## 4 Results
### Model Evaluation
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Constructs** & **Indicators** & **Outer** & **Cronbach’s** & **rho_a_** & **rho_c_** & **AVE** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{EESS perceived usefulness (PU)} & PU1 & 0.865 & \multirow{4}{*}{0.930} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.932} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.945} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.743} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & PU2 & 0.863 & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & PU3 & 0.899 & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & PU4 & 0.913 & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & PU5 & 0.832 & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & PU6 & 0.794 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Hedonic motivation to use EESS (HM) \\ \end{tabular} } & HM1 & 0.826 & \multirow{4}{*}{0.916} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.918} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.934} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.703} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & HM2 & 0.821 & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & HM3 & 0.827 & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & HM4 & 0.867 & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & HM5 & 0.847 & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & HM6 & 0.841 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} EESS expected performance \\ (PE) \\ \end{tabular} } & PE1 & 0.897 & \multirow{4}{*}{0.956} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.956} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.965} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.820} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & PE2 & 0.898 & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & PE3 & 0.895 & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & PE4 & 0.925 & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & PE5 & 0.901 & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & PE6 & 0.916 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} Behavioral intention to use EESS (BIOU) \\ \end{tabular} } & BIOU1 & 0.896 & \multirow{4}{*}{0.969} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.970} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.974} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.824} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & BIOU2 & 0.877 & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & BIOU3 & 0.928 & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & BIOU4 & 0.933 & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & BIOU5 & 0.929 & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & BIOU6 & 0.919 & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & BIOU7 & 0.888 & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{BIOU8} & 0.890 & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* AVE—Average variance extracted. Source: authors with SmartPLS 4 [50].  
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._Once there was enough evidence for the reliability and validity of the outer model, the inner model was evaluated for predictive and explanatory power [54; 55; 56]. The first step in this process was to assess the multicollinearity between explanatory constructs based on the variance inflation factor (VIF). Except for the PE construct (VIF = 3.037), which may be considered an acceptable value, all VIF values fell in the ideal range--below 3 [58]. In terms of predictive power (Table 5), the \(R^{2}\) values suggest that adoption of EESS at the level of the network of friends, colleagues, or family (SI FF) and promotion of the use of EESS in the public space (SI PS) may explain 20.8% of the variance of EESS perceived ease of use (PEOU) \(\left(R^{2}=0.208\right)\), 17.9% of EESS perceived usefulness (PU)) \(\left(R^{2}=0.179\right)\), and 25.5% and 31.3% of the variance of hedonic motivation to use EESS (HM) and the EESS expected performance (PE), respectively \(\left(R^{2}=0.255;R^{2}=0.313\right)\). Overall, all the above considered predictors are responsible for more than three quarters of the variance in behavioral intention to use EESS (BIOU) \(\left(R^{2}=0.782\right)\). Moreover, analyzing the \(p\)-values in Table 5, it can be found that all \(R^{2}\) are statistically significant.