User acceptance of automated shuttles in Berlin-Schöneberg: A questionnaire study

Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour

Volumn 58, Issue , 2018, Pages 843-854

  Nordhoff, Sina ^a,b   de Winter, Joost ^a   Madigan, Ruth ^c   Merat, Natasha ^c   van Arem, Bart ^a   Happee, Riender ^a,d  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^b InnoZ Innovation Centre for Mobility and Societal Change   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^d DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Acceptance; Automated public transport; Automated shuttles; Questionnaire study

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATION; SURVEYS; URBAN TRANSPORTATION;

ACCEPTANCE; LONG-TERM EFFECTS; PUBLIC TRANSPORT; PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEMS; QUESTIONNAIRE STUDIES; REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE; SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS; URBAN AND RURAL AREAS;

PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS;

EID: 85050812571     PISSN: 13698478     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2018.06.024     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Alessandrini, A. (2016). CityMobil2. Experiences and recommendations. Accessed at < http://www.citymobil2.eu/en/upload/Deliverables/PU/CityMobil2%20booklet%20web%20final_17%2011%202016.pdf>.
2. Bansal, P., Kockelman, K.M., Singh, A., Assessing public opinions of and interest in new vehicle technologies: An Austin perspective. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 67 (2016), 1–14.
3. Bazilinskyy, P., Kyriakidis, M. & De Winter, J. C. F. (2015). An international crowdsourcing study into people's statements on fully automated driving. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on applied human factors and ergonomics (AHFE) (pp. 2534–2542). Las Vegas, NV.
4. Bekhor, S., Zvirin, Y. & Tartakovsky, L. (2003). Investigating user acceptance of cybernetic cars for a university campus. Proceedings of the 82nd annual meeting of the transportation research board. Washington DC.
5. Buckley, L., Kaye, S.A., Pradhan, A.K., Psychological factors associated with intended use of automated vehicles: A simulated driving study. Accident Analysis & Prevention 115 (2018), 202–208.
6. Drive Sweden (2018). Accessed at < https://www.drivesweden.net/en/news/sweden-mobilizes-piloting-future-transportation-solutions>.
7. Eden, G., Nanchen, B., Ramseyer, R. & Evéquoz, F. (2017). On the road with an autonomous passenger shuttle: Integration in public spaces. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1569–1576). Denver, CO.
8. European Commission. (2015). Special Eurobarometer 427: Autonomous systems. Accessed at < http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_427_en.pdf>.
9. European Commission. (2017). Special Eurobarometer 460: Attitudes towards the impact of digitalization and automation on daily life. Accessed at < http://publications.europa.eu/publications-detail/-publication/89e6e4-6777-11e7-b2f2-01aa75ed71a1/language-en>.
10. Fraedrich, E., Beiker, S., Lenz, B., Transition pathways to fully automated driving and its implications for the sociotechnical system of automobility. European Journal of Futures Research 3 (2015), 1–11.
11. Fraszczyk, A., Mulley, C., Public perception of and attitude to driverless train: A case study of Sydney, Australia. Urban Rail Transit 3 (2017), 100–111.
12. Gorris, T., De Kievit, M., Solar, A., Katgerman, J. & Bekhor, S (2011). CityMobil. Towards advanced transport for the urban environment (Deliverable D5.4.1 Assessment of Automated Road Transport Systems contribution to Urban Sustainability). Accessed at < http://www.transport-research.info/sites/default/files/project/documents/20121029_153219_86416_D5.4.1-PU-CityMobil-How_to_reach_transport_sustainability_with_automated_road_transport.-FINAL.pdf>.
13. Hendrickson, A.E., White, P.O., Promax: A quick method for rotation to oblique simple structure. British Journal of Statistical Psychology 17 (1964), 65–70.
14. Hohenberger, C., Spörrle, M., Welpe, I.M., How and why do men and women differ in their willingness to use automated cars? The influence of emotions across different age groups. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 94 (2016), 374–385.
15. Kaur, K., Rampersad, G., Trust in driverless cars: Investigating key factors influencing the adoption of driverless cars. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 48 (2018), 87–96.
16. Krueger, R., Rashidi, T.H., Rose, J.M., Preferences for shared autonomous vehicles. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 69 (2016), 343–355.
