Keywords

1 Introduction

Particularly noteworthy is the transport of parcels by bus, as it is already established in countries such as Sweden, the USA and Canada (Bussgods 2020; Greyhound Freight 2020; Maritime Bus 2020). This system enables same-day delivery between different bus stops and leads to a concentration of packages on routes that are already in use (Arvidsson et al. 2016). In Germany, however, despite a well-developed long-distance bus network maintained by the provider FlixBus, which is the biggest far-distance bus operator in Germany, several field trials of similar parcel transport systems have failed, and no comprehensive business model has been established (Deutsche Verkehrs-Zeitung 2015). Stakeholders should be involved in the development of a new business model to guarantee its success (Van Duin et al. 2019; Bektaş et al. 2017). In the field of logistics, critics have observed that only the ideas of companies are properly taken into account in the development of new concepts, while the needs and wishes of customers are hardly considered (Wang et al. 2018). A successful business model maximizes adoption of a new concept by meeting identified customer needs, wishes and demands (Ram 1989). However, as far as known, no study thus far has explicitly addressed customer wishes in connection with parcel transport by long-distance buses.

This paper aims to close this gap with an empirical study and to examine minimum requirements that are set by consumers for a potential cargo-hitching concept for FlixBus, which served as a fictitious example for a potential cargo-hitching process in Germany. Above all, acceptance should be perceived as the overriding goal.

2 Cargo-Hitching as an Alternative Delivery Concept

2.1 Definition

Cargo-hitching is generally classified as an extended form of crowdsourced delivery, as its main goal is to reduce freight flows by integrating them into existing passenger flows (Aleo Horcas 2019; Faulin et al. 2018). In the case of crowdsourced delivery, logistics flows are reduced by private individuals taking shipments with them. Cargo-hitching, on the other hand, uses existing vehicle movements to transport parcels together with people (Giret et al. 2018). Bektaş et al. (2017) have described the cargo-hitching concept as a combination of passenger and freight flows, whereby the cargo spaces of public transport vehicles such as buses, trains and trams are to be used for parcel transport. Taxis have also been deemed suitable for cargo-hitching (Faulin et al. 2018). Van Duin et al. (2019) have described the goal of cargo-hitching as the “[...] use of the unused capacity of public transport passenger vehicles for freight and parcel transport”. Mazzarino and Rubini (2019) have used cargo-hitching to describe a mix of passenger and freight transport as well.

2.1.1 Overview of Existing Concepts

The Swedish long-distance bus company Bussgods has been mentioned in several publications as an example of cargo-hitching in long-distance bus transport. Bussgods delivers parcels within Sweden by bus. Customers can drop off and pick up parcels at service points. It is also possible to track parcels via the website (Van Duin et al. 2019; Arvidsson et al. 2016). In Germany, there have been a number of field trials in long-distance bus transport. One example is the company Postbus, which offered the first long-distance parcel transport by bus within Germany in 2015. The test service was limited to the route between Berlin and Hamburg; expansion to other cities was planned but never implemented (Bauer 2015). A further keyword search on the Internet revealed five other bus companies and two bus station services worldwide that offer a service similar to that of Bussgods. An investigation of the services given by these bus companies provided first indications, which were used to create a demonstrative example for the subsequent online survey. In order to make this example more tangible, the German long-distance bus company FlixBus was also examined more closely in the following. Insights from the findings were also taken into account in the creation of the concept.

2.1.2 FlixBus as Cargo-Hitching Carrier

As the buses of FlixBus operate 7 days per week and several times per day on many routes, same-day delivery and delivery on Sundays and holidays are possible (FlixBus 2020a). The official FlixBus ticket shops are also open on Sundays and public holidays so that delivery and collection of packages can be guaranteed (FlixBus 2020b). The synergistic effect of combining mobility and logistics is expected to reduce emissions, as no additional bus lines are used. This expectation is additionally supported by research on the CO2 emissions of FlixBus buses. The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Heidelberg has determined that the long-distance bus service of FlixBus is the most environmentally friendly means of transport, ahead of even Deutsche Bahn, with CO2 emissions of 23 g per passenger kilometre (pkm), compared to 35 g/pkm for the German railways’ long-distance service. The lower emissions result from a higher capacity utilization rate of the FlixBus buses (average capacity utilization of 62%) compared to the long-distance service of Deutsche Bahn (capacity utilization of 52%). The higher emissions for long-distance railway are explained by the provision of electricity. The comparison of emissions of the transport modes published by the German Umweltbundesamt is based on the average electricity mix in Germany (Institut für Energie und Umweltforschung Heidelberg 2017; Umweltbundesamt 2018).

Furthermore, it must be taken into account that same-day deliveries in particular leave a disproportionately large CO2 footprint (Paazl n.d.). However, it is necessary to consider both pre- and post-carriage, which depend on the choice of transport mode—if one drives to a stop by car, the emissions are higher than with public transport (Brown 2019). The parcel is registered online by the shipper via the website or the app so that the parcel can be registered in the system in time. As with Bussgods (2020), the next possible bus departure times are then displayed. As a rule, the parcel must be dropped off 30–60 min before departure at a FlixBus ticket shop which serves as collection points. Alternatively, partner shops are to be established in cities without an official ticket shop. This principle is based on the parcel shop partner contracts used by Hermes and DPD. These partner contracts could be extended to petrol stations, kiosks and smaller retailers in the vicinity of FlixBus bus stops (Bretzke 2014). As all buses are already equipped with live GPS tracking for passengers, parcels may also be tracked with the same system (FlixBus 2020c). Service staff give parcels to the bus driver, who stows the parcels in the cargo compartment. As soon as the parcel arrives, the recipient is notified and can pick it up on presentation of valid identification. A pictorial representation of the described process is shown in Fig. 7.1. To be able to investigate the created model in a subsequent empirical study, a theoretical insight into customer acceptance is required.

Fig. 7.1
figure 1

Cargo-hitching process via FlixBus

Full size image

3 Adapting an Underlying Acceptance Model

This paper focuses on attitudinal acceptance, which can be defined as a fundamental willingness to use an innovation (Reichwald 1978). Attitudinal acceptance occurs before an innovation is purchased or used. In this phase, the potential users learn about the offered innovation for the first time (awareness), the interest is formed, and the users consider whether the offered innovation can offer a benefit to them (expectation) (Kollmann 1998).

The empirical study of this thesis uses an acceptance model that takes into account aspects of customers’ attitudinal acceptance. For this, the UTAUT2 model was chosen, as it is designed to determine the usage intention of customers as well as the use behaviour (Venkatesh et al. 2012). As this paper deals with attitudinal acceptance, use behaviour is not considered. Instead, only the effect on behavioural intention is examined, which is defined as “an individual’s positive or negative feelings about performing the target behaviour” (Venkatesh et al. 2003). The UTAUT2 (2012) model has been used in many studies on the acceptance of technology and innovations as a basis for the determination of acceptance factors. The model consists of seven independent variables, which predict behavioural intention: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, hedonic motivation, price value and habit. In addition, the study by Sonneberg et al. (2019) should be mentioned, as it dealt with the acceptance of alternative last-mile delivery options. In this study, sustainable expectancy (SE) was applied for the first time as an extension of the UTAUT2 model (Sonneberg et al. 2019). This variable indicates whether the perception of sustainability has an impact on behavioural intention. Consequently, sustainable expectancy was integrated as an additional variable into the model. Figure 7.2 illustrates the UTAUT2 model and the connections between each variable.

Fig. 7.2
figure 2

Modified UTAUT2 model

Full size image

4 Methodology: Acceptance Analysis of a Cargo-Hitching Model

Two central research questions were raised:

  1. 1.

