtheytendtobethefirstagegrouptoadoptnewtechnologies(ibid.),whichmostlikelywillmake adaptation toMaaS applications a relatively small step compared to theeffortsrequiredbyotheragegroups.Further,youngpeoplearethemostlikelytofirstadoptMaaS(TransportSystemsCatapult,2016)becausetheyshowdifferentbehaviourstowardscarownershipanddrivingthanearliergenerations–theytendtodrivelessandwhentheydothey use more hired or shared cars (Burrows et al, 2016; Transport SystemsCatapult,2016).AccordingtoDavisetal (2012)thistrendhasemergedmainlydue to increased environmental awareness and technical development. Moreyoungpeopleoftodayconsidertheenvironmentalimpactfromprivatecarsandtend to choose other transport modes to a greater extent than earlier, andtechnological improvements make alternatives to the car more convenient touse. Ubiquitous mobile phone access has also changed the lifestyles of youngpeopleandsocialnetworkinghasreducedtheneedforsometrips(theytendtosocializemoreonline thanmeet in reality than earlier generations), aswell aspublictransportismorecompatiblewiththelifestylewhereonecantalkonthe

14

phone, text orworkwhile riding. On top of that, thosewhonot yet drive facegreater obstacles, mainly economic, to driving licence than any previousgeneration faced, and there is a decreasing trend, in Sweden andmany othercountries,inthepercentageofyoungpeoplewithdrivinglicence(Blumenbergetal,2012).

2.6MobilityDemandsMobility Demands represent the core ofmobility and basically includes travelpatterns and choice of travel mode. In other words, this theme is about howyoung people travel in the city and which travel modes they use, and isimportant to consider since it is predicted to change in the future if MaaSapplications are implemented on a broader scale (Bern et al, 2016). Youngpeople “aremaking trips to school, after-school private tutorial lessons, sportactivities, entertainment activities, visiting friends, parks and a host of otherdestinations” (Kamagianni et al, 2012, p. 3636), and there is quite obviouslysignificant variation in mobility demands and patterns among young people.Mobility demands and patterns depend on their age, personal circumstances(such as social class and family relations), and where they live (Taylor et al,2007). Regarding choice of travel mode there are relatively good statistics inSweden to identify mobility patterns. A survey of travel habits in StockholmCountyin2015(StockholmCountyCouncil,2016)showsyoungpeople(age16-24)mostlyusepublictransport,80%oftotalshare,whilethecarstandsforonly5%oftotalshare,fortravellingtoandfromschool.Therest15%isdistributedbetween travelling by foot, by bicycle, or othermeans of transport.When thesame group travels towork the share of car use increases to 28% and publictransportdecreases to55%.Forcommutingtoschool/workthedistributionoftravelmodes is relativelysimilaras theoldergroup in thesurvey (age25-39),while the people aged 40-64 use the car significantly more and use publictransportlessthanotheragegroups.Whenitcomestoleisuretripstheshareofcar use increases for young people to 30% and public transport decreases to42%.Explorations of young people’s visions of future mobility demands are ofimportance for several reasons. To realize transformations (such asimplementation of newmobility systems like MaaS) it is important to have avision(Ortegon-Sanchez&Tyler,2016),buttheproblemisoftenthattherearedifferences in thevisionofplannersanddevelopers inrelation to thevisionofthepublic (Bernetal,2016),and for thatreasonexploring thevisionofyoungpeopleof today isargued tobe important toobtainabroadadoptionofMaaS.Also, to reach a common vision planners and developers need to understandchangesinbehavioursanddemandsthatareoccurringinthesociety(Auvinenetal,2012). 2.6.1 Influences of Young People’s Mobility Demands This section is about factors that influence mobility demands and travelbehaviour,andaddressesaspectssuchasthecost,availability,frequency,traveltime, and safety of different travel modes. It also addresses the influence ofenvironmentalawareness, thebuiltenvironment,andearlierexperiences.Eachoneof them is often included indifferentways in research related tomobility

15

andtravelbehaviour,andwereidentifiedwhilereadingresearchofforexampleLineetal(2006;2010),Klein(2016),andSochoretal(2016).Mobilitydemandhas traditionallybeenamatterof twofactors.The first is thecharacteristicsofthetransportservicesupplied:thecost,traveltime,frequency,safety, and spatial coverage. The second set of factors is related to aspectsoutside the control of the transport provider: the regional economy, localgeography,landusenearstationsandsoforth(Klein,2016).However,therearealso incalculable and context-specific perceptions about transport andunderlying socially constructed factors that influence individuals’ decisions ineveryday mobility (ibid.). When young people move to a new neighbourhoodtheirmobilitypatternswillbeinfluencedbythebuiltenvironmentcontextofthenew neighbourhood, the economic circumstances, their attitudes andpreferences, and their past experiences (Smart & Klein, 2017). Sochor et al(2016)addresssimilarthoughtsandarguethatinordertounderstandmobilityneedsandbehaviours,oneneedstoaddress individuals inasocialcontextandunderstand that for example household members influence each other andcoordinatetheirmobilityneeds.Youngpeoplearesusceptibletoexternalfactorsandpastexperiencesofmobilitymost likely shapedecisions todayand in the future (Smart&Klein,2017).Forexample, research by Mackay (1997, cited in Line et al, 2006) indicates thatpeople16-18yearsoldwithunrestrictedavailabilityofacar(eitheriftheydrivethemselves or are drivenby someone else) use it for almost all journeys. Thistendencyappearstocontinueastheyageandtheyarelikelytocontinuetousecars foralmostall journeys later in life.Thisrelationship tends tobe thesamewith public transportation. Young people exposed to a lot of publictransportation during early years in life display travel behaviour later in lifedominatedbypublictransportationandlesscaruse(Smart&Klein,2017).Howmuchyoungpeopleareaffectedbyexposuretopublictransportationhasshowntodifferdependingontheirageatthetimeoftheexposure.Thestrongesteffectseems to start from the early twenties and end around thirty, and for olderpeoplethatagehasastrongereffectontheirtravelbehaviourthantheircurrenttransportation possibilities and the built environment they are living in at themoment(ibid.).One other aspect that influences young people’s mobility choices, more thanadults,iscost.StoreyandBrannen(2000,citedinLineetal,2006)foundthatthecostofpublictransportisasignificantbarriertoyoungpeoplemakinguseofit.Also Taylor et al (2007, p. 30) states that the costs of the journey influencestravelmodechoice,butalso“frequencyoftheservices,reliability,howcrowdedthe service is,whether it arrives and leaves on time, and howmany stops theservice makes between an individual’s starting point and their destination”influence young people’s choice of public transport mode. However, youngpeopletendtounderestimatetherealcostofacarinrelationtopublictransport.Thisisbecausetheymightgetfinancialsupportfromparentstobuyacarortheyborrowthecarfromtheirparents(ibid.).

16

2.6.2 Attitudes and Behaviour of Young People Thissectionisabouttheunderlyingvaluesandattitudesthatinfluencemobilitydemands and travel behavior of young people today and in the future. Asmobilitydemandsarepredictedtochangeunderstandingtheunderlyingvaluesand attitudes is important to in order to adapt mobility services and thetransport system to those changes (Beirão & Cabral, 2007), and is thereforeimportantforthedevelopersofMaaS.Lineet al (2010) indicates that values such as ‘A Comfortable Life’, ‘Freedom’,and‘Pleasure’actasunderlyinginfluenceonadultsandyoungpeopleinregardstotravelbehavior.Also,youngpeoplearemoresensitivethanadultstoexternalfactorsandvaluessuchas ‘Identity‘, ‘Image‘,and‘Socialrecognition‘thatplayabig part in their travel behavior. Even if young people understand theenvironmental impacts fromdifferent transportmodes and the environmentalawarenessincreases,theytendtoignoreenvironmentalaspectsofmobilitytoalarger extent than adults. This is due to young people being concerned aboutissuesinthepresent,suchasexamsandhomeworkthathavementalprecedenceto issues related to long-term environmental impacts. There are also severalsocial factors that influence travel behavior among young people. Line et al(2006)arguesthattheperceptionofpeerimpacttravelbehaviorandbeingseenas ‘cool‘byfriendsareimportantfromtheageof11andonwards.Evenso,theconformity to peer group norms seems to decline in the later stage ofadolescencewhentheydeveloptheirownidentities(ibid.).Even if exposure and use of a certain type of transportation mode seems tofollow young people into adulthood (as described in previous section), theirattitudes towards a certain transportmode does not seem to follow the samepattern. Research by Taylor et al (2007) indicates for example that a verypositive attitude towards for example private cars does not mean a negativeattitude towards public transport. On the contrary, young people with verypositiveattitudes towardspublic transport canalsosee thebenefitsof cars. Inthis case both female and male demonstrated similar attitudes, and genderseems to have less influence than perhaps assumed on attitudes towardsdifferenttransportmodes.

2.7AttitudesTowardsCarOwnershipandPrivateCarsThis section is important for this studymainly due to the aim of manyMaaSapplications,whichistoreduceprivatecarownershipandthedistancetravelledbyprivatecars(Sochoretal,2015;Kerttuetal,2017).FordevelopersofMaaStoobtain thisaim it is important tounderstand theattitudes theyoungpeopleoftodaytowardscarownershipandprivatecars,butalsotounderstandwhytheyhavethoseattitudesandwhatinfluencethem.Dittmar (2004, cited inLineet al, 2010, p. 241) argues that values andbeliefsinfluence young people’s attitude towards cars. In the study she claims: “Themajorityofparticipantsassociatethecarwithasecondsetofbeliefs,believingitbecapableofprovidingthemwithanidentityofadultstatus,animageofsuccessand, with respect to those already driving, a sense of purpose relating to the

17

rolestheyplayasadriverintheirfamilyandpeergroup”.Previousresearchhasshownthatthereisadesireamongyoungpeopletodriveandownacarinthefuture(Lineetal,2010).Dittmar(2004,citedinLineetal,2010,p.241)arguesthis isbecausematerialisticvalues,andthey influenceyoungpeoplebelief thatmaterial goodsare: “a central life goal; themain route to identity, success andhappiness; and theyardstick forevaluating self andother”.On theotherhand,the young generation of today is characterized by declining consumptionpatterns (Holmberg et al, 2016). There is also a societal trend today thatsupportssharedresourcesandeconomyandthereisacurrentshiftinattitudesandvalues inamoreenvironmentallyconsciousdirection,whichwillallowforexample joint and shared car ownership or no ownership at all (Sochor et al,2016).Tayloretal (2007)present abroad rangeof youngpeople’s attitudes towardsprivate cars, even if most of them were relatively positive. The predominantbenefitthatyoungpeopleexpressedaboutusingaprivatecarwastheperceivedability to travel to placesmore easily and quickly than using public transport.Otherbenefitsexpressedincludedbeingabletogotoanexactdestination,ratherthanthenearesttransportlink,beingabletocomebackhomeatwhatevertime,ratherthanhavingtorelyontimetabledservices,andbeingabletoeasilycarrythings with them. It was also stated by the young people in the study that aprivatecargavethemasenseofindependenceandcontroloftheirownlivesandhaving an own private car, some argued, gave them a feeling of not being aburdentotheirparentsandachancetogetawayfromtheirparents.Someyoungpeoplewithpositiveattitudestocarsalsomentionedthephysicalexperienceofdriving a car as a leisure activity in itself. Cars were also seen as a saferalternativetopublictransport,especiallyatnight.ThedisadvantagesexpressedbytheyoungpeopleintheresearchofTayloretal(2007) were mostly practical ones and included problems such as limitedparkingspace,stressedassociatedwithcongestion,notbeingabletodrinkwhengoingout,andthecostsofowningandrunningacar.Evenifmostoftheyoungpeople in the study felt safer when driving themselves, some recognized thedanger associated with driving. As mentioned earlier, research by Line et al(2010) indicatesthatyoungpeopleshowlittleawarenessof theenvironmentalimpactsfromtransport,andtheresearchbyTayloretal(2007)indicatessimilarpattern. However, there were some concerns raised about the negativeenvironmental impacts from cars, even if most of them related to localenvironmental issues.Tayloretal (2007)sumsupbystatingthat theattitudestowards private transport and cars showed to be less dependent on the localcontext than public transport and more related to the inherent benefits anddisadvantagesofthecar. 2.7.1 Attitudes Towards Autonomous Vehicles AVsareexpectedinthefuturetoreplacemanyoftheprivatecarswehavetodayandwillmost likely play a big part of futureMaaS applications and transportsystem (McCluskey, 2016).However, attitudes towardsAVsare anunexploredresearchtopicand“thelimitedresearchthathasbeenconductedinrecentyearsisfocusedmostlyonexaminingthetechnicalaspectsandfeasibilityofAVs,and

18

the impacts on safety and congestion. Little research exists to date on thepotential behavioral shifts and the underlying motivations to use AVs.”(Haboucha et al, 2017, p. 38). This study addresses AVs mainly as fullyautomatedvehicles,whichmeansthedriverbasicallydonotneedtomanoeuvrethevehicleatall.However, “since fullyautomatedcarsarenotcommercializedyet, it is important to examine acceptability, attitudes and drivers’ intentionstoward fully automated vehicles” (Payre et al, 2014, p. 253). Exploring theattitudesofindividualstowardsAVsarealsoimportantsincethepubliccontrolsthe governing policies and future infrastructure needed for implementation ofAVs(Habouchaetal,2017),asinturnprovidestheconditionsandpossibilitiesforMaaSdeveloperstoincludeAVsasaservice.Whatweknow is that there are alreadymoreor less autonomousAVsonourroadstoday,buttheywillmostlikelyplayamuchbiggerroleinfuturemobilitythan right now, and widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles “isincreasinglyconsideredtobeinevitable”(Gruel&Stanford,2016,p.18).Further,AVs have the potential to “fundamentally alter transportation systems byavertingdeadlycrashes,providingcriticalmobility to theelderlyanddisabled,increasing road capacity, saving fuel, and lowering emissions” (Fagnant andKockelman, 2015, p. 167).On the other hand, the long-termeffects ofAVs aremore uncertain. Gruel and Stanford (2016) argues that there could beenvironmentalpositiveeffectsofAVsifpeople’sbehaviordoesnotchange(evenif amount ofmobilitywill increase) and they continue to use AVs as they usetheir cars today. That will basically reduce the need of private cars and bereplaced by AVs that are shared or operates as taxis. However, if behaviorchange and AVs increases the attractiveness to travel by car the amount ofmobility might increase even more and take shares from various publictransportmodesandothermodesoftransport,andifso,thelong-termpositiveeffectsareuncertain.TherearealsoethicaldilemmastobeexploredandAVs“willsometimeshavetochoose between two evils, such as running over pedestrians or sacrificingthemselvesandtheirpassengertosavethepedestrians”(Bonnefonetal,2016,p.1573).DefiningthealgorithmsthatwillhelptheAVtotakesuchdecisionswillbechallenging.Whenpeopleinonestudywereconfrontedtosuchscenario,theytend toaccept socalledutilitarianAVs,which isprogrammed tosacrifice theirpassengerforthegreatergood,andtheywouldlikeotherstobuythem.Ontheother hand, they would themselves prefer to ride in AVs that protect theirpassengeratallcost(ibid.).

19

3.MethodologyIn recent years there has been an increased interest in qualitativemethods inmobilityand travelbehavior research (Marsetal,2016),a research fields thathistoricallyhavebeencharacterizedbyquantitativestudies(Pooley,2012;Cass& Faulconbridge, 2016). Today, travel behavior is complex due to for examplethe multiple travel choices, all with different characteristics, advantages anddisadvantages,andcosts,whichpeoplefaceforeachindividual journey(Beirão& Cabral, 2007). To make implementation of MaaS effective, a deepunderstandingofpeople’sattitudes,perceptionsandbehaviorisneeded,andtounderstandthosemobilitycomplexitiesaqualitativemethodisasuitabletooltouse(ibid.).Marsetal(2016,p.435)explainsthedifferencebetweenqualitativeandquantitativemethods inmobilityresearchas follows:“Qualitativemethodsapplied to travel behavior studies focus on the subjective experiences ofindividuals related to travel. On the other hand, quantitative approaches aremoreinterestedinknowingfrequencyanddistributionsoftrips”.Theaimofthisstudyistocapturethesubjectiveexperiencesofyoungpeopletogainadeeperunderstandingof thevaluesandattitudes that influencemobilitydemandsandtravelbehavior.

3.1FocusGroupsFocus groupswere originally developed as an academic researchmethod, butsince the 1950s they have become more synonymous with market research.However, the method has in recent years regained popularity in academicresearch and is now widely adopted in a wide range of research fields anddisciplines (Liamputtong, 2011a). Themethod has historically been used as aprimaryresearchmethodtoexploreparticipants’ownviewsandunderstandingofaparticulartopic.Themethod is a participatorymethod andKitzinger andBarbour (2011, p. 5)describethemaindifferencetoothergroupinterviewsbystating:“Focusgroupsaredistinguishedfromthebroadercategoryofgroupinterviewsbytheexplicituseofgroupinteractiontogeneratedata”,whichmeansfocusgroupresearchersshouldaimtoencourageparticipantstodebateandtalktooneanotherinsteadof asking questions to each person in turn (Bagnoli & Clark, 2010). Theinteractivenatureoffocusgroupdiscussionshasthepotentialtogeneratemoredeveloped thoughts and ideas than many other interview methods, and theparticipants tend to elaborate more on the topic discussed compared toindividual in-depth interviews or other group interviews (Wilkinson, 1998).Those characteristics of focus groupsmean it has exploratorypotential,whichgenerates understanding of group reactions to a specific research topic ratherthanidentifyingindividualopinions(Bagnoli&Clark,2010).Kitzinger(1995,p.299) states that: “The method is particularly useful for exploring people’sknowledge and experiences and canbeused to examinenot onlywhatpeoplethinkbuthowtheythinkandwhytheythinkthatway”.

20

3.2MethodsThe following sections describe how focus groups were used in this study. Itdescribes the recruitmentofparticipants, selectionand sampleofparticipants,how the focusgroupswere structuredanddesignedaswell ashow theywereconducted,andlastlyhowthefocusgroupsweretranscribedandanalysed.3.2.1 Recruitment of Participants Schoolsareasuitablesource torecruityoungpeople (Lineetal,2006),and inthe initial stage of the recruitment process emails were sent to 29 uppersecondary schools in the Stockholm region. The age of students in uppersecondaryschoolis16-20.Emailwassenteithertotheprincipalsoftheschoolordirectly to teachers, in somecases emailswere sent simultaneously tobothprincipals and teachers. The email contained an introduction of the study, theaim of the study, and an inquiry to the recipient of the email if they had theopportunityandwilltoforwardthequestiontothestudentstoparticipateinthestudy.AccordingtoKitzingerandBarbour(2011)onepotentialriskwhenusinggatekeeperstorecruitparticipantsisthatnotallrelevantinformationispassedon,thereforetherespondentsoftheemailwereencouragedtopassonthewholeintroductiontopotentialparticipants.Inthosecaseswhereareplywasreceiveda telephonecontactwas laterestablished.Fiveof theschoolsrespondedto theemailandsenttheinquiryfurthertothestudents.Toavoidissuesrelatedtopowerrelations,whereadultsorteacherscontroltheenvironment of the students, it is important to give the control back to thestudentsand let themchoose toparticipateornot (Lineetal, 2006).Thiswaspointed out to the representatives of the schools and the aim was to onlyinterview people who wanted to participate. Conducting research in schoolsshouldcauseminimaldisruptiontoteachersandclasslife(Rassol,2004,citedinLineetal,2006)andtheaimwastoconducttheinterviewsoutsideschoolhours.There was no compensation offered to the potential participants except fromrefreshments during the interviews. Two groups were recruited during theinitialstageoftherecruitmentprocess.Inordertorecruitmoreparticipantsasecondstageoftherecruitingprocesswasinitiated. The range of agewas broadened, to the age 15-24, and contact wasestablished alsowith high schools and the researcher’s personal contacts thatworkedwithinschoolseitherasteachersorinotherpositions.Contactwithhighschoolswasestablishedinthesamewayasinthefirststage.Initialcontactwithpersonalcontactswerecarriedoutthroughadirecttelephonecall.Inthisstagethreeadditionalgroupswererecruited,onefromahighschoolandtwofromtheresearcher’spersonalcontacts.During the recruitment process no personal characteristics were specificallytargeted (except for age) of the potential participants. In otherwords, specificrequirements such as gender, ethnicity, social class, mobility demand, priorknowledge on the subject, and so forth were not specified in the inquiry.However, personal characteristics like these influencemobility and a differentsamplewithinthesameagegroupwouldmostlikelyproducedifferentfindings.

21

3.2.2 Selection and Sample of Respondents Intotal,22peopleparticipatedinfivefocusgroups(SeeTable1forsummaryofthegroups):10femalesand12males.AccordingtoKitzinger(1994)fourorfivegroups are suitable when studying a particular group of the population. Thenumber of participants in each group ranged from three to six people.Liamputtong(2011)arguesgroupsofsixtoeightpeopleasuitablesizeforfocusgroupdiscussion,whichmeanssomeofthegroupsinthisstudycouldbearguedas small regarding number of participants. On the other hand, Kitzinger andBarbour(2011)arguesthatsomeresearchersprefersmallgroupswithasfewasthreeparticipants,andopinionsamongresearchersingeneralseemstodifferonwhatisasuitablesizeofafocusgroup.Groupdynamicsandinteractionamongparticipantswithinthedifferentgroupsinthisstudyappearedrelativelysimilar.Thatindicatesthatagroupsizeofonlythreeparticipants,giventhetopicofthestudy and the structure of the focus groups, produced findings similar to thelargergroups.Themedianageoftheparticipants’was17,5years,rangingfrom15-23yearsold.Participantsinallgroupsexceptonewerefulltimestudents,outof them three groups contained of students from upper secondary school andone contained of students from ninth grade of high school. One group, withparticipants ranging from 21-23 years old, contained one full time universitystudent,oneparttimeemployedworkerandonefulltimeemployedworker.Participants fromthreeof thegroups lived incentralpartsofStockholmCity–twogroupsofuppersecondaryschoolstudentsandthegroupofpeopleaged21-23.The lastgroupof secondaryhighschoolstudentsand thegroupcontaininghigh school students studied and lived in an adjacent municipality in thenorthern part of Stockholm County. All participants lived close to where theystudied or worked, except one who lived in a city about 50 km north ofStockholm. All participants, except one, from the groups containing studentslivedathomewiththeirparents, theexempt livedbyalone inanapartment inthe city centre. The last group of participants aged 21-23 lived collectivelytogetherinacentrallocatedapartment.Allparticipantshadamonthlyorasix-monthpasstopublictransport.

22

Table1:Summaryoffocusgroups

Group Participants Age School Area

1 4males2females

16-18 Uppersecondaryschool

CentralStockholm

2 2males2females

16-19 Uppersecondaryschool

CentralStockholm

3 3males 21-23 University/Working CentralStockholm

4 1male2females

17-19 Uppersecondaryschool

Adjacentmunicipality,northernpartsofStockholmCounty

5 2males4females

15-16 Highschool Adjacentmunicipality,northernpartsofStockholmCounty

Thesocio-economicstatusandsocialclassweremoreorlessequivalentamongparticipants,althoughquestionsregardingtheseaspectswerenotdirectedtotheparticipants. The participants in the groups containing students were alreadyacquainted with each other, as well as the participants from the group withslightly older people. The homogeneity among participants and the fact theyalreadykneweachotheris,accordingtoBagnoliandClark(2010),andMorganand Krueger (1993), a recommendation to conduct successful focus groupdiscussions.AlsoKitzinger (1994)recommendworkingwithclustersofpeoplewhoalreadywork, live or socialize together, and areused tonaturallydiscusswitheachother.

23

3.2.3 The Structure of the Focus Groups The general structure of focus groups is less rigid and structured in academicresearch, and more structured in market research (Liamputtong, 2011a). Theless structured approach is more likely to give the researcher a deeperunderstanding of the participants’ meanings and interpretations and theapproach encourages the participants to talk to each other rather than to themoderator(Wilkinson,1998).ThefocusgroupsstartedwithashortintroductionofMaaS,which is a quite unknown concept formany, and an overview of theaims and objectives of the study. The last part of the introduction containedsome requests and information to the participants. The participants werenotified of the discussions being audio-recorded and about their anonymity inthe study. Theywere also encouraged to talk to each other rather than to themoderator.Reducingthe influenceof themoderatoralsogives theparticipantsmoreopportunitytosettheresearchagenda,andtoelaborateonquestionstheyfindmostinterestingtothem(Wilkinson,1998).BasedonKrueger(2002)howtocreatearelaxedatmosphereitwasalsocommunicatedthattherewasnorightor wrong answers, that they should feel free to share all opinions even if itdifferedfromwhatotherssaid,andthatbothnegativeandpositivecommentsonthequestionswerewelcome.Thatwasalsocommunicatedtoreducetheriskofindividualsbeingsilencedduetothearticulationofgroupnormsthatsometimesoccurwithinfocusgroupresearch(Kitzinger,1995).Thesecondandmainpartof the focus groups included the discussions (See Appendix 1 for completeinterviewguide).Theinterviewguidewasusedasabasisforthediscussionsandtokeepthefocusgroupsontrackandtomakesurealltopicsweremoreorlessdiscussed. It was not followed strictly and supplementary questions differedfromgrouptogroupandthosearenotspecifiedintheguide.Beforeeachtopicwasdiscussedashortexplanationofthetopicwasgiventotheparticipantswiththeaimtoclarifyandexplainthecontent.ThedesignofthequestionswastoalargeextentinspiredbyKrueger(2002)onhow to create suitable questions for focus group interviews. Themain pointsstated byKrueger are for example to use open-ended questions,which is alsohighlighted by Kitzinger (1995). Dichotomous questions that can be answeredwitha“yes”or“no”wereavoidedasmuchaspossible.Useofexamples,choices,rating scales etc. was also useful to get participants involved and particularlyusefulinmobilityresearch(Marsetal,2016).Thecontentofthequestionswasderivedfromtheliteratureonmobility,MaaS,andattitudesandtravelbehaviortheory. When the Swedish Transport Organisation launched an investigationabout future mobility they addressed questions about attitudes and normsregarding travelling by car and the future of autonomous vehicles. Theyaddressed this in relation to views on ownership, willingness to pay, andindividualtravellinginrelationtopublictransport,andtheexpectationsonthefuturetransportsystem(Bernetal,2016),andtheseweretopicsthatinfluencedthecontentofthequestionsinthisstudy.Auvinenetal(2012)describesimilarquestions for futuremobility andMaaS and argue that concerns over privacy,securityandpublic-privateroledivisionsarecrucialtoinvestigatefurther,whichalsoinfluencedthecontentofthequestions.

