The popularity of mobile food delivery apps (MFDAs) and the online food delivery industry surged during the COVID-19 epidemic. Despite the explosive growth in the use of these apps, relatively limited research has been done to determine what affects their continuous use. This study predicts the continuous use of MFDAs and explores the variables that influence this utilization using a novel machine learning (ML) based approach. The machine learning models included four distinct constructs (i.e., features): perceived compatibility, convenience, online reviews, and delivery experience. These features were measured using a survey instrument. Eight different machine learning (ML) models, ranging from basic decision trees to neural networks, were deployed. All eight models achieved high prediction accuracy of above 93%, with the CatBoost model having the highest accuracy among them at 98%. Feature importance analysis revealed perceived compatibility to be the most important factor impacting the continuous usage of MFDAs followed by convenience, online reviews, and delivery experience respectively. The study’s findings have ramifications for MFDA marketing and design. Given the significance of perceived compatibility, MFDA marketing campaigns should have a strong emphasis on highlighting how well these apps fit with the users’ lifestyles.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
2.
AkourI.AlshuridehM.Al KurdiB.Al AliA., & SalloumS. (2021). Using machine learning algorithms to predict people’s intention to use mobile learning platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic: Machine learning approach. JMIR Medical Education, 7(1), e24032.
3.
Al AminM.ArefinM.S.AlamM.R.AhammadT., & HoqueM.R. (2021). Using mobile food delivery applications during COVID-19 pandemic: An extended model of planned behavior. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 27(2), 105-126. doi: 10.1080/10454446.2021.1906817.
4.
AlajaliW.ZhouW.WenS., & WangY. (2018). Intersection traffic prediction using decision tree models. Symmetry, 10(9), 386.
5.
AlalwanA.A. (2020). Mobile food ordering apps: An empirical study of the factors affecting customer e-satisfaction and continued intention to reuse. International Journal of Information Management, 50, 28-44. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.04.008.
6.
AlamM.Z.HoqueM.R.HuW., & BaruaZ. (2020). Factors influencing the adoption of mHealth services in a developing country: A patient-centric study. International Journal of Information Management, 50, 128-143. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.04.016.
7.
AlshuridehM.Al KurdiB.SalloumS.A.ArpaciI., & Al-EmranM. (2020). Predicting the actual use of m-learning systems: a comparative approach using PLS-SEM and machine learning algorithms. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-15.
8.
Aureliano-SilvaL.LeungX., & SpersE.E. (2021). The effect of online reviews on restaurant visit intentions: Applying signaling and involvement theories. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 12(4), 672-688. doi: 10.1108/JHTT-06-2020-0143.
9.
BhattacherjeeA. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351. doi: 10.2307/3250921.
10.
CervantesJ.Garcia-LamontF.Rodríguez-MazahuaL., & LopezA. (2020). A comprehensive survey on support vector machine classification: Applications, challenges and trends. Neurocomputing, 408, 189-215.
11.
ChenL. (2008). A model of consumer acceptance of mobile payment. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 6(1), 32. doi: 10.1504/IJMC.2008.015997.
12.
ChenT., & GuestrinC. (2016). XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining ACM, pp. 785-794.
13.
ChoM.BonnM.A., & LiJ. (Justin). (2019). Differences in perceptions about food delivery apps between single-person and multi-person households. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 108-116. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.06.019.
14.
DavisF.D.BagozziR.P., & WarshawP.R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982.
15.
DorogushA.V.ErshovV., & GulinA. (2018). CatBoost: gradient boosting with categorical features support. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.11363.
16.
DwivediA.K. (2018). Performance evaluation of different machine learning techniques for prediction of heart disease. Neural Computing and Applications, 29(10), 685-693.
17.
ElvandariC.D.R.SukartikoA.C., & NugrahiniA.D. (2018). Identification of technical requirement for improving quality of local online food delivery service in yogyakarta. Journal of Industrial and Information Technology in Agriculture, 1(2), 1-7. doi: 10.24198/jiita.v1i2.14573.
18.
Global Finance. (2020). Kuwait Startups: Seeding Tomorrow’s Giants. https://www.gfmag.com/magazine/january-2020/kuwait-startups-seeding-tomorrows-giants.
19.
GundenN.MorosanC., & DeFrancoA. (2020). Consumers’ intentions to use online food delivery systems in the USA. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(3), 1325-1345. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-06-2019-0595.
20.
HairJ.F.HollingsworthC.RandolphA., & ChongA. (2017). An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117(3), 442-458. doi: 10.1108/IMDS-04-2016-0130.
21.
HairJ.F.RisherJ.J.SarstedtM., & RingleC.M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24. doi: 10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203.
22.
HasanR.PalaniappanS.RaziffA.R.A.MahmoodS., & SarkerK.U. (2018, August). Student academic performance prediction by using decision tree algorithm. In 2018 4th International Conference on Computer and Information Sciences (ICCOINS), IEEE, pp. 1-5.
23.
HenriqueB.M.SobreiroV.A., & KimuraH. (2019). Literature review: Machine learning techniques applied to financial market prediction. Expert Systems with Applications, 124, 226-251.
24.
HenselerJ.HubonaG., & RayP.A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2-20. doi: 10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382.
25.
HenselerJ.RingleC.M., & SarstedtM. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
26.
HenselerJ.RingleC.M., & SinkovicsR.R. (2009). The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing. In R.R. Sinkovics & P.N. Ghauri (Eds.), New Challenges to International Marketing, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Vol. 20, pp. 277-319. doi: 10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014.
HuangY.-M. (2019). Examining students’ continued use of desktop services: Perspectives from expectation-confirmation and social influence. Computers in Human Behavior, 96, 23-31. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.010.
29.
IMARC. (2020). Global Online Food Delivery Market to Reach US$ 164.5 Billion by 2024, Stimulated by Development of User-Friendly Applications. https://www.imarcgroup.com/global-online-food-delivery-market.
30.
IwendiC.BashirA.K.PeshkarA.SujathaR.ChatterjeeJ.M.PasupuletiS.JoO., et al. (2020). COVID-19 patient health prediction using boosted random forest algorithm. Frontiers in Public Health, 8, 357.
31.
KabariL.G., & OnwukaU.C. (2019). Comparison of bagging and voting ensemble machine learning algorithm as a classifier. International Journals of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, 9(3), 19-23.
32.
KaurP.DhirA.TalwarS., & GhumanK. (2021). The value proposition of food delivery apps from the perspective of theory of consumption value. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(4), 1129-1159. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-05-2020-0477.
33.
KeG.MengQ.FinleyT.WangT.ChenW.MaW.YeQ., & LiuT. (2017). LightGBM: a highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.
34.
KimC.GalliersR.D.ShinN.RyooJ.-H., & KimJ. (2012). Factors influencing Internet shopping value and customer repurchase intention. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 11(4), 374-387. doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2012.04.002.
35.
KimC.MirusmonovM., & LeeI. (2010). An empirical examination of factors influencing the intention to use mobile payment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 310-322. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.013.
36.
KumarS., & ShahA. (2021). Revisiting food delivery apps during COVID-19 pandemic? Investigating the role of emotions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 62, 102595. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102595.
37.
LaiP.C., & LiewE.J.Y. (2021). Towards a cashless society: The effects of perceived convenience and security on gamified mobile payment platform adoption. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 25. doi: 10.3127/ajis.v25i0.2809.
38.
LeeE.-Y.LeeS.-B., & JeonY.J.J. (2017). Factors influencing the behavioral intention to use food delivery apps. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 45(9), 1461-1473. doi: 10.2224/sbp.6185.
39.
LeeS.W.SungH.J., & JeonH.M. (2019). Determinants of continuous intention on food delivery apps: Extending UTAUT2 with information quality. Sustainability, 11(11), 3141. doi: 10.3390/su11113141.
40.
LiQ., & MaoY. (2014). A review of boosting methods for imbalanced data classification. Pattern Analysis and Applications, 17(4), 679-693.
41.
MaimaitiM.ZhaoX.JiaM.RuY., & ZhuS. (2018). How we eat determines what we become: Opportunities and challenges brought by food delivery industry in a changing world in China. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 72(9), 1282-1286. doi: 10.1038/s41430-018-0191-1.
42.
MarinkovićV.DordevićA., & KalinićZ. (2020). The moderating effects of gender on customer satisfaction and continuance intention in mobile commerce: A UTAUT-based perspective. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 32(3), 306-318. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2019.1655537.
43.
MehroliaS.AlagarsamyS., & SolaikuttyV.M. (2021). Customers response to online food delivery services during COVID-19 outbreak using binary logistic regression. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(3), 396-408. doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12630.
44.
OkumusB., & BilgihanA. (2014). Proposing a model to test smartphone users’ intention to use smart applications when ordering food in restaurants. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 5(1), 31-49. doi: 10.1108/JHTT-01-2013-0003.
45.
PhamT.-T.T., & HoJ.C. (2015). The effects of product-related, personal-related factors and attractiveness of alternatives on consumer adoption of NFC-based mobile payments. Technology in Society, 43, 159-172. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2015.05.004.
46.
Qahri-SaremiH., & MontazemiA.R. (2022). Negativity bias in the diagnosticity of online review content: The effects of consumers’ prior experience and need for cognition. European Journal of Information Systems, 0(0), 1-18. doi: 10.1080/0960085X.2022.2041372.
47.
QianH.WangB.YuanM.GaoS., & SongY. (2022). Financial distress prediction using a corrected feature selection measure and gradient boosted decision tree. Expert Systems with Applications, 190, 116202.
48.
Rabaa’iA.A. (in press a). An Investigation into the Acceptance of Mobile Wallets in the FinTech Era: An Empirical Study from Kuwait. International Journal of Business Information Systems. doi: 10.1504/IJBIS.2021.10038422.
49.