    What factors influence the acceptance of cargo-hitching by FlixBus for delivery within Germany?

  2. 2.

    What requirements do consumers have for cargo-hitching by FlixBus for delivery within Germany?

The hypotheses were derived from the UTAUT2 model (2012) and the study by Sonneberg et al. (2019). It was assumed that the independent variables have a positive influence on the dependent variable behavioural intention. Accordingly, identical hypotheses were formulated for each variable.

Hypothesis 01: Performance expectancy of cargo-hitching via FlixBus has a positive influence on behavioural intention to use cargo-hitching via FlixBus.

Hypothesis 02: Effort expectancy of cargo-hitching via FlixBus has a positive influence on behavioural intention to use cargo-hitching via FlixBus.

Hypothesis 03: Social influence of cargo-hitching via FlixBus has a positive influence on behavioural intention to use cargo-hitching via FlixBus.

Hypothesis 04: Facilitating conditions of cargo-hitching via FlixBus have a positive influence on behavioural intention to use cargo-hitching via FlixBus.

Hypothesis 05: Hedonic motivation regarding cargo-hitching via FlixBus has a positive influence on behavioural intention to use cargo-hitching via FlixBus.

Hypothesis 06: Price value on cargo-hitching via FlixBus has a positive influence on behavioural intention to use cargo-hitching via FlixBus.

Hypothesis 07: Habit regarding cargo-hitching via FlixBus has a positive influence on behavioural intention to use cargo-hitching via FlixBus.

Hypothesis 08: Sustainable expectancy of cargo-hitching via FlixBus has a positive influence on behavioural intention to use cargo-hitching via FlixBus.

In answering the second research question, the requirements and wishes of potential users were necessarily determined. The requirements were determined via an evaluation of the perceived advantages and disadvantages by the respondents. The factors of risk, costs and benefits played a role.

  • Which services are important to the users?

  • How much are users willing to pay?

  • What risks are perceived?

4.1 Method

A quantitative online survey was used as a study method, partly supplemented by qualitative questions. The survey was open to responses from 19 April to 26 April 2020. In total, the questionnaire was divided into four categories. First, the cargo-hitching concept was presented. The model set out in Sect. 7.2 served to explain to the respondents how cargo-hitching by FlixBus works.

The second section of the questionnaire was devoted to the first research question. The modified UTAUT2 model elucidated in Sect. 7.3 served as a basis. The individual independent and dependent variables were presented as factors, of which the independent variables performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions and sustainable expectancy were stored with multiple items (two to three items). For hedonic motivation, price value and habit, one item each was selected to measure the respective superordinate factors. The individual factors were operationalized by using items already validated by Venkatesh et al. (2003, 2012). However, the content of these items was adapted to the FlixBus concept, translated from English in German and also reformulated in the subjunctive, since only behavioural intention was to be measured. To determine behavioural intention, the respondents evaluated the thesis “I intend to use the package delivery by FlixBus in the future”. Participants answered the questions on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = Do not apply to 5 = Apply).

In the third part of the questionnaire, possible requirements and wishes of the respondents for cargo-hitching by FlixBus were determined. Here, a distinction was made between the views of the sender and the recipient in order to obtain more information. The questions focused on the reasons why cargo-hitching could be used and what concerns the respondents had with respect to cargo-hitching. To answer these questions, the respondents chose from several possible answers. To obtain a broader spectrum, respondents were offered the possibility of adding further information by filling out an available text field. In addition, various questions on intended use were presented to the respondents. Again, a 5-step Likert scale was used and provided with probability indicators (from 1 = Do not apply to 5 = Apply). Furthermore, this part of the questionnaire addressed price sensitivity. Questions were asked about the respondents’ willingness to pay in two different cases. Case 1 concerned the price of a 2 kg parcel that was dropped off at a FlixBus stop and was in turn picked up by the recipient at the destination stop. The delivery took place on the same day and was also possible on Sundays and holidays. As a price comparison, an express delivery on the next working day by DHL of 14.00 € was indicated (DHL 2020). The same applied for Case 2: a delivery by FlixBus in combination with a door-to-door delivery was specified. The delivery was to take place within one to three business days. The online price for the same form of delivery by DHL was indicated as 5.49 € (DHL 2020).

