樱花视频

Active Commute Tracker (ACT)

[29]

x

x

Active Lions

[30, 31]

x

x

x

x

x

Bellidea

[26,27,28]

x

x

x

x

Bike Citizens

[32]

x

CarbonDiem

[33]

x

Cyclers

[34]

x

x

x

CYCLIST

[35]

EcoTrips

[36]

x

x

GoEco!

[37, 38]

x

x

x

x

x

x

IPET (Individual Persuasive Eco-Travel Technology)

[39]

x

x

x

x

惭耻茅惫别迟别

[40]

x

x

MUV app

[41]

x

x

Mystic School

[42]

App name not mentioned

[43]

x

App name not mentioned

[44]

x

x

x

x

App name not mentioned

[45]

x

x

x

App name not mentioned

[46]

x

x

x

x

Optimum

[47]

x

x

x

OptimumPoints

[48]

x

x

x

x

Play&Go

[49]

x

x

Quantified Traveler

[50]

x

x

Sense.DAT

[51]

x

SMART Mobility Smartphone

[52,53,54]

x

x

x

x

x

x

SocialCycle

[55]

x

Swiss climate challenge (SCC) app

[56]

x

x

x

x

TrafficO2

[57,58,59]

x

x

x

TravelVU Plus

[60,61,62]

x

x

x

U-RIDE

[63]

x

x

x

Active Commute Tracker (ACT)

[29]

x

鈻�鈥攗seful for monitoring travel behavior, encourages to become active commuter

Active Lions

[30, 31]

鈽�鈥擨ncrease in pedestrians and cyclists commuting to university campus

鈼�鈥攕ignificant increase in percentage of AT trip for students, but not staff nor faculty of the university

Bellidea

[26,27,28]

x

x

x

Not evaluated

Bike Citizens

[32]

鈽�- Both trials (individual benefits and community benefits) showed an increase in new users during the campaign. The 鈥渋ndividual benefit鈥� trial showed long-term increase in app usage and cycling behaviors

CarbonDiem

[33]

鈼�鈥攏o difference in intention to change between the control and intervention group

鈻�鈥攕eeing other鈥檚 subject experience initiated own reflection on behavior and potentially influence opinion and intention of AT

Cyclers

[34]

x

x

x

鈽�- Combination of gamification and flat rate reward showed the most impact. All combinations of financial rewards had significant effects. Gamification alone did not differ from control group

CYCLIST

[35]

x

鈽�鈥擭o statistically significant difference between the two trials. Collaborative condition recorded slightly more trips

鈼�鈥攈igher enjoyment in cycling in collaboration condition than competition condition

EcoTrips

[36]

鈽�鈥攕mall and biased sample size, did not show difference pre- and post-intervention

鈻�鈥攊ncreased awareness of personal travel impact

GoEco!

[37, 38]

Not evaluated

IPET (Individual Persuasive Eco-Travel Technology)

[39]

鈼�鈥擲mall shifts towards sustainable modes. Some tried suggested travel plans but did not maintain it

惭耻茅惫别迟别

[40]

鈽�鈥擟hange in mode choice was observed but not statistically significant (small sample size)

MUV app

[41]

x

x

x

x

x

Not evaluated

Mystic School

[42]

x

Not evaluated

App name not mentioned

[43]

x

x

鈽�鈥攕mall (statistically insignificant) portions showed changes in mobility

鈻�鈥攁pp brought awareness to environmentally friendly and health promoting mobility

App name not mentioned

[44]

鈽�鈥斺�淐ar-free Choosers鈥� are most likely to try new route suggestions. 鈥淧ractical Travelers鈥� and 鈥淎ctive Aspirers鈥� had the most diverse travel modes and were open to trying route suggestions for wider trip purposes

App name not mentioned

[45]

x

Not evaluated

App name not mentioned

[46]

鈽�鈥擟hanges were seen during the weekend when there are fewer physical and time constraints. 14% adoption of sustainable transport behaviors. No analysis of statistical significance

鈼�鈥攊ncrease percentage of participants moving to the 鈥渕aintenance鈥� stage of the Transtheoretical Model. Decrease percentage of participants in the 鈥淧recontemplation鈥� stage

Optimum

[47]

鈼�鈥攃omparison of impact between transportation modes has an influence on mode choice. No analysis of statistical significance

鈻�鈥攑roviding a ranking of sustainable travel modes for trip planning influence mode choice. Positive feedback on persuasive messages

OptimumPoints

[48]

鈽�鈥擮ptimum app service without the rewards (control) increased time spent in public transport. Those registered for the reward scheme showed an increase in travel time for public transport, biking and walking

Play&Go

[49]

x

x

鈼�鈽�鈥攑re-test survey compared with monitoring indicated small impact on mobility behavior change, effective in encouraging participants to try new modes of transport

Quantified Traveler

[50]

鈽�鈥攕ignificant decrease in driving and significant increase in walking (no changes for bike and bus), compared to baseline

鈻�鈥攊ncrease in awareness and changes in intention but not in sustainability attitudes

Sense.DAT

[51]

鈽�鈥攊ncentivized groups significantly increased their (mainly recreational) cycling activity compared to the control group. Flat rate incentive was most efficient

SMART Mobility Smartphone

[52,53,54]

x

x

鈽�鈥擬onthly choice challenges, offering rewards, led to reduced car use and increased bike trips compared to non-participants

Public transport users and frequent walkers were more inclined to bike than car drivers

Distance challenges proved more effective than trip frequency challenges with daily distance challenges being more motivating than weekly ones

SocialCycle

[55]

x

x

x

x

Not evaluated

Swiss climate challenge (SCC) app

[56]

x

鈽�鈥擭o significant difference in mobility behavior between app users and control

TrafficO2

[57,58,59]

x

x

鈽�鈥攑articipants commuting鈥�>鈥�3 km to鈥�<鈥�5 km all increased in the number of trips made by walking and cycling and those living鈥�>鈥�5 to鈥�<鈥�10 km only improved in walking

Reward and non-reward groups both showed improvement in target behavior. Main indicator of change is environmental consciousness

TravelVU Plus

[60,61,62]

鈽�鈥攏o effect during intervention but showed increase in PA 3 months after intervention

鈻�鈥攑articipants were more aware of their behavior and inspired to change. Encouraging messages helped participants explore alternatives

U-RIDE

[63]

Not evaluated