IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jotrge/v110y2023ics0966692323001059.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding driverless car adoption: Random parameters ordered probit model for Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney

Author

Listed:
  • Faisal, Asif
  • Yigitcanlar, Tan
  • Paz, Alexander

Abstract

With advanced policy and technology support, driverless cars are expected to be a reality on Australian roads in next 5–10 years. The pace at which driverless cars emerge as a mainstream travel mode greatly depends on public adoption and acceptance; this is likely to be based on multiple factors. The impact these factors may have on various adoption time horizons, however, is rarely discussed in contemporary research. Therefore, this study focuses on illustrating the impact of factors associated with the adoption of driverless cars in Australia. A survey was conducted on 2608 participants living in metropolitan Brisbane, Melbourne, and Sydney. A total of 1108 participants expressed their preference towards driverless car adoption over three different time intervals, ranging from now to 10 years following deployment. Four random parameters ordered probit models were developed using the survey data—three separate models for Brisbane, Melbourne, and Sydney, and one for the combined dataset. Significance differences among models were evaluated using the likelihood ratio test. The results showed a significant difference among cities in terms of contributing factors towards driverless car adoption timeline. Additionally, different groups, considering the following factors—gender, age, household members, level of education, employment status, income, driving licence duration, travel distance to school, travel distance for social outings, car ownership, familiarity with driving aids and driverless car riding—exhibited a mixed interest regarding the adoption timeline for driverless cars. Other groups, considering the following factors exhibited a unidirectional interest—age, level of education, workplace type, income, employment status, travel distance to work, travel distance to school, travel distance for social outings, number of employed in a household, occupation, driver's licence age, number of smart tech use, driverless car trip purpose, feature preference in a driverless car, and use of driving aids. The study offers insights for future planning and policy direction related to driverless car adoption.

Suggested Citation

  • Faisal, Asif & Yigitcanlar, Tan & Paz, Alexander, 2023. "Understanding driverless car adoption: Random parameters ordered probit model for Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jotrge:v:110:y:2023:i:c:s0966692323001059
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103633
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966692323001059
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103633?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefan Boes & Rainer Winkelmann, 2006. "Ordered Response Models," Springer Books, in: Olaf Hübler & Jachim Frohn (ed.), Modern Econometric Analysis, chapter 12, pages 167-181, Springer.
    2. Jonathan Levine & Moira Zellner & María Arquero de Alarcón & Yoram Shiftan & Dean Massey, 2018. "The impact of automated transit, pedestrian, and bicycling facilities on urban travel patterns," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(5), pages 463-480, July.
    3. Antonio Afonso & Pedro Gomes & Philipp Rother, 2009. "Ordered response models for sovereign debt ratings," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(8), pages 769-773.
    4. Paz, Alexander & Arteaga, Cristian & Cobos, Carlos, 2019. "Specification of mixed logit models assisted by an optimization framework," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 50-60.
    5. Feng Chen & Mingtao Song & Xiaoxiang Ma, 2019. "Investigation on the Injury Severity of Drivers in Rear-End Collisions Between Cars Using a Random Parameters Bivariate Ordered Probit Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-12, July.
    6. Bhat, Chandra R., 2001. "Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 677-693, August.
    7. Daniel J. Fagnant & Kara M. Kockelman, 2018. "Dynamic ride-sharing and fleet sizing for a system of shared autonomous vehicles in Austin, Texas," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 143-158, January.
    8. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    9. Butler, Luke & Yigitcanlar, Tan & Paz, Alexander & Areed, Wala, 2022. "How can smart mobility bridge the first/last mile gap? Empirical evidence on public attitudes from Australia," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    10. Bhat, Chandra R., 2003. "Simulation estimation of mixed discrete choice models using randomized and scrambled Halton sequences," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 837-855, November.
    11. Asif Faisal & Tan Yigitcanlar & Md. Kamruzzaman & Alexander Paz, 2021. "Mapping Two Decades of Autonomous Vehicle Research: A Systematic Scientometric Analysis," Journal of Urban Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3-4), pages 45-74, October.
    12. Nastjuk, Ilja & Herrenkind, Bernd & Marrone, Mauricio & Brendel, Alfred Benedikt & Kolbe, Lutz M., 2020. "What drives the acceptance of autonomous driving? An investigation of acceptance factors from an end-user's perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    13. Sajida Perveen & Md. Kamruzzaman & Tan Yigitcanlar, 