Rabaa’iA.A. (in press b). Factors Affecting the Adoption of Mobile Grocery Delivery Applications (MGDAs). International Journal of Business Information Systems. doi: 10.1504/IJBIS.2021.10045250.
50.
Rabaa’iA.A. (in press c). What’s for Dinner? Factors Contributing to the Continuous Usage of Food Delivery Apps (FDAs). Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems.
51.
Rabaa’iA.A., & Abu ALMaatiS. (2021). Exploring the determinants of users’ continuance intention to use mobile banking services in kuwait: Extending the expectation-confirmation model. Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems, 3, 141-184. doi: 10.14329/apjis.2021.31.2.141.
52.
Rabaa’iA.A.Al-loziE.HammouriQ.Bany MuhammadN.AlsmadiA., & Al-GasawnehJ. (2022). Continuance intention to use smartwatches: An empirical study. International Journal of Data and Network Science, 6. doi: 10.5267/j.ijdns.2022.4.012.
53.
Rabaa’iA.A.ALmaatiS.A., & ZhuX. (2021). Students’ continuance intention to use moodle: An expectation-confirmation model approach. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 16, 397-434. doi: 10.28945/4842.
54.
Rabaa’iA.A.BhatH., & Abu Al MaatiS. (2018). Theorising social networks addiction: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning Environments, 6(1), 1. doi: 10.1504/IJSMILE.2018.10013518.
55.
Rabaa’iA.A., & ZhuX. (2021). Understanding the determinants of wearable payment adoption: An empirical study. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 16, 173-211. doi: 10.28945/4746.
56.
RayA.DhirA.BalaP.K., & KaurP. (2019). Why do people use food delivery apps (FDA)? A uses and gratification theory perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 221-230. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.025.
RogersE. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
59.
RohM., & ParkK. (2019). Adoption of O2O food delivery services in South Korea: The moderating role of moral obligation in meal preparation. International Journal of Information Management, 47, 262-273. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.09.017.
60.
SahuS.K.PrasadM.B.N.V., & TripathyB.K. (2015). A support vector machine binary classification and image segmentation of remote sensing data of Chilika Lagloon. International Journal of Research in Information Technology, 3(5), 191-204.
61.
SarkerI.H.KayesA.S.M., & WattersP. (2019). Effectiveness analysis of machine learning classification models for predicting personalized context-aware smartphone usage. Journal of Big Data, 6(1), 1-28.
62.
SarstedtM.RingleC.M.SmithD.ReamsR., & HairJ.F. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): A useful tool for family business researchers. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(1), 105-115. doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2014.01.002.
63.
SpeiserJ.L.MillerM.E.ToozeJ., & IpE. (2019). A comparison of random forest variable selection methods for classification prediction modeling. Expert Systems with Applications, 134, 93-101.
SuhartantoD.Helmi AliM.TanK.H.SjahroeddinF., & KusdibyoL. (2019). Loyalty toward online food delivery service: The role of e-service quality and food quality. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 22(1), 81-97. doi: 10.1080/15378020.2018.1546076.
66.
Talabat. (2021). The number of restaurants in Kuwait. https://www.talabat.com/kuwait/restaurants?page=121.
67.
TanhaJ.AbdiY.SamadiN.RazzaghiN., & AsadpourM. (2020). Boosting methods for multi-class imbalanced data classification: An experimental review. Journal of Big Data, 7(1), 1-47.
68.
TroiseC.O’DriscollA.TaniM., & PriscoA. (2020). Online food delivery services and behavioural intention – a test of an integrated TAM and TPB framework. British Food Journal, 123(2), 664-683. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-05-2020-0418.
69.
UddinS.KhanA.HossainM.E., & MoniM.A. (2019). Comparing different supervised machine learning algorithms for disease prediction. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 19(1), 1-16.
70.
VenkateshV.MorrisM.G.DavisG.B., & DavisF.D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. JSTOR. doi: 10.2307/30036540.
71.
VenkateshV.ThongJ.Y.L., & XuX. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157-178. JSTOR. doi: 10.2307/41410412.
72.
WangW.-T.OuW.-M., & ChenW.-Y. (2019). The impact of inertia and user satisfaction on the continuance intentions to use mobile communication applications: A mobile service quality perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 44, 178-193. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.011.
73.
YenC.-L.A., & TangC.-H.H. (2019). The effects of hotel attribute performance on electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) behaviors. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 76, 9-18. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.03.006.
74.
YeoV.C.S.GohS.-K., & RezaeiS. (2017). Consumer experiences, attitude and behavioral intention toward online food delivery (OFD) services. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 35, 150-162. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.12.013.
75.
Zawya. (2021). Kuwait eateries, cafes climb in count. https://www.zawya.com/mena/en/business/story/Kuwait_eateries_cafes_climb_in_count-SNG_244929858/.
76.
ZhaoY., & BacaoF. (2020). What factors determining customer continuingly using food delivery apps during 2019 novel coronavirus pandemic period? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 91, 102683. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102683.
77.
ZienA.KrämerN.SonnenburgS., & RätschG. (2009, September). The feature importance ranking measure. In Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 694-709.