In the fourth section of the questionnaire, socio-demographic data was collected by means of questions on age, gender, population of main residence and current profession.

5 Results

5.1 Sample

Ultimately, 245 people completed the questionnaire (n = 245). 59.18% of the respondents were female, 39.59% were male, and 2 persons (0.82%) indicated their gender as diverse. One person did not indicate their gender. On average, the subjects were 27 years old (SD = 8.62). Accordingly, 61.63% of all subjects stated that they were students, followed by 26.53% who were in full-time employment. When asked about the population of their main residence, 37.14% stated that they live in a big city with at least 500,000 inhabitants; 24.90% said they live in a small town with a population between 5000 and 19,999 people. 9.80% stated that they live in rural areas with a population of less than 5000; 15.92% live in a medium-sized city with a population between 20,000 and 99,999. 12.24% live in large cities (100,000–499,999 inhabitants).

5.2 Answering the First Research Question: The UTAUT2 Model

To determine the most influential factors on behavioural intention within UTAUT2, a multiple regression was carried out. Performance expectancy (PE), effort expectancy (EE), facilitating conditions (FC), habit (HT), price value (PV), hedonic motivation (HM), social influence (SI) and sustainable expectancy (SE) served as independent variables, while behavioural intention (BI) served as dependent variable. Cronbach’s alpha values provided information on the reliability of the individual scales of the items (Fig. 7.3). Cronbach’s alpha of 0.60 and higher is considered reliable (Ursachi et al. 2015). Variables with Cronbach’s alpha below 0.60 were not considered further, namely, facilitating conditions (α = 0.469) and effort expectancy (α = 0.570) were not considered in further analysis.

Fig. 7.3
figure 3

Cronbach’s alpha values

Full size image

Descriptive data of the behavioural intention showed that 18.4% disagreed with the statement “I intend to use parcel delivery by FlixBus in the future”; 23.3% partially disagreed, 29.4% were undecided, 22.9% partially agreed, and 6.1% agreed with the statement.

Figure 7.4 provides an overview of the coefficients of the regression analysis. Results of the multiple regression revealed a significant overall effect, whereby the 6 independent variables explained 54.70% of the variance (R2 = 0.54, F (6; 237) = 50.00, p < 0.001). The following variables predicted BI significantly: HT (b = 0.347, p < 0.001), PV (b = 0.244, p < 0.001), HM (b = 0.170, p < 0.01), PE (b = 0.127, p < 0.05) and SI (b = 0.110, p < 0.05). SE did not predict BI significantly (b = −0.032, p > 0.05). Overall, hypotheses H01, H03, H05, H06 and H07 were supported. On the other hand, hypotheses H02, H04 and H08 were invalidated because the independent variables EE and FC proved to be unreliable; furthermore, SE proved to be insignificant.

Fig. 7.4
figure 4

Coefficients of regression analysis

Full size image

5.3 Answering the Second Research Question: Wishes and Requirements of Potential Users

The second research question dealt with the determination of requirements and wishes of potential users in order to optimize the later acceptance of use through a customer-oriented approach. When asked about their first reaction to parcel delivery by FlixBus, the majority of the respondents indicated good or very good (72.70%), 7.70% indicated bad or not good, and the remainder gave a neutral opinion (19.60%). Figure 7.5 depicts the frequency distribution. The respondents were asked specifically to identify reasons for and reasons against using cargo-hitching via FlixBus. The results indicate that the respondents most frequently named delivery on Sundays as the decisive factor (73.90%), followed by delivery on public holidays (71.00%) and overall fast delivery (63.70%). On the other hand, 71.00% of the respondents were concerned by the distance to FlixBus stops. The unpunctuality of the buses and damage to the parcels were causes for concern for 53.10% of the respondents, closely followed by theft of parcels from the cargo compartment with 52.70%.