24

3.2.4 Conducting the Focus Groups Fourofthefocusgroupswerecarriedoutintheschoolswheretheparticipantswere studying. Schools provide an easily accessible environment to carry outresearch (Line et al, 2006), and successful focus groups also rely on that thesetting and environment is comfortable for the participants (Liamputtong,2011).Inordertoavoidpowerrelationissuesandgivecontrolofthestudentsitissuitabletoletparticipantsbeinvolvedindecisionssuchasthelocationforthefocusgroups(Lineetal,2006).Thefocusgroupwithgroup3wasconductedintheirhome,whichwasanapartmentincentralStockholmweretheycollectivelylived.Theresearcherwasrunningandmoderatedthefocusgroupsalone.Afterrunning the first focusgroup itwasassessed that conducting the focusgroupssolelywaspossibleandworkedoutfine.Thefocusgroupswereaudiorecordedwith a voice-memo application on amobile phone. Two phoneswere runningvoice-memo at the same time to avoid possible battery shut down or othertechnical issues. Few hand written notes were taken during the discussionsmainly due to the risk of losing focus on andmoderating the discussions. Thefocus groups lasted an average of 70 minutes each, ranging from 55 to 90minutes. 3.2.5 Transcription The focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. Some parts of thediscussionsthatwereconsideredirrelevantwereleftoutfromtranscription.Theconversationswere in Swedish and transcribed to Swedish.The transcriptionswerelatertranslated,bytheresearcher,toEnglishwhenitwasusedasthebasisfortheanalysis.ExcerptscitedintheanalysisareEnglishtranslationsfromtheSwedishtranscripts.HydénandBülow(2003)arguethatSwedishspeechdiffersfrom English inmanyways, and these differences need to be considered. Oneway is to translateSwedish intoEnglishandtry toretain thecharacteristicsoftheSwedishlanguage.However,doingthatcouldmakethetextdifficulttoreadforEnglish-speakingreaders(ibid.).InthisstudytheexcerptsaretranslatedintoEnglish tobetter fit the characteristicsof theEnglish language. It isa risk thatsmall details and expressions in the conversation get lost when translation isdone like that (ibid.), but it was considered to be of little importance. Also,disfluenciessuchas“ehhh”,“umm”and“aaah”orsimilarwasexcludedfromthequotes, andwasnot considered to addanyvalue to the analysis and risked todecreasethereadability.Transcriptionofthefocusgroupstookapproximately8hours each, which is common for an hour-long focus group discussion(Liamputtong,2011).Thefocusgroupswerelistenedthroughtwotimeseachinorder to validate the first listening and to make sure the content of thediscussionswasperceivedequalbothtimes,aswellastofillinpotentialgapsinthetranscription.3.2.6 Analysis of the Data Thissectiondescribesanddiscussesthequalitativeanalysisofthecollecteddata.Thisisdonetoincreaseconsistency,clarityandcongruenceofthestudy(Marsetal,2016),anditissomethingthatisofteninsufficientlyspecifiedinfocusgroupresearch (Wilkinson, 1998). Analyzing focus group data involves basically thesame processes as any other qualitative data. However, the main thing thatdifferentiatesfocusgroupanalysisfromothersisthattheresearcheralsoneeds

25

to consider group interaction (Kitzinger & Barbour, 2011). Hydén and Bülow(2003) highlights some important aspects that should be considered whenanalyzing focus group data. The main aspects to have in mind are to firstlyconsider who is speaking as what. That means basically that the questionwhether theparticipants talkand interactasamemberof thegroupor if theytalk and interact as individualswhohappened to takepart in a groupactivity.That aspect has to be considered during analysis and assessed towhat extentthatinfluencestheoutcomeofthefocusgroups.One disadvantage with data from less structured group discussions is thedifficulty to compare it from group to group. This is because some topicswillcomeupinsomegroupsandnotinothers(Morgan,1997),andgiventhat,suchcomparisons are not conducted to any significant extent. However, all topicsweremoreor lessdiscussedduringall focusgroupsand somecomparisonsofthedatafromthedifferentgroupsarepresentedintheanalysis.Theanalysismethodusedinthisstudyisthesocalledthematicanalysis,whichisthemostcommonlyusedanalysistechniquewithinfocusgroupresearch,andisingeneralcommonlyusedinqualitativeresearch(Marsetal,2016).Themethodis used to identify, analyse, and report patterns (themes) within the data(Liamputtong,2011).Thediscussionsallfollowedasimilarsequenceintermsofthe order of the questions and the discussions that followed,whichmade theanalysiseasier.Thefirststepwastosummarizethetranscriptionsbyeachtopicdiscussedduringthefocusgroupsandtheneachtopicwasanalysedseparately.Out of the summarized transcriptions themes and recurring answers andopinions were identified. The next step was to identify deviant answers andopinionsamongtheparticipants.Finallyalltheindividualopinionsandanswersfor each topic were added together and summarized to create a commonunderstandingofthegroup.

26

4.FindingsandDiscussionThis section provides a combination of the findings and the discussion of thefindings.Thefindingsarepresentedaccordingtothethemesofthestudyratherthanbyeachfocusgroup.Asaconsequenceitwillbehardtoidentifyopinionsbya particular group throughout the whole discussion, but the content of theanalysis will be more readable and understandable. The specific questionsdirected to the respondentsarenotpresented indetail (SeeAppendix1 for acomplete interviewguide).Tomakethetextmorevividandcompellingforthereader focus group data is best presented with illustrative excerpts from thediscussions(Wilkinson,1998),andthatisdonethroughoutthewholeanalysis.

4.1MobilityDemandsParticipants from the five groups followed relatively similarmobility patternsand had similar demands. A majority of the respondents walked or cycled totheirdaytimeactivities,whichinthiscaseformostofthemwastoschool.Theirmobilitypatternswerenotaffectedbydifferentweatherconditionsorseasons,andweredescribedtobemoreorlessthesameallyeararound.However,therewereafewexamplesofmobilitypatternsthatdifferedfromtheothersandtheyincludedtravellingbybus,mopedorsubway.Thecarwasentirelyabsentamongtheparticipantsasatravelmodetoandfromdaytimeactivities.Thisisbecausemost of the participants did not have driving licences, and their proximity totheir schools. For theparticipants from the groupwitholderpeople,which allhaddrivinglicences,thecarwasabsentmostlybecausetheyalllivedinthecitycentre and they experienced no need of a car to travel towork/school or forleisure trips. This described travel pattern for commuting to school andworkwas expected and correspond relatively well to the pattern in the survey ofStockholmCityCouncil(2016).However,thetravelpatternmostlikelywouldbedifferentwithadifferentsampleofparticipantsfromanothercityinSwedenorfromotherpartsoftheStockholmregion.Youngpeopletodayparticipateinmanydifferentactivitiesafterschoolorworkandtheirmobilitypatternschangeaftertheirdayactivitiesends(Kamargiannietal, 2012), and this was confirmed by the participants during the discussions.Some participated in different sport activities, some described they oftenmetwithfriendsatsomeone’shomeorinthecitycentre,andothersparticipatedinother kinds of cultural activities. The share of trips with a car increasedsignificantly for participants, who still lived with their parents, as the majortravel mode to and from different evening activities. Most of the participantswithoutdrivinglicencesclaimedthattheygotaridefromtheirparentsorfromfriend’s parents. The change in travel pattern during evening hours was notsurprisingandcorrespondswelltothetravelpatternsurveyofyoungpeopleinStockholm (Stockholm City Council, 2016), where the share of car use amongyoungpeopleincreasesforleisuretrips.The group containing participants living by themselves did not change travelbehavioraftertheendoftheirdaytimeactivities.However, thesamechangeintravelbehaviorwasexpressedevenfromthemwhentheythoughtbackonwhenthey still livedwith their parents. One of them (male, 23) thought back a fewyears and stated: “when I lived with my parents I use to take the bus to the

27

floorballpracticeanditworkedfine,butwhenIgotmydrivinglicenceIinsteadborrowedthecarfrommyparentswhengoingthere.EvenifIearnedsometimeIthinkitwasmoreachoicedependingonconvenienceandthesimplefactthatIhad access to a car”. Another participant (male, 21) from the same groupexpressed similar behavior and simply stated: “When I livedwithmy parentsandIdidn’thaveadriving licenceIusedpublic transport formostofmytrips,butwhenIgotmylicenceIchangedbehaviorandusedmyparentscarformostofmy trips”. Even if fewof the participants had driving licences this indicatesthatnomatterthepossibilitytodriveyourselfornot,theimportanceofthecartendtoincreaseafterdaytimeactivities.Sohowcomethecarreplacesothertransportmodesafterdaytimeactivitiestosuchasignificantdegree?Itcouldbeassumedthatonesimpleexplanationisthatthe availability to a car increase when parents finish work and have theopportunitytogivetheirchildrenaride,whichwasalsostatedasanexplanationby several of the participants. It also corresponds to Sochor et al (2015) thatargues that family members coordinate mobility needs among them. It couldpossiblybeexplainedbythatafterschoolactivitiestakeplaceinmorefardistantand inaccessible locations. However, during the discussion these assumptionswheresomewhatrejected,andmanyoftheparticipantsclaimedthattheymostlytendtomovearoundrelativelylocalevenduringeveninghoursandtoandfromafterschoolactivities.Giventhat, itcouldbearguedthatthereis littleneedforyoungpeopletochangetravelbehavioraftertheirdaytimeactivities.However,some raised concernsover reduced safetyduring eveninghours and thereforetravellingbycarwasperceivedassafer.Evenso,thegeneralopinionamongthegroupswasnotthatsafetyconcernsinfluencedtheirchoiceoftravelmodetoanysignificantdegree.However,findingsindicatethereareotherimportantaspectsinfluencingwhytheroleof thecarchangewhendaytimeactivitiesends.Theseaspectsarediscussedindepthinthenextsection.Fewoftheparticipantshadexperienceofusingsharedmobilityservices,suchasrentalcarsorarentalbikes.Forexample,noonehadeverusedarentalbike,noteven ingroup3containingolderpeople,and justa fewof theparticipantshadever rented a car together with their families. Most car rental companies inSweden apply more expensive insurances for young people than for adults,whichcouldbeoneexplanationforyoungpeoplewithdrivinglicensetonotrenta car. However, the habit to rent transport modes seems not to be a naturalelementofyoungpeople’severydaymobilitydemands.Themainreasonbehindnotrentingbicyclesprovedtobetherestrictionof that thebicycleneedstobereturnedataspecificlocation.Therewasaclearvisionamongtheparticipantstohavetheopportunitytoleavethebicyclewhereveritwassuitableforthem.Oneparticipant(male,19)fromgroup2stated:“IhaveconsideredmanytimestousearentalbikewhenIaminthecitybutwhenIrealizeIcan’tleaveitwhereverIwant I change my mind and just walk”, another participant (female, 16)continued the reasoning: “I agree with you, but how should that work inpractice?Howcanyoujustleavearentalbikewhereveryouwant?”Noonewasable tocomeupwithananswerto that,but itcertainlyquestionsthevisionofMaaS to provide seamless mobility, as described by Mukhtar-Landgren et al(2016) and Kamargianni et al (2016). The ‘last mile’ element is also still

28

unsolved, which seemed to be important to the participants. It could also beassumed based on this finding that young people have less ability andwillingness than adults to plan their trips in advance, and that was also thefeelingexperiencedduring thediscussions. “I justwant togowherever Iwant,whenever Iwant” (male,18),and “Idon’t like toplanmy trips inadvanceandoftenmyplans change” (male, 19)were opinions raised during the discussionthatamplifiesthatidea.Price andpaymentmethod seemednot tobeamain reasonwhy theyavoidedrental bikes, but some participants also raised easier payment as a possibleimprovement to increase their potential usage of such mobility service. Taxiservices likeUberandregular taxiswererarelyused,evenamongparticipantsfrom theolder group.Among the youngerparticipants thepricewas themainandobviouslimitationtousageofsuchservices.Amongtheolderrespondents,whichhadfinancialpossibilitiestouseit,thereasonseemedtobethattheytendtostaylocally.Inotherwords,theydidnottravelenoughlongdistancestomaketaxiservicesplayanimportantroleintheirdailymobilitypattern.Therewasonemajormobilityserviceapplicationthatwasusedbyalmosteveryparticipantofthediscussions–andthatwastheSL(StockholmPublicTransportCompany) application Res i Sthlm. The application differs from the main SLapplication since it is used basically solely as a route planner, whereas in themain application you can buy tickets and gainmore information than just theroutesandtimetables.Thiscouldbeexplainedbythatalmosteveryonealreadyhadsomekindofpasstopublictransportanddidnotneedmorethantherouteplanner.However,thereseemedtobeoneaspectofusabilitythatseemedtobevery important when using mobility service applications. Several of theparticipants raised the aspect of usability and the importance of applicationsbeingsimpletouse,andcontainnomoreinformationthanneeded.Thiswillbediscussedmoredeeplylaterinthesection4.7DesignofMaaSApplications.