17. Kyriakidis, M., De Winter, J. C. F., Stanton, N., Bellet, T., Van Arem, B., Brookhuis, K.,.. Happee, R. (in press). A human factors perspective on automated driving. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science.
18. Kyriakidis, M., Happee, R., De Winter, J.C.F., Public opinion on automated driving: Results of an international questionnaire among 5,000 respondents. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior 32 (2015), 127–140.
19. Lai, W.T., Chen, C.F., Behavioral intentions of public transit passengers – The roles of service quality, perceived value, satisfaction and involvement. Transport Policy 2 (2011), 318–325.
20. Liang, X., De Almeida Correia, G.H., Van Arem, B., Optimizing the service area and trip selection of an electric automated taxi system used for the last mile of train trips. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 93 (2016), 115–129.
21. Madigan, R., Louw, T., Dziennus, M., Graindorge, T., Ortega, E., Graindorge, M., Merat, N., Acceptance of automated road transport systems (ARTS): An adaptation of the UTAUT model. Transportation Research Procedia 14 (2016), 2217–2226.
22. Madigan, R., Louw, T., Dziennus, M., Schieben, A., Merat, N., What influences the decision to use automated public transport? Using UTAUT to understand public acceptance of Automated Road Transport Systems. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior 50 (2017), 55–64.
23. Moták, L., Neuville, E., Chambres, P., Marmoiton, F., Monéger, F., Coutarel, F., Izaute, M., Antecedent variables of intentions to use an autonomous shuttle: Moving beyond TAM and TPB?. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology 67 (2017), 269–278.
24. Nordhoff, S., Madigan, R., Happee, R., Van Arem, B., Schönduwe, R. & Merat, N. (2017). Using the 4P model to understand why people choose to use automated vehicles in public transport. In Proceedings of the mobil.TUM 2017: International conference on intelligent transport systems in theory and practice. Munich, Germany.
25. Nordhoff, S., Van Arem, B., Merat, N., Madigan, R., Ruhrort, L., Knie, A. & Happee, R. (2017). User acceptance of driverless shuttles running in an open and mixed traffic environment. In Proceedings of the 12th ITS European congress. Strasbourg, France.
26. Nordhoff, S., De Winter, J., Payre, W., Van Arem, B. & Happee, R. (2018). What impressions do users have after a ride in the shuttle? An interview study. Manuscript submitted for publication.
27. Peterson, R.A., A meta-analysis of variance accounted for and factor loadings in exploratory factor analysis. Marketing Letters 11 (2000), 261–275.
28. Portouli, E., Karaseitanidis, G., Lytrivis, P., Amditis, A., Raptis, O. & Karaberi, C. (2017). Public attitudes towards autonomous mini buses operating in real conditions in a Hellenic city. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (pp. 571–576). Los Angeles, CA.
29. Rodríguez, P. (2017). Safety of pedestrians and cyclists when interacting with automated vehicles: A case study of the WEpods (MSc thesis). Delft, the Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
30. Sánchez Pérez, M., Ghyperl Abad, J.C., Marin Carrillo, G.M., Sanchez Fernandez, R., Effects of service quality dimensions on behavioral purchase intentions: A study in public-sector transport. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 17:2 (2007), 134–154.
31. Schoettle, B. & Sivak, M. (2016). Motorists’ preferences for different levels of vehicle automation (Report No. SWT-2016-8). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan. Accessed at < http://umich.edu/~umtriswt/PDF/SWT-2016-8.pdf>.
32. Schreurs, M., Steuwer, S., Autonomous driving – Political, legal, social, and sustainability dimensions. Maurer, M., Gerdes, J.C., Lenz, B., Winner, H., (eds.) Autonomes Fahren. Technische, rechtliche und gesellschaftliche Aspekte, 2016, Springer Vieweg, Wiesbaden, 151–174.
33. Shladover, S.E., The truth about “Self-Driving” cars. Scientific American 314 (2016), 52–57.
34. Shladover, S.E., Connected and automated vehicle systems: Introduction and overview. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems 22 (2017), 190–200.
35. Van der Laan, J.D., Heino, A., De Waard, D., A simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transport telematics. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 5 (1997), 1–10.
36. Van der Wiel, J. W. (2017). Automated shuttles on public roads: Lessons learned. Accessed at < https://www.raddelft.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ITS-EU-Technical-Paper-WEpods-lessons-learned-Spring.pdf>.
37. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D., User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27 (2003), 425–478.