Fig. 7.5
figure 5

First reaction to cargo-hitching via FlixBus

Full size image

Furthermore, the respondents were able to name additional service features that were at least rather important to them in an open-ended question. The answers (n = 42) were provided with content codes and clustered. This resulted in three topics, Information, Safety and Flexibility, to which most of the answers could be assigned. The remaining answers were generally mentioned only once and are therefore not explained in detail. Ten answers were assigned to the category Information. Topics such as transparency, tracking and tracing and an app with a notification function were mentioned (“App or online portal, in which you specify when you want to send something where and when you want to send it […]”; “Online Support Q&A as the concept is new (what happens in case of loss, damage, etc.)”). Seven answers could be assigned to the category Safety. Concerns about theft protection were mentioned, and solutions such as separate or lockable compartments in the cargo area (“Separate parcel compartments for theft prevention”) were suggested. In this context, transport insurance and guarantees for punctual deliveries were also specified (“A guarantee that the parcel will arrive undamaged and will not be stolen”). Flexibility was assigned to six answers. Flexible delivery and collection times as well as packing stations were mentioned (“Delivery and collection at flexible times. Late in the evening for example. Drop-off and pick-up point nearby”).

The respondents were willing to pay on average 10.87 € (SD = 5.47) for a delivery to the bus stop. On average, the respondents stated a maximum amount of 5.51 € (SD = 3.21) for a door-to-door delivery.

6 Discussion and Outlook

Cargo-hitching in long-distance bus transit is an innovation that has not yet been introduced nationwide in Germany. This form of delivery offers a number of advantages such as faster and more efficient delivery. It was also found that this form of delivery—under certain conditions as discussed in Sect. 7.2—could have a positive effect on the environment, as freight transport and mobility could be combined, thus reducing the number of CEP vehicles. Although UTAUT2 could not be fully applied, factors influencing the behavioural intention were identified. Although it was recognized that certain factors can increase the intention of use and thus the acceptance of cargo-hitching, it can be generally criticized that the model does not provide any explanations or concrete recommendations for action to increase acceptance (Niklas 2015). However, the knowledge gained can be used for a follow-up study. Furthermore, the overall opinion on cargo-hitching via FlixBus was positive, although behavioural intention was not particularly high. It is clear that although delivery is seen as positive, this perception does not automatically result in a behavioural intention to use it, which could be due to specific concerns.

Risks in the areas of security and flexibility were identified, which must be proactively mitigated. From the question on the importance of the individual service features, it became clear that transparency was particularly important to the subjects. Tracking and tracing were considered to be very important. In addition, the open-ended question revealed wishes for a continuous flow of information. Few of the bus companies that have implemented cargo-hitching either have transport insurance included in their prices or offer insurance for additional costs. However, it is also necessary to work proactively on security. Lockable or separated freight compartments were suggested as a means of preventing theft. With regard to the unpunctuality of buses, the urgency of the parcel is important. There is evidence of frequent unpunctuality of FlixBus buses. Specifically, every second bus is late, and an average delay of 30 min must be expected (Hain 2020). Although these delays would generally not hamper a same-day delivery, a delivery timed to the minute would be unlikely.

In particular, the price sensitivity reveals that customers are on average not willing to pay more than the prices charged by DHL. This could be related to the fact that this is a new provider competing against long-established companies such as DHL and Hermes, and trust must therefore be earned. These stated maximum costs may provide an anchor for the customers’ willingness to pay when establishing a business model. By taking these findings into account, attitudinal acceptance can be established, and the basis for overall acceptance can be created. Finally, it must be borne in mind that this form of delivery is a niche for particularly fast deliveries to private individuals.