4.2AttitudesandBehaviorResearch by Line et al (2010) indicates that young people aremore sensitivethanadults toexternal factorsandvaluessuchas ‘Identity‘, ‘Image‘,and ‘Socialrecognition‘andthatsuchvaluesinfluencetheirtravelbehavior.Thefindingsofthisstudysomewhatcontradictthosestatements.Mostofthegroupsandmostofthe participants agreed on that those external factors did not influence theirtravel behavior to any larger extent, neither to their attitudes towards certaintravelmodes.On the other hand, it is a risk that the participants abstained toadmit that those external factors influenced themdue to thepresence of theirfriends.Itwaspossiblyembarrassingtoadmitthattheirfriendsinfluencedthemand that they were aware of their image when they display certain travelbehavior or choose a certain travel mode. Line et al (2006) argues that theperceptionofpeersandbeingseenas ‘cool’ influence travelbehaviorofyoungpeople,butthosesameperceptionsmighthaveinfluencedtheirdiscussionsalsoduringthefocusgroups.However,towhatextentitwasthecaseduringthefocusgroupsofthisstudyishardtodetect.Nevertheless,onthequestioniftheywereinfluencedbyeachotherandtheirfriendswhentheychosetravelmodeorwhat

29

theirattitudestodifferenttravelmodesare,oneparticipant(female,16)repliedwith a determined voice: “No, I don't get influenced bymy friends, it is otherthingsthatinfluencewhattravelmodeIuse.ButifmyfriendsgobysubwaytothecityofcourseIwilltakethesubwaytoo,andiftheytakethebusItakethebustoo,nomatterwhatIthinkaboutbussesorthesubway”.Anotherparticipant(female,18)said:“IfoneofmyfriendsbuysanewmopedorevenacarIusedtothink it is pretty cool and I think that Iwant onemyself, even if I don't reallyneedamopedoracarrightnow”.Thesequotesarecertainlynotclearevidencethat theparticipants in this studyare influencedby their friendsoraffectedofpeer pressure. However these quotes indicates that at least some of theparticipantsareinfluencedbytheirfriendsandadoptvaluesandattitudesfromthem. It could also be assumed that young people today are unconsciouslyinfluenced by each other, even if they don't realise that orwant to admit thatduringafocusgroupdiscussion.Evenif the levelof influencefromfriendsandvaluessuchas ‘Identity‘, ‘Image‘,and ‘Social recognition‘ was quite difficult to interpret, the influence fromparents appeared to be stronger and more decisive on their behavior andattitudes. A majority stated that their parents, to various degrees, influencedtheir attitudes towards different travelmodes, and one participant (male, 18)said: “Mymumhatessubway,shenever travelsbysubwayandshe tellsme torather take thebusorget ride fromsomeone,and thathas forsure influencedmyattitudes towardssubwayand Idon'tuse itveryoften. Idon't reallyknowwhy she hates it so much, but I believe she think it’s too crowded”. Anotherparticipant (female,19) filled in: “Myparentsdon't likepublic transporteitherandtheyalwaysusethecarorbicycle,andnowwhenIthinkaboutitmyattitudetowards public transport is surely influenced by their negative attitude. ButmaybeIusethebicyclemorethankstothem,whichisagoodthing”. ResearchbyTayloretal(2007)indicatesthatexposuretoacertaintypeoftransportationtendsto followyoungpeople intoadulthood,whilstattitudesdonot followthesamepattern,whichindicatesthattheinfluenceonattitudesgivenfromparentstotheirchildrendonotnecessarilyaffecttheirattitudeslaterinlife.Ontheotherhand, attitudes seems to have relatively strong influence on young people’smobility demand today, which means that changing attitudes even for youngpeople could be regarded as important as any other actions to obtain thepotential of MaaS, which to some inherent the possibility to change travelbehavior.Evenifparentsseemedtoinfluencetheirchildren,twoparticipantstalkedaboutthe reverse situation where they influenced their parents’ attitudes andbehaviors.Oneofthem(male,18)saidhappily:“Abouttwoyearsagomyparentsvery rarely travelled by bus or subway, they are quite conservative and likedtheircars,theyhadtwocarsatthetime.Iwasoftenoutwithmyfriendsandweused public transport to travel around in the city. Then I began to talk tomyparentsaboutthatandItoldthemwhatIlikedaboutpublictransport,andaftersometimethey triedpublic transportand later theyevensoldoneof thecars!My mum now commutes to work by bus every day, and she says that she ishappybecausetheyalsosavemoneyeverymonth”.Thereispotentialforyoungpeople to influence adults, which the story of the participant indicates. Young

30

peopleoftodayhavedifferentlifestylesthanearliergenerationshadwhentheygrewup(Blumenbergetal,2012)andwhenitcomestoMaaSapplicationsthiscould be relevant for a broader implementation. Older generations have notadopted the same attitudes and behaviors as young people of today towardstechnicalgadgets,andsinceyoungpeopletendtobethefirstagegrouptoadoptthose there lies potential, especially forMaaS application developers to targetyoung people, which in turn can influence and educate their older familymemberandrelatives.AneducationlatterfromyoungtooldcouldbeasuitabletoolforMaaSdeveloperstoaimfor.Asdiscussedearlier the importanceof thecarasa travelmode increasesafterdaytime activities. Themost important aspect explaining that change in travelpattern, according to many of the participants, is the influence from theirparents.ThisfindingalsocorrespondstotheresearchbyLineetal(2010)whichstates that underlying values such as ‘A Comfortable Life’, ‘Freedom’, and‘Pleasure’ influencebothyoungpeoplebutalsoadults.Oneparticipant(female,17),whousedtocycletoschool,stated:“WhenIgethomefromschoolandlatergoout again to footballpracticeor something, I amalwaysoffered ridebymyparentsiftheyareathome.Ioftenaccepttheoffer,butitisliketheyignorethatIcycletoschooleveryday.Forthem,itdoesnotseemlikeanoptionthatIshouldcycle to practice, even if it is about as close as school. If theywould not haveofferedmearideeverytime,thenIwouldhavecycled”.Thisquoteexemplifiesacase where values such as ‘A Comfortable Life’ and ‘Pleasure’ is transferred,however,probablyunconsciously,fromonegenerationtothenext.AsstatedbyTayloretal(2007)attitudesandvaluesnotnecessarilyfollowyoungpeopleintoadulthood,butasarguedby several authors (Blumenberget al,2012;Smart&Klein, 2017; Line et al, 2010) travel behavior tend to. Given that, it could beargued that, as in this case,whenvaluesandattitudes to travellingbycaralsoinfluencetheactualbehaviorshouldbepaidgreaterattention,fromforexampledevelopersofMaaS,thanvaluesandattitudesthatdoesnot.Ontheotherhand,itis very likely that naturally safety concerns of parents over their childreninfluence values and attitudes like this, even though safety concerns was notraisedasagreatinfluenceoftravelbehavioramongtheparticipants.

4.3InfluencesofYoungPeople’sMobilityDemandsandTravelModeChoices4.3.1 The Cost of Mobility Discussions on this topic differed among the groups and opinions within thegroups also varied significantly. Storey andBrannen (2000, cited in Line et al,2006) state that the cost of public transport is a significant barrier to youngpeoplemakinguseofpublic transport.This statementdidcorrespond to someextent with the discussions, and several of the participants raised the cost ofpublic transport as a barrier. However, the opinions were strongly related towhich kind ofmonthly or yearly pass each participant had for travellingwithpublic transport inStockholmCounty.Somehadapass thatwasonlyvalid fordaytime trips and during school hours, whilst others had passes valid forunlimitedtripsandallhoursoftheday.Ingeneral,thosewithunlimitedaccess

31

topublictransportexperiencedthecostofpublictransportasalessbarrierthanthosewithoutunlimitedaccess.StudentsinStockholmhavesubsidizedpricesforcommutingpasses,andonlytwoparticipantspaiditthemselves.Sincefewoftheparticipants earned their own money, the cost for mobility was obviouslyimportant, nomatter if they paid themselves or if their parents paid for theirpassesorfortripsoutsidethehoursforwhichtheypasseswerevalid.Evenifmostoftheparticipantsconsideredthecostwhilechoosingtravelmodetheparticipantsabilitytovaluetherealcostofeachtransportmodewaslimited.This ismainlydueto theyoungageofmanyof theparticipantsandto the factthatmostofthemdidnotpayfortheirmobilitythemselves.Thisphenomenonisalso highlighted by Taylor et al (2007) who claims that young people oftenunderestimatetherealcostofacarsincetheyoftendonotpayforthewholecostthemselves. Therefore their ability to compare the cost between several travelmodescouldbelimited.Thisstatementwasalsovalidatedtosomeextentduringthe discussion and opinions about the cost of owning and running a car.However,itshouldbestatedthatsomeoftheparticipantswerefullyawareandaccurate in their discussions about the cost of different travel modes. Even ifmostofthediscussionsandtheopinionsexpressedaboutcostofmobilitywerequite expected, there were some interesting findings. Those discussions wasmoreabouthowtheyaspired topay for theirmobility in the futureand in theformofaMaaSapplications,andthoseopinionswillbepresentedanddiscusseddeeper in the sections4.6 EnvisionedMobility Demand and4.7 Design ofMaaSApplications.4.3.2 Availability, Travel Time, Frequency and Safety Mobility demand has traditionally been a matter of for example availability,traveltime,frequencyandsafety(Klein,2016).Thesefactorsprovedtoinfluencemobility demand among the groups and participants in very different ways.However, the general perception was that availability influenced the travelbehaviormorethantheothers.Itrelatestoearlierfindingsabouttheincreaseduseofthecarduringnight-timewheretheavailabilitytothecarincreaseandbyso change travel behavior. In itself it is not a remarkable finding, but oneinterestingthingthatwasfoundwasthatthevaluessuchas‘AComfortableLife’and ‘Pleasure’ seems tohaveevengreater influenceonmanyparticipants thantheavailability.Oneparticipant(male,21)said:“IwillneverchooseaccessibilityovercomfortandconveniencewhenIchoosetravelmode”.Anotherparticipantadded(male,22):“IfIhavetochoosebetweenacomfortablejourneyversusonemore accessible with less travel time, but less comfortable, I will choose thecomfortableone”Whenthegroupswereaskedtochoosebetweenseveraltravelscenarios(SeeAppendix1 foroneexampleofsuchtravelscenario),presentedby themoderator, those scenarios thatwasperceivedas themost comfortableand convenient was preferred most of the times. Number of travel modetransfers, travel time and accessibility seemed to be less important as thecomfort and convenience (such as comfortable seats, little congestion on thetravelmode,andsmoothtravelmodetransfers).Toclarify,thenumberoftravelmode transfers or transfers in general seemed to influence less than thecharacterofthetransfer.Iftheparticipantsknewthetransfersweregoingtobe

32

smoothandconvenientitwasformostparticipantsnotperceivedasasignificantbarriertotheirchoiceofjourneyroute.However,therewasopposingviewstothis,andonefemale(18)stated:“Ipreferaccessibilityovereverythingelse, forme it isaboutgetting towhere Iwantasquickaspossible.Idon’tcaresomuchabouthowItravelandifitiscomfortableor not”. The participantwho lived on the countryside (male, 17), 50 km fromStockholmdidalsopreferaccessibilitytomanyotheraspects.However,forhimfrequencywasthemostimportantaspectofmobilityandhesaid:“WhereIlivethebusdepartsevery15minutesduringsomehoursoftheday,butmostlyonlyevery30minutes.Ifwantgototownduringnight-timeIneedtoplanthoroughlybothmy trip there and alsomy return trip…Where I live now Iwould preferhigherfrequencyovereverythingelse,andmaybetheapplicationwearetalkingaboutcouldhelp improve that?”Whereone lives influences travelbehavior,asstated by Taylor et al (2007), and this quote indicates that attitudes areinfluenced by where one lives. It is assumed that this participant most likelywouldhavedifferent attitudes if hewere living in a centralpart of Stockholm.However,abroadersampleisneededtodrawconclusionsfromthisstatement,and it emphasises the delimitations to this study to only be valid for youngpeoplewithrelativelygoodorverygoodaccesstovariouskindsoftravelmodes.Evenifavailabilitywasdescribedimportantbymostoftheparticipants,mostofthem argued to already experience good availability to mobility options andvarioustravelmodes intheir lives,and intheareaswherethey livednow.Theopinionsregardingaccessibilitydidnotdiffersignificantlydependingoniftheylivedinthecitycentreoraninnersuburb.Thiscouldalsobeamajorfactorthatvaluessuchas‘AComfortableLife’and‘Pleasure’havegreaterinfluencethanitwouldhaveiftheywereexperiencinglackofavailability.Thatalsorelatestotheinfluencing factor of the regional economy, as stated by Klein (2016). Theeconomy of the areas where the participants studied/worked and lived is allregarded as relatively wealthy, and that in itself might provide increasedavailability.Even if group 3 contained of two participants who were working and livedindependently, they valued comfort and convenience over less travel time andavailability in a similarway that thosewhowere studying and living at home.Availability, frequency and travel time are considered important influencingfactors for choice of travel mode and journey route (Klein, 2016), and theseresults were somewhat unexpected. Even so, it is a possibility that theseprioritiesandvalueschangewhentheseyoungpeoplemoveintoadulthoodandtheirlifestyleandfamilyrelationschange. 4.3.3 Environmental Awareness Thereisanongoingtrendof increasedenvironmentalawarenessamongyoungpeopletoday(Davisetal,2012),andthiswasalsodetectedduringthefocusthisstudy. Overall, the participants showed good ability to discuss environmentalissuesrelatedtotransport,andtheywereingeneralwellawareofthepotentialimpactscausedbytheirmobility.Butdidthefactthattheywereawareactuallyinfluence their travel behavior or mobility demands? Line et al (2010) and

33

Taylor et al (2007) address similar thoughts and state that young peopleunderstand theenvironmental impacts from transport,but they tend to ignorethem to a larger extent than adults. The discussions of this study partlycorrespond to these statements. It corresponds in the way that young peopletendtobeawareofenvironmentalimpactsbutatthesametimetendtoignorethem. However, it should be emphasized that far from everyone in this studyignored the environmental impacts and that the awareness did not influencetheirtravelbehavior.Thescopeofthisstudylimitsthepossibilitytospecificallyanswer to what extent young people ignore the environmental aspects morethanadults.However,asfindingsregardingattitudesandbehaviorinthisstudyindicate,severalparticipantswereinfluencedtoalargeextentbytheirparents,which contradict that statement. Also, the older the participants were in thisstudy, the more environmental awareness seemed to influence travel modechoicesandtravelbehavior.One participant from group 3 (male, 22) stated: “ I am aware of theenvironmentalaspectsof transport, andmy intention is to choose travelmodeaccordingtothatmoreoften…IthappensthatItakeactivechoices,buttomeismostoftena choicebetweendifferentmodesofpublic transport and thatmaynotmattersomuch.FormeIthinkitwillbemorerelevantifIonedaybuyacar.”Themoderatorasks:“PretendyouhaveafullydevelopedMaaSapplicationthatyou could use, and it provided rental bikes as a service. Would you use thatservice, and if yes,would itbebasedonenvironmentalawarenessoronotheraspects?”Participantresponded:“Tobehonest,Idon’tthinkIwoulduseitbasedonenvironmentalawareness,but if itwouldbeconvenientandsmooth touse,whynot?…I thinkmostyoungpeopledon’t thinkabout those issuessomuch,but it would be helpful if a application like MaaS could provide good optionswithout us having to think about it.” Another participant (male, 21) from thesame group filled in: “I agree, I am aware of the environmental impacts but Idon’twant tomakemyenvironmentally friendlychoiceswhen I’mabout togooutandtakemesomewhere.Iwanttomakethosechoicesbefore,whenIvoteorsomething like that.Or, Idon’tknowreally…Whatever, I thinkpeoplewant tomakegoodchoices,buttheycannotbebotheredtodoit.”Itwasquiteclearthattheawarenessexisted,butthewilltouseittochangetravelbehaviorwasnot.IftheaimofMaaSistoreduceenvironmentalimpactsitcouldbearguedthatthereisagapforMaaStofillhere.Basedontheearlierdiscussionsthereisroomforchange inbehavior, and factors suchas travel time, frequency, andavailabilitytend toplay less importance.Given that, there ispotential forMaaS toprovidesustainableoptionswithouttheneedtoprovidemoreaccessibility.Basically,theservicesjustneedtobethereforthemtouse,andifnot,theymightnotmakeanygreaterefforttochangebehavior. However,basedonthequotesfromgroup3stated above, it is questionable if their travel demand and behavior isenvironmentallyunsustainable.Eveniftheydonotchoosetravelmodebasedonenvironmental awareness there is not legitimate to argue for change onlybecause of that. They don’t own cars and travelmostlywith public transport.Nevertheless, whether their travel behavior is environmentally sustainable ornotisnotforthisstudytoanswer.

34

From some other groups more direct answers were given on the topic ofinfluenceofenvironmentalawareness.Onefemale(15)said:“Idon’tcareaboutitatall”,anotherparticipant (female,16)said: “Iknowthatcarsarebad,but Idon’treallycare.”Athirdfemale(17)gaveabitmorereflectiveanswer:“Iknowthatwepolluteandstuff,butwhatcanwedoaboutit?Weareinschoolandthenwegotosomeactivityinthenight.Ican’tseewhatweshoulddo,itshouldnotbeourresponsibility.”Allthisopinionsare,Iwouldargue,naturalresponsetosuchan issue. These participants were young, and as argued by Line et al (2010),youngpeopleareconcernedbyaboutissuesinthepresentandthathavementalprecedence to long-termenvironmental issues.On theotherhand, theexistentawarenessoverenvironmentalissuesrelatedtotransportandmobilityinsuchayoungagecouldbeseenasprogressinitself.

4.4AttitudesTowardsDrivingandOwnershipofPrivateCars4.4.1 Driving The questions on attitudes towards driving of cars produced in general livelydiscussionsamongtheparticipantsinthegroups,anditwasclearthatthistopicwasimportanttotheparticipantsandtheinteractionbetweenparticipantswasintense. As expected, therewas no consensus reached among the participantsand the opinions varied a lot. However, as in research by Taylor et al (2007),therewasoverweightinpositiveattitudestowardsdriving,andthatpatternwasreflectedevenduringthesediscussions.Sinceonlyparticipantsfromgroup3haddrivinglicencesthediscussionsfocusedmoreonaspirationsanddesirestodriverather thanon theirexperienceofdriving.However,withonly twoexceptions,alltheparticipantswithoutdrivinglicenceaimedtotakeitinthefuture.Evenifthey had not yet taken their driving licences it somewhat contradicts thedeclining trend of young people with a licence in Sweden (Blumenberg et al,2012).Severaloftheparticipantshadalsostartedtopracticedrivingwiththeirparents.Lineetal(2010)statesthatpreviousresearchindicatesthatthereisacommondesire among young people to drive their own car in the future, and thiscorresponds relatively well to the findings of this study. One of the mainaspirationsthatmanyparticipantswantedtoobtainwasthefeelingoffreedom,which again reconnects to the research by Line et al (2010) about underlyingvalues such as ‘Freedom’ that influence travel behavior. It also relates to theperceived ability to travel to places more easily and quickly than using othertransport modes, as expressed by young people in research by Taylor et al(2007).Onthequestioniftheyaimedtodrivetheirowncarinthefuturemostofthe participants answered yes. One participant (male, 18) elaborated on thequestion and stated: “Yes, I think for sure I want to drivemy own car in thefuture.Itisthefeelingofhavingthepossibilitytogowheneveryouwantthatistempting… Like it is now, I’m always restricted by something if I want to gofurther than my own area where I live. However, I don’t feel I have a greatdemand at the moment to travel around more but the thought is tempting”.Anotherparticipant(female,19)added:“Idefinitelywanttodriveinthefuture!Ilovethethoughtofjustdrivingaroundwithmyfriendsandgoonroadtripsand

35

so…Iknowitisnotsogoodfortheenvironmenttodrivecars,butIwanttohavethat feelingofbeing freeandnotneed tobedependentofparentsorsomeoneelse.”These quotes amplify that the feeling of freedom is important, andmaybe thestrongest influenceon the aspirationamongmanyyoungpeople todrive theirowncar. Italsorelates to the influential feelingof independenceamongyoungpeopleofdriving theirowncar, as statedbyTayloretal (2007).Further, theyalsoalludeonthecapabilityofthecartoprovideanidentityofadultstatus,asarguedbyDittmar(2004,citedinLineetal,2010),andcouldbeseenasanaturalresponsebyteenagers.Evenifitwasnotstateddirectlythattherewasawilltoobtainanidentityofadultstatus,theinterpretationofthediscussionsindicatesthatdrivingacarcouldplayonepartofthatpotentialaspiration.Itcouldalsobeassumedthatthefeelingwaneafteracoupleofyearsofdrivingandwhenyoungpeoplemoveawayfromhome.Oneparticipantfromgroup3(male,23),whohadbeenabletodrivesince4years,toucheduponthisandsaid:“Iwasquitekeentotakemydrivinglicenceafterfinishinguppersecondaryschool,becauseIthoughtIwould obtainmore freedom and so on…However, since Imoved away fromhome to this place, and couldn’t use my parent’s car anymore, I have noaspirationstoownacar.Yourealizenowthedisadvantagesthereiswithowninga car in the city,which you didn’t think of back then.” On the other hand, thesameparticipantlatersaid:“Sure,Imisshavingacarsometimes,andthatfeelingof being able to go anywhere, whenever youwant, I don’t have it now in thesamewaylikeIhadbefore.”Positive attitudes were also raised by several participants about the physicalexperienceandleisureactivityofdrivingacar,whichwasalsostatedbyyoungpeopleinthestudyofTayloretal(2007).Participantswithoutadrivinglicencetalked about this topic based on either experience from practice driving withparentsorjusttheimaginationofdriving.Insomesense,thosepositiveattitudestowards driving opposed that environmental awareness that also existed, andone participant (male, 17) said: “I know that driving is polluting and is notalwaysgoodfortheenvironment.ButIlovecarsandIwanttodrivemyowninthefuture.MydreamcarisaTeslabecauseitisaveryniceandfastcar,butit’sfuelledby electricity”.Thisquote indicates anunderstandingof environmentalissuesrelatedtocars,butotheraspectsinherentofthecarseemtobestronger.To solve that dilemma one solution could be to buy a car that is perceived asmoreenvironmentally friendly,whichcouldbearguedasanaturalresponseofyoungpeopletotackledilemmaslikethat.Safety issuesrelated todrivingseemed tohave little influenceon theattitudestowards driving.Driving yourselfwas perceived as relatively safe bymost.Onthe other hand, safety issues were perceived as important when autonomousvehicleswerediscussed,andareelaboratedoninsection4.5AttitudesTowardsAutonomousVehicles.Eveniftheoverallattitudeswerepositivetowardsdriving,therewerealsoopposingviewsexpressedfromsomeparticipants.Firstly,afewraisedtheeconomiccostoftakingdrivinglicenceasabarriertodriving,whichcorresponds to research by Blumenberg et al (2012) that indicates that theobstacles young people today face to driving licensing are influencing the

36

decreasingtrendsinpercentageofyoungpeoplewhotakesit.Afewparticipantsalso expressed very negative attitudes towards driving and towards cars ingeneral. On participant (female, 16),with determined voice, said: “I hate cars,andIhopeIwillneverneedone!TheyarejustinthewaywhenIgointothecity,and they stink and pollute.” Blumenberg et al (2012) highlights the change inlifestyleamongyoungpeopletodayandawill tobeabletousemobilephones,text, orworkwhile travelling. Some of thosewho showed scepticism towardsdrivingalsoraisedthatargument,andoneparticipant(female,15)said:“Iwantto usemy phone and check Facebook and sowhen I go to school. Also in thefutureIthinkitwillbemorepleasanttositanduseyourphoneinsteadofhavingto concentrate on driving…You can also relaxmore if you don’t drive”. Therewere also more negative attitudes towards cars expressed during thediscussions.However,theyrelatemoretovisionsoffuturemobilityandwillbediscussedinsection4.6EnvisionedMobilityDemand. 4.4.2 Ownership AccordingtoBurrowsetal(2016)youngpeoplehavedifferentattitudestowardsownership than earlier generations and, when they drive, use more hired orsharedcars.Towhatextentthisistrueornotisoutsidethescopeofthisstudy,mainly due to the limited numbers of participants that were actually driving.However, aspirations and visions among participants towards ownership bothconfirmedandcontradictedthatstatement.Thequestionsonthistopiccreatedlively discussions and basically divided the participants in two equally largegroupsofdifferentopinion–thosewhopreferredprivateownership,andthosewho had positive attitude towards shared ownership. Shared ownership wasdiscussedmainlyintheformofcarpoolsandsimilarservices.Thoseattitudesexpressed in favour forprivateownershipwerecloselyrelatedto the ones in favour of driving private cars, such as feeling of freedom andindependence.Ontheotherhand,Dittmar(2004,citedinLineetal,2010)arguesthat alsomaterialistic values are important to young people in their desire todrive and own a car. Such values seemed to have relatively little influence onthosewithpositiveattitudestowardsprivatecarownershipandfewexpressedmaterialistic values as an argument to owna car. Themain argument againstsharedownershipwas that theperceived risk of not being able to use the carwhenever one wanted. One participant (female, 18) stated: “I’m not againstsharingthingswithothers,butwhenitcomestocarsIthinkitwillbedifficultifyoucan’tuseitwheneveryouwant.”Anotherparticipant(male,17)respondedtothat:“Butifthereisgoodavailabilitytocarsinthecarpool,andtheonlythingyouhavetodoisjustsomeplanning.Maybedecidethedaybeforethatyouhaveto do grocery shopping instead of going every day, or something like that,wouldn’tthatbepossible?Youmightsavesomemoneyaswell!”Thefemale(18)werenotconvinced,andresponded:“Iunderstand,butIdon’twantto live likethat.Idon’twanttoplanmylifesomuch!Also,ifyouhaveyourowncaryoucanleavestuffinthecaranddon’tcareaboutothersusingthecar”Thisquote,andexpressionsfromotherparticipantsaswell,relatestothediscussiononmobilitydemandswhereseveralparticipantsexpressedunwillingnesstoplantheirtrips.Given their unwillingness to plan their trips several participants expressed apreference to rent a car rather than share the ownership.Nomatterwhat the

37

actualdifferencesarebetweensharedownershipandrenting,theirwill torentratherthansharesymbolizessomewhattheirstrongdesiretoobtainthefeelingoffreedomandindependence.The overall vision of some MaaS developers is to increase the use of sharedresources(Sochoretal,2015),andamongthosewithnegativeattitudestowardsshared ownership, the sharing aspect per se, does not seemed to be themostnegative aspect of shared ownership. According toHolmberg et al (2016) andBurrowsetal(2015)oneofthedriverstowhyMaaSisemergingrightnowisthetrendtowardsasharedeconomyinsociety.Thereseemedtobelittleoppositionamongtheparticipantsthatcontradictsthat,andthenegativeattitudestowardssharedcarownershipwereexpressed to relatemore toplanningandpracticalissues.Itwasalsoperceivedthatunderlyingvaluessuchas‘AComfortableLife’and ‘Pleasure’might have influence on negative attitudes, and one participant(male,19)said:“IfIwoulddosomethinggoodfortheenvironmentthinkIratherchange to a electric car or something instead of sharing a car. I don’t mindsharingotherthings,butit’sveryconvenienttohaveyourowncar”.Another aspect of owning a private car seemed to relate to safety issues andfamilyconcerns,andoneparticipant(female,17)stated:“WhatdoIdoifIneedtheacarveryquickly,andthereisnocaravailable?IfIwillhavekidsandstuffinthefutureIthinkitwouldbemorepracticaltohavemyowncar.Itwouldbenicealso if something happen, ifmy kids get injured and I need to go to hospital.”Similar thoughts as expressed in this quotewere also raised by several of theparticipants with negative attitudes. That quote also highlights the thoughtsyoungpeoplehaveaboutthefutureandtheiradulthood.Consensuswasalmostreached among the groups that they believed that their values and prioritiesmost likely would change when they moved into adulthood. Smart and Klein(2017) argues that past experiences in life influence mobility patterns, andSochor et al (2016) states that the social context where household memberscoordinate mobility demands among them also influence mobility pattern. Towhat extent those aspects have influenced the participants in this study isdifficult to evaluate, but it could be assumed that such aspects influence theirreverence for their future families and therefore they value the practical andsafetyaspectsofaprivatelyownedcar.Ontheotherhand,therewerealsopositiveattitudesexpressedaboutsharingacarwithothers.Onemale (17) considered theeconomicaspectof sharingandstated: “I guess you will save a lot of money by sharing a car with others, Iactually like the idea of sharing a car. Especially if you don’t use your car sooften.”Anotherparticipant(male,19)thoughtabouttheenvironmentalaspectofsharingcarsandadded:“Exactly,wedon’tneedallthecarswehaveanditwouldbe good for the environment also with less cars. It’s not good for theenvironment to produce all cars.” That again highlights the environmentalawarenessthatexistedamongtheparticipants.Someparticipantsalsocameupwithideaofsharingacaramongfriends,andthefactthattheywouldfeelmorecomfortable sharing with people they already know. However, that sort ofownership does not completely relate to car pools, and is maybe difficult topracticallyapplyonalargescaleandinasharingeconomy.Ontheotherhand,it

38

tellssomethingaboutseveraloftheparticipantssomewhatpessimisticattitudetowardssharingwithunknownpeople.Even if most of the participants experienced sufficient availability of mobilityand travel mode options it does not mean that they would accept lessavailability. Based on that and the attitudes expressed, the challenge fordevelopersofMaaScouldbearguedtoprovidesharedcarservicesthatfulfiltheavailabilitydemands thatyoungpeopleaspire.Nevertheless there seems tobeacceptanceovertheideaofsharingresources,evenifittendstohavelittlelessacceptanceregardingcarownership.Asharedownershipofcars,regardlessofinwhatformitisprovided,willnotcompletelyreplacethefreedomandavailabilitythataprivatecaroffers,butthereseemstobepotentialforfutureAVstosolvepartsofthisissueandthisisdiscussedfurtherinthenextsection.

4.5AttitudestowardsAutonomousVehiclesAccordingtoDavisetal(2012)youngpeopleoftodayhavealifestylewherethemobile phone is constantly present, and there is an increased demand formobilitysystemswhereyoucanwork,textortalkonthephonewhiletravelling.ThefuturevisionsofAVs,whereyoucandriveacarwithoutmanoeuvring,seemto fit well into that lifestyle. This demand was somewhat confirmed by theparticipants, and the idea of AVs was appealing to many of them, and theyexpressed mostly positive attitudes towards AVs. However, there were someconcernsraisedoversafetyandethicalaspects.Thediscussionswerequiteintense,andmanyoftheparticipantsseemedtogetexcited over the idea of driverless carsmight occupy the streets in the future.Oneparticipant(male,17)said:“Ireallyliketheideaofautonomousvehicles,Ireallyhopeithappenssoon!Ithinkit’sverycoolandIwillforsureuseit.”Themoderatorreplied:“Butcanyouseeanynegativesaspectsofit,maybesafetyorethical issues?” Participant responded thoughtfully: “Well, maybe. I think thecomputers are safer thanhumans and that therewill be fewer accidents…Butmaybe it will be difficult when the computer has to choose between two badchoices? I guess so, that’s not an easy situation to handle.” The immediatereactions to the idea about AVswere often very positive, and one participant(female,18)fromanothergroupstated:“Itsocoolhowcarscandrivewithoutadriver, and I reallywant to try to gowith one such car!”Quotes like this, andmany other expressed thoughts, indicated an immediate fascination overautonomous technology,whichalsowasquiteexpected.However,even if theirattitudes still remained very positive, the first and maybe a bit uncriticalreactions waned somewhat when ethical and safety issues were discussedfurther.EvenifAVsshouldreducetrafficaccidentsthereareethicaldilemmasthatneedstobeexploredBonnefonetal(2016).Thegroupswereconfrontedwithasimilarscenario as stated by Bonnefon: “AVswill sometimes have to choose betweentwoevils, suchas runningoverpedestriansor sacrificing themselvesand theirpassenger to save the pedestrians”, and the reactions where similar to thoseexpressed in the study of Bonnefon, and also quite expected. Most of the

39

participants said they wanted to go in AVs that protect their passengers.However, many participants thought this was a topic that they had issues toreally find out for themselveswhat they thought. One participant (female, 19)reflectedoverthisissue:“Itisaverydisturbingthoughtandyoufeelveryselfishifyouchooseacarthatsavesyouoverothers.Butimagineifyougowithacarthat you know will save others before you, would anyone do that?” Anotherparticipant(male,18)responded:“Iknow,itisveryconfusingtothinkof!…Also,whatwoulditbeliketowalkonthestreetsifyouknowsomecarswillsacrificeyou to save the passengers in the car? That would feel very uncomfortable.”Discussionstooksimilardirectioninallgroupsaboutthistopic,andhighlightthechallengingtaskforbothusersanddeveloperstocopewithsuchdilemmas.Itisassumedthatthisstancenotdistinguishesyoungpeoplefromothergroups,butthat they are still positive might be influenced by their attraction of thetechnologicalaspectsofAVs.

4.6EnvisionedMobilityDemandThegroupswereaskedtoenvisiontheirmobilitydemandsinthefutureandtheresponsesdiffered.However,ageneralvisionofthegroupswasthatcarswerepicturedtooccupylessspaceinthecitythantheydotoday.Thiscouldbeseenassomewhat paradoxical given the positive attitudes towards cars and AVs thatwereexpressedearlierinthediscussions.However,itwasalsostatedbyseveralparticipants that their attitudes and behavior today did not mean that theyperceivedtheirtravelbehaviorandthecityasperfect.Oneparticipant(male,23)fromgroup3stated:“IlikecarsandunderstandthatpeopleusethemandIalsoseemyselfuseoneinthefutureifIgetfamilyandso.ButIalsowantlesscarsinmy ideal future city, and Iwould sacrifice some travel timeandmobility if thecitybecamenicerwithoutcars.”Anotherparticipant(male,22)added:“Iagree,Iwouldgiveupbothtimeandmobilityoptionsforacar-freecitycentreaslongasitdon’tpreventmefromgettingsomewhere…Imean,ifIcantravelwhereverIwantinthecityIdon’treallycareifittakesabitlongertime.”Athirdparticipant(female,18)sharedasimilarviewandstated:“ThatIlikeandcanenjoymycityismore important than the possibility to travel aroundquickly.” These quotesindicateawilltogiveuptimeforlessaccesstocarsandfeweroftheminthecity.Earlierdiscussionsindicatethattheparticipantswouldnotgiveupcomfortandconvenienceforenvironmentalreasons,buttimeandavailabilityseemstoplaylessimportanceevenintheirenvisionedfuture.However,giventhatparticipantsin general perceived sufficient accessibility to different travel modes and thatmany lived in central parts of Stockholm obviously influence their envisionedfuturewithfewercars.Veryfewoftheparticipantsaspiredtoincreasedmobilityandthemajorityweresatisfiedwith their possibilities to travel around in the city. However, severalparticipantsthoughtthatMaaScouldchangetheirtraveldemandsandbehaviorinthefuture.Themoderatorasked:“ImaginethefutureandyouhaveaccesstoafullydevelopedMaaSapplication,doyouthinkyourtraveldemandandbehaviorwillchangebecauseofthatapplication?”AFemale(16)fromgroup1responded:“I think itwill, butmaybe not only because of that application. Of course, if itworks itwillmaybemake travellingeasierandyoucanusemorecycles in the

40

city.Iwanttocyclemoreinthefuture!Ialsothinkitshouldbemorecycleroutesin thecityand if Icouldrentabikeeasily throughthatapplication Iwould trythat.”Anotherparticipant (male,19)hadstrongopinionsabout the futureandtravelbehavior:“Ipictureafuturewherepeopletravelaroundasmuchastheywant,andsuchapplicationcouldsurelyhelptoprovidemoremobility,evenifIdon'treallyknow. Idon't likewhensomeonetriestochangepeople’sbehaviorandtravellingshouldnotbeseenasanythingbad!”Anotherparticipant(female,19): “I don't think I will travel more or with other modes, but as long as it’sconvenient Icantravelwithwhatevermodeavailable. Idon’treallycareaboutthat.”Thesequotesindicatechangeofbehavior,ifdesirable,couldbeachievedinthefuture.However,thediscussionsandrecurringwordssuchas‘convenience‘and‘easily‘indicateitwillbeachievedifitrequireslittleeffortandifthelevelofcomfortandconvenienceismaintained.

4.7DesignofMaasApplicationsYoung people of today are used to new technologies andmobile applications,whichwillmost likelyfacilitatetheiradoptionofMaaSapplications.Giventhat,andbasedonthediscussions inthefocusgroups, therewerepositiveattitudestowards increased use of mobile applications and technology in the future.However, there are some aspects discussed that will influence their use andinfluencewhatkindofapplicationsandservicesthatwillbeadopted.Whenthecost and payment method were discussed several different opinions wereexpressed.Nevertheless,onecommonopinionamongtheparticipantswasthatamonthlysubscriptionalmostalwayswastopreferoverapay-per-ridesolution.“It’sdisturbingtoseethecostforeachtrip.NowIpayforamonthlypassandIwouldcertainlydothatforaMaaSserviceaswell”(male,23),and“Idon'twantto care about the cost for each trip” (female, 19) are examples of opinionsexpressed during the discussions. This is not an unexpected finding, but thewillingness to pay for the convenience that a monthly pass or subscriptioninherentwasstrongerthanexpected.Oneparticipant(female,18)fromgroup2stated: “I ratherpaymore than it’sworth for theconvenienceofnothaving tobotherand just travel asmuchas Iwant”, anotherparticipant (male,18) fromthe same group added: “Iwould not paymore than it’sworth now, but in thefuturewhenIgotajobIwilldefinitelydo.IwanttopayeachmonthandthenjustusewhatevertravelmodeIwant.Icannottakethehasslewithdifferenttickets!”These quotes and the discussions indicate that the willingness to pay for theconvenience of not having to think about the cost for each trip was high.However, the fact that all participants already had some kind ofmonthly passobviously influences their opinions since they are used to having almostunlimitedaccesstopublictransport.Furthermore,themoderatoraskedthegroupsabouttheiropinionsofascenariowheredifferentcategoriesof journeysare included intoaMaaSserviceand itsjourney planner. These could be for example; the quickest route, the mostenvironmental friendly, themost convenient, or themost scenic route. Almosteveryone was positive towards the availability of different choices, but theinteresting findings occurred when these categories were compared to eachother, and when the monetary value of each category was discussed. Several

41

participants expressed positive attitudes towards paying more for anenvironmentalfriendlyjourneyifthecomfortandconveniencewasmaintained.As inearlierdiscussionscomfortandconveniencewereexpressed to influencemore than travel time and availability. One participant (male, 23) stated: “ItwouldbeniceifaMaaSservicecouldprovideseveralcategoriesofjourneys,andwouldhappilypaymoreforanenvironmentallyfriendlyrouteifitwasofferedtome.Ofcoursenotalways, if I’minahurryIwouldchosethequickone,but if Ihave time I would give up both travel time and some money for theenvironmental friendly route.” Another participant (female, 17) stated similarthoughts:“Itwouldbefunifyousometimecouldchosedifferentroutesevenifyou’reheadingtothesamedestination.IfIhavetimeIthinkwillchooseascenicrouteorevenenvironmentalfriendlysometimes.”Moderatorasked:“Wouldyoupaymoreforascenicrouteoraenvironmentalfriendlyonethanforthequickestone?” Participant responded: “Maybe a small sum yes, but if they are allconvenient and comfortable I would choose the environmentally friendly one,even if it takes more time.” However, there were also opposing opinionsexpressed, andoneparticipant (male, 19) said: “When I havepaid for apass Ihave already done my part, and I will always choose the most convenientjourney.Iwon’tchooseamoreenvironmentalfriendlyjourneyinsteadofaquickandcomfortableone.”Afewparticipantsagreedtothatkindofopinionsanditwasperceived that they thought that itwasnot their responsibility to activelychoosethemostenvironmentallyfriendlyroute.TheMaaS applicationWhim provides different fixedmonthly packages (MaaSGlobal, 2017), whilst the pilot project UbiGo provided more personalizedmonthly subscriptions (Karlsson et al, 2016). Personalized solutions werefavouredamongtheparticipants,sincetheyarguedtheyhaddifferentdemandsfromweek to week. However, it depends verymuch of the cost, they argued.Several participants also expressed that in the future, if they will have moreregular demands fromweek toweek, theymight think differently. The cost ofWhimandUbiGoisconvertedtocreditsofwhichyoucanbuyoruseadditionalservicestotheunlimitedaccesstopublictransport.Thosecanbeacoupleoftaxiridesordaysofcarrental,orbike-andcarsharingservices.Therewerepositiveattitudestothosekindsofadditionalservicesandthepossibilitytousepointstowhateveroneprefers.

42

5.ConclusionsTheaimof this studyhasbeen toexploreyoungpeople’smobilitydemandsoftoday and in the envisioned future. The aim has also been to gain a deeperunderstanding of the underlying values and attitudes that influence thosedemands.Lastly, ithasaimed toput those findings in the contextofMaaSandhas explored if demands of young people correspond to the visions of MaaS.Basedonthefindingsofthisstudythefollowingconclusionshavebeendrawn.ThemobilitydemandsofyoungpeopleinStockholmtodayaremuchinfluencedby a will to obtain a feeling of freedom and to travel conveniently andcomfortably. There is little demand, today and in the envisioned future, forincreased mobility or increased access to different travel modes. Daytimemobilitypatternsarecharacterizedof travellingbypublic transport,by footorby bike, whilst the travelling after daytime activities is characterized byincreaseduseofprivatecars.Availabilityisobviouslyanimportantfactortothatincrease,butthefactthatyoungpeopletendtotravellocallyevenafterdaytimeactivities,reducethatinfluence.Itprovedratherthattheinfluencefromparentson their childrenwere themostdecisiveaspecton the increaseof caruse,butevenonattitudestowardscarsandothertransportmodes.Asforallgroupsinsociety,availabilitytodifferenttravelmodesinfluenceyoungpeoples’ choice of travel mode and travel patterns. However, findings of thisstudy indicate that aspects such as convenience and comfort influence travelbehaviorofyoungpeopleevenmore.Traveltime,frequencyandsafetyprovedtohavelessinfluencethanotherinfluentialaspects.Environmentalawarenesshadalso influence on travel behavior of young people. To what degree it actuallyinfluencedbehaviorwasdifficulttoevaluateeventheawarenessdefinitelywerepresentinthemindsetofmanyparticipants.The vision ofMaaS is to reduce driving and ownership of private cars, and toincrease the use of shared travel modes. Values such as ‘A Comfortable Life’,‘Pleasure’, and ‘Freedom’ in particular had strong influence of the positiveattitudes towardsdrivingofprivate cars.On theotherhand, in the envisionedfuture,thecaroccupiedlessspaceinthecities,anddespitethepositiveattitudestowardsdriving,thereprovedtobeawillingnesstoreducetheimportanceoftheprivate car in the future. The attitudes towards sharing of resources werepositive,butsharingcarsdividedtheparticipantsingroupsofbothnegativeandpositive attitudes. The private car seemed to have inherent practical andemotionalattributesthathadstronginfluenceonyoungpeople.AVswillmostlikelyplayabigpartofMaaSandfuturetransportsystem,andthisstudy showed that there is great potential for AVs. Young people had positiveattitudes towards new autonomous technology and they envisioned a futurewhere such vehicles are used. Even so, the ethical dilemmas still need to besolvedwhilst safety issueswon’t become amajor barrier for young people toadoptAVs.ThevisionsofMaaScorrespondtoarelativelylargeextentwithyoungpeople’sdemandof todayand intheenvisionedfuture.Thevisionstoprovideseamless

43

mobility and maintain the freedom of movement correspond well to thedemandsofyoungpeople.However,toobtainthepositiveenvironmentaleffectsthereisaneedforchangeofbehavior.Changeofbehaviorisrelatedtoattitudes,and according to the findings of this study, developers of MaaS need to alsounderstandthoseattitudesandnotonlyfocusonprovideincreasedavailabilitytomobilityandtodifferenttravelmodes.Giventhefindingsofthisstudythereisno significant resistance to public and state intrusion,which allows for publiceducation and other governmental incentives to obtain behavioral change. TowhatextentMaaShasthepotentialtochangebehaviorisstillunknown.

5.1.SuggestionsforImplementationofMaaSBasedonthefindingsandconclusionsofthisstudythefollowingsuggestionsforimplementationofMaaSandfordevelopersoftheconceptareproposed:-MaaSshouldtrytocapitalizeontheexistingenvironmentalawarenessofyoungpeople. Information and education should play part of a MaaS application inordertoconvertawarenesstochangeofbehavior.Promotionofyoungpeopletoeducate other age groups might be suitable for a broader adoption. Greatlyreducedpricesoveraperiodoftime,freetrial-periodsorsimilarsolutionscouldbesuitable tochangebehaviorandmakeyoungpeopleearlyadoptersofMaaSapplications.- Alongside information and education a MaaS application should provideconvenientandcomfortablemobility.Theprobabilityofyoungpeopletochooseenvironmentally friendly journeys ishighas longas thoseaspectsare fulfilled.Travel time and frequency proved to play less importance and a variety ofjourneycategoriesmightincreaseusageofMaaSapplications.-ThereisgoodpotentialforMaaStopromoteuseofsharedmobilityservicesaslong as the feeling of freedom ismaintained. AVs have potential tomeet thatdemand in the future as well as more developed bike-rental services and carpoolswheretheneedtoplanthetripinadvanceisreduced.

5.2.SuggestedFurtherResearchThis study has exploredmobility demands in a context where accessibility topublic transport andmobility is perceived as good. Further research of youngpeople living in cities with less developed public transport system will adddeeper understanding of underlying patterns of values and attitudes thatinfluenceyoungpeople.The relationshipbetweenyoungpeople and theirparents showed to influencemobility demand and travel behavior more than maybe expected. Thisrelationship could be relevant for developers of MaaS to further explore.Examiningvaluesandattitudesofparentscouldalsoincreasetheunderstandingofwhichvaluesandattitudesthatareactuallytransferredtotheirchildrenandwhichisnot.

44

45

6.BibliographyLiteratureAuvinen,H.,Tuominen,A.andAhlqvist,T.(2012)TowardsLong-termForesightforTransport:EnvisioningtheFinnishTransportSystemin2100,Foresight,Volume14,pp.191-206Bagnoli,A.andClark.A.(2010)FocusGroupsWithYoungPeople:AParticipatoryApproachtoResearchPlanning,JournalofYouthStudies,vol.13,pp.101-119Beirão,G.,andSarsfieldCabral,J.A.(2007)UnderstandingAttitudesTowardspPublicTransportandPrivateCar:AQualitativeStudy,TransportPolicy,vol.14,pp.478-489Blumenberg,E.etal.(2012)What´sYouthGotToDoWithIt?ExploringtheTravelBehaviorofTeensandYoungAdults,UCBerkley:UniversityofCaliforniaTransportationCenter,LosAngeles,2012Bonnefon,J-F.,Shariff,A.,andRahwan,I.(2016)TheSocialDilemmaofAutonomousVehicles,Science,vol.352,issue6293,pp.1573-1576Brannen,J.andNilsen,A.(2002)YoungPeople’sTimePerspectives:FromYouthtoAdulthood,Sociology,vol.36,pp.513-537Burns,L.D.(2013)AVisionofOurTransportFuture[pdf]MacmillanPublisherLimited,Nature,vol.497,pp.181-182Cass,N.,andFaulconbridge,J.(2016)CommutingPractices:NewinsightsintoModalShiftFromTheoriesofSocialPractice,TransportPolicy,vol.45,pp.1-14Fagnant,D.J.,andKockelman,K.(2015)PreparingANationforAutonomousVehicles:Opportunities,BarriersandPolicyRecommendations,TransportationResearchPartA,vol.77,pp.167-181Fox,R.(2013)ResistingParticipation:CritiquingParticipatoryResearchMethodologiesWithYoungPeople,JournalofYouthStudies,vol.16,pp.986-999Gruel,W.,andStanford,J.M.(2016)AssessingtheLong-TermEffectsofAutonomousVehicles:ASpeculativeApproach,TransportationResearchProcedia,vol.13,pp.18-29Haboucha,C.J.,Ishaq,R.,andShiftan,Y.(2017)UserPreferencesRegardingAutonomousVehicles,TransportationResearch,vol.78(C),pp.37-49

46

Hensher,D.A.(2017)FutureBusTransportContractsUnderMobilityasaService(MaaS)RegimeIntheDigitalAge:AreTheyLikelytoChange?,TransportationResearchPartA,vol.98,pp.86-96Hydén,L-C.,andBülow,PH.(2003)Who’sTalking:DrawingConclusionsFromFocusGroups–SomeMethodologicalConsiderations,InternationalJournalofSocialResearchmethodology,vol.6,pp.305-321Kamargianni,M.,Polydoropoulou,A.,andGoulias,K.(2012)TeenagersTravelPatternsforSchoolandAfter-SchoolActivities,Procedia-SocialandBehavioralSciences,vol.48,pp.3635-3650Kamargianni,M.,Li,W.,Matyas,M.,andSchäfer,A.(2016)ACriticalReviewofNewMobilityServicesforUrbanTransport,TransportationResearchProcedia,vol.14,pp.3294-3303Karlsson,M.,Sochor,J.,andStrömberg,H.(2016)Developingthe‘Service’InMobilityasaService:ExperiencesFromaFieldTrialofAnInnovativeTravelBrokerage,TransportationResearchProcedia,vol.18-21,pp.3265-3273Kerttu,J.,SmidfeldtRosqvist,L.,andWendle,B.(2017)KonsekvenseravMobilityasaService–Jämförelseavalternativascenarierförimplementeringavnyamobilitetstjänster,TrivectorTrafficAB,Lund,Report2016:112,Kitzinger,J.(1994)TheMethodologyofFocusGroups:TheImportanceofInteractionBetweenResearchParticipants,SociologyofHealth&Illness,vol.16,pp.103-121Kitzinger,J.(1995)IntroducingFocusGroups,BritishMedicalJournal,vol.311,pp.299-302Kitzinger,J.andBarbour,R.S.(2011)Introduction:TheChallengeandPromiseofFocusGroups.In:DevelopingFocusGroupResearch:Politics,TheoryandPractice,2011.London:SagePublications,pp.1-20Klein,N.(2016)MoreThanJustaBusRide:TheRoleofPerceptionsInTravelBehavior,UrbanStudiesJournal,pp.1-14Liamputtong, P. (2011)Managing andMaking Sense of Focus GroupData. In:Focusgroupmethodology:Principlesandpractice.London,SAGEPublicationsLtd,pp.165-181Liamputtong, P. (2011a)FocusGroupMethodology: Introduction andHistory.In:Focusgroupmethodology:Principlesandpractice.London,SAGEPublicationsLtd,pp.1-14Line,T.,Chatterjee,K.,andLyons,G.(2010)TheTravelBehaviorIntentionsofYoungPeopleIntheContextofClimateChange,JournalofTransportGeography,vol.18,pp.238–246.

47

Mars,L.,Arroyo,R.,andRuiz,T.(2016)QualitativeResearchInTravelBehaviorStudies,TransportationResearchProcedia,vol.18,pp.434-445Morgan,D.L.,andKrueger,R.A.(1993)WhentoUseFocusGroupsandWhy.In:ed.Morgan,D.L.,2013,SuccessfulFocusGroups:AdvancingtheStateoftheArt,SagePublications,pp.3-19Moriarty,P.,andHonnery,D.(2008)Low-mobility:TheFutureofTransport,Futures,vol.40,pp.865-872Ortegon-Sanchez,A.andTyler,N.(2016)ConstructingAVisionForAn‘Ideal’FutureCity:AConceptualModelforTransformativeUrbanPlanning,TransportationResearchProcedia,Volume13,pp.6-17Payre,W.,Cestac,J.,andDelhomme,P.(2014)IntentiontoUseaFullyAutomatedCar:AttitudesandaprioriAcceptability,TransportationResearchPartF,vol.27,pp.252-263Skrbis,Z.,Woodward,I.,andBean,C.(2013)SeedsofCosmopolitanFuture?YoungPeopleandTheirAspirationsforFutureMobility,JournalofYouthStudies,vol.17,pp.614-625Smart,M.J.,andKlein,N.J.(2017)RemembranceofCarsandBusesPast:HowPriorLifeExperiencesInfluenceTravel,JournalofPlanningEducationandResearch,pp.1-13Sochor,J.,Karlsson,M.,andStrömberg,H.(2016)TryingOutMobilityasaService–ExperiencesFromFieldTrialandImplicationsforUnderstandingDemand,TransportationResearchRecordI,vol.2542,pp.57-64Sochor,J.,Strömberg,H.,andKarlsson,M.(2015)ImplementingMobilityasaService–ChallengesinIntegratingUser,Commercial,andSocietalPerspectives,TransportationResearchRecord,vol.2536,pp.1-9Sochor,J.,Strömberg,H.,andKarlsson,M.(2014)Travelers’MotivesforAdoptingANew,InnovativeTravelService:InsightsFromtheUbiGoFieldOperationalTestInGothenburg,Sweden,21stWorldCongressonIntelligentTransportationSystems,Detroit,September7-11,2014Spickermann,A.,Grienitz,V.,andvonderGracht,H.A.(2014)HeadingTowardsAMultimodalCityoftheFuture?Multi-stakeholderScenariosforUrbanMobility,TechnologicalForecasting&SocialChange,vol.89,pp.201-221Wilkinson,S.(1998)FocusGroupMethodology:AReview,InternationalJournalofSocialResearchMethodology,vol.1:3,pp.181-203

48

William,J.M.,Borroni-Bird,C.E.,andBurns,L.(2010)PersonalMobilityInAnUrbanizingWorld[book],Reinventingtheautomobile:PersonalMobilityforthe21stCentury,MITPressElectronicSourcesBern,S.,Jansson,J.,Nordlund,A.,Nyman,E.andWestin,K.(2016)Mobilitetochtillgänglighet–framtidensresande[pdf],TRUM-report2016:1,Umeå.Availableat:http://www.trum.umu.se/digitalAssets/189/189355_mobilitet-och-tillgnglighet_framtidens-resande.pdf[Accessed15Mars2017]Burrows,A.,Bradburn,J.,andCohen,T.(2015)JourneysoftheFuture–IntroducingMobilityasaService[pdf]Atkins.Availableat:http://www.atkinsglobal.com/~/media/Files/A/Atkins-Corporate/uk-and-europe/uk-thought-leadership/reports/Journeys%20of%20the%20future_300315.pdf[Accessed20Mars2017]Davis,B.,Dutzik,T.,andBaxandall,P.(2012)TransportationandtheNewGeneration–WhyYoungPeopleAreDrivingLessandWhatItMeansforTransportationPolicy[pdf]FrontierGroup,U.S.PIRGEducationFund.Availableat:http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Transportation%20%26%20the%20New%20Generation%20vUS_0.pdf[Accessed7May2017]Felländer,A.,Ingram,C.,andTeigland,R.(2015)SharingEconomy–EmbracingChangeWithCaution[pdf]NäringspolitisktForum,Report11.Availableat:http://entreprenorskapsforum.se/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Sharing-Economy_webb.pdf[Accessed8May2017]FinnishTransportAgency(2015)MaaSServicesandBusinessOpportunities[pdf]ResearchReportoftheFinnishTransportAgency.Availableat:http://www2.liikennevirasto.fi/julkaisut/pdf8/lts_2015-56_maas_services_web.pdf[Accessed7June2017]Hannonetal.(2016)AnIntegratedPerspectiveOnTheFutureMobility[pdf]McKinsey&Company.Availableat:file:///Users/admin/Downloads/An-integrated-perspective-on-the-future-of-mobility%20(1).pdf[Accessed12July2017]Hietanen,S.(2014)MobilityasaService–CanItBeEvenBetterThanOwningACar?[pdf]Availableat:https://www.itscanada.ca/files/MaaS%20Canada%20by%20Sampo%20Hietanen%20and%20Sami%20Sahala.pdf[Accessed19July2017]Holmberg,P-E.,Collado,M.,Sarasini,S.,andWilliander,M.(2016)MobilityasaService-MAAS–DescribingtheFramework[pdf]ViktoriaSwedishICT.Availableat:

49

https://www.viktoria.se/sites/default/files/pub/www.viktoria.se/upload/publications/final_report_maas_framework_v_1_0.pdf[Accessed28Mars2017]Krueger,R.A.(2002)DesigningandConductingFocusGroupsInterviews[pdf]Availableat:http://www.eiu.edu/ihec/Krueger-FocusGroupInterviews.pdf[Accessed5May2017]Line,T.,Chatterjee,K.andLyons,G.(2006)TheAttitudesofYoungPeopleTowardsSustainableTransport[pdf]In:Proceedingsofthe38thUniversitiesTransportStudyGroupConference,Dublin,January,2006.Availableat:http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/9792/2/line-chatterjee-lyons_The_attitudes_of_young_people_towards_sustainable_transport_Dublin_conf.pdf[Accessed20Mars2017]MaaSAlliance(n.d)WhatIsMaas?[Online]Availableat:http://maas-alliance.eu/[Accessed20Mars2017]MaasGlobal(2017)MaaSasaConcept[Online]Availableat:http://maas.global/maas-as-a-concept/[Accessed6June2017]McCluskey, B. (2016)A Smoother Ride:HowTechnology IsDisrupting Travel[Online] Engineering & Technology, Oct 2016. Available at:https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2016/09/a-smoother-ride/ [Accessed20Mars2017]Mukhtar-Landgren,D.etal.(2016)InstitutionalConditionsforIntegratedMobilityServices(IMS)–TowardsAFrameworkforAnalysis[pdf]K2WorkingPaper.Availableat:http://www.k2centrum.se/sites/default/files/fields/field_uppladdad_rapport/institutional_conditions_for_integrated_mobility_services_ims_wp_2016-16_1.pdf[Accessed25Mars2017]Pooley,C.G.(2012)YoungPeople,MobilityandtheEnvironment:AnIntegrativeApproach.In:Grieco,M.ed.2012.Mobilities:NewperspectivesonTransportandSociety[e-book]TaylorandFrancis.Availableat:https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.focus.lib.kth.se/lib/kth/reader.action?docID=823568&ppg=294[Accessed21Mars2017]StockholmCountyCouncil(2016)ResvanoriStockholmslän2015(TravelHabitsinStockholmCounty2015)[pdf],TrafficAdministration,StockholmCountyCouncil.Availableat:http://miljobarometern.stockholm.se/content/docs/tema/trafik/resvanor/RVU-stockholms-lan-2015.pdf[Accessed28Mars2017]Taylor,J.,Bernard,M.,White,C.,andLewis,J.(2007)UnderstandingtheTravelAspirations,NeedsandBehaviorofYoungAdults[pdf],DepartmentforTransport,Availableat:http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/7358/1/A9RFA88.pdf[Accessed21Mars2017]

50

TransportSystemCatapult(2016)MobilityasaService–ExploringtheOpportunityforMobilityasaServiceIntheUK[pdf]Availableat:https://ts.catapult.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Mobility-as-a-Service_Exploring-the-Opportunity-for-MaaS-in-the-UK-Web.pdf[Accessed25Mars2017]

51

Appendix1InterviewGuideAge?Wheredoyoulive?Doyouhavedrivinglicence?Ownacar,bicycleorothervehicle?DescribehowyoutravelledheretodayDescribeyourmobilitypatternduringaregularweek.

- Whatmodesoftransportdoyouuse?- Withwhodoyounormallytravel?- Towhatkindactivitiesdoyoutravel?- Howdoyouplanyourtrip?

Doyouoryourfamilyuseanymobilityservicestoday?(Likemobilephoneapplications(GoogleMaps,SLetc.),car-sharing,bikerentalservices,Uberetc.)

- Whyorwhynotareyouusingsuchmobilityservices?Canyoudiscusswhatfactorsinfluenceyourmobilitypatternsandtravelbehavior?

- Doyoulikeordislikethesametravelmodesasyourfriendsorparents?

- Doesmedia,advertisingorsomethingsimilarinfluenceyourattitudetowardsdifferenttravelmodes?

- Isidentity,socialrecognitionorperceptionofpeersimportanttoyou?Doyouthinkthewayyoutravelinfluenceyourimage?

Discusswhatinfluenceyourchoicesofmobilityandwhatisimportantandnotwhenyouplanyourtrips?

- Considerforexampleinfluencessuchasthecost,traveltime,frequency,convenience,availability,environmentalaspectsetc.

- Imagineyouhavetochoosebetweentwodifferentroutesforthesamedestination.Exampleofscenario:Thefirstrouteincludestwochangesoftravelmode(bustosubwaytobus)andtakes40minutes.Thesecondoneincludesonechangeoftravel(walkingtobus)andtakes50minutes.Whichonewouldyouchoose,andwhy?

Canyoudescribeyourattitudetowardscarsanddriving?

- Doyoulikeordislikecarsanddriving,andwhy?- Whydoyouthinkyoulikeordislikecars?

52

- Whatarethebestandworstthingsrelatedtocars?- Toyouintendtotakedrivinglicenceandbuyyourowncar?- Whatisyourattitudetowardssharingacar?Carpools,rental-carsetc.- Describetheadvantagesanddisadvantagesyouseeaboutsharinga

carversusowningyourown.- DoyouthinkyouwilluseAVs,anddoyouthinkitwillchangeyour

mobilitypattern?- Doyouthinkyouwillhavethesameattitudestowardscarswhenyou

growolderandyourlifestylemightbedifferent?

Autonomousvehicleswillmostlikelyplayabigpartoffuturetransportsystem,whatisyourimmediatereactiontodriverlesscars?

- DoyouthinkyouwilluseAVs,anddoyouthinkitwillchangeyourmobilitypattern?

- Securityconcerns?- Ethicalaspects,exampleofscenario:“AVswillsometimeshaveto

choosebetweentwoevils,suchasrunningoverpedestriansorsacrificingthemselvesandtheirpassengertosavethepedestrians”,whatisyouropinionaboutsuchissues?

DesignofMaaSApplications

- Payment/Willingnesstopay- Whatservicesdoyouwant?- Whataboutdifferentcategoriesofjourneys?(Thequickest,themost

convenient,mostenvironmentallyfriendlyetc…)

Canyoupictureyourfuturemobilitydemands?

- Doyouintendtotravelinthesameway?Whatwouldyouliketochange?

- Describeyourvisionsforyourfutureidealcity?- Howdopeopletravelinthatfuture?- HowdoyouthinkMaaScouldinfluencefuturemobility?- HowdoyouthinkyouwoulduseafullydevelopedMaaSapplication?