A latent class logit model identifies user preferences and willingness-to-pay for MaaS in Beijing, suggesting tailored approaches for effective adoption.
Mobility as a Service (MaaS) is a key approach to advancing sustainable urban mobility, mainly accessible to users through bundled services via mobile platforms. However, empirical studies focusing on preference segmentation and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for bundled MaaS services remain limited, especially in rapidly urbanizing cities such as Beijing. To address this gap, this study developed a latent class logit model integrating latent psychological attitudes along with sociodemographic and travel attributes to identify latent user classes and determine key factors influencing bundle choice behavior, which subsequently provides a comprehensive perspective for understanding behavioral heterogeneity in MaaS bundle choices. Based on 485 stated preference questionnaires collected in Beijing, three distinct latent user classes were identified: potential adopters (Class 1, 29.0%); MaaS-indifferent individuals (Class 2, 58.8%); and avoiders (Class 3, 12.3%). These classes exhibit significant differences in characteristics, preferences, and WTP for the monthly bundle components. Class 1 shows a strong preference for metro ridership quotas with a WTP ¥1.01, a negative attitude and reluctant to pay ¥1.83 toward taxi mileage, and high WTP ¥84.47 for the shared function. Class 2, most representative of Beijing’s population, shows a positive preference for bus ridership with WTP ¥2.48 and is more strongly influenced by psychological attributes. Class 3 prefers “pay-as-you-go” but shows positive preferences for bus, metro and shared function in the bundle with respective WTP ¥1.90, ¥2.05, and ¥191.18. This study contributes empirical evidence of behavioral heterogeneity in MaaS adoption and offers practical implications for targeted MaaS product design and policy making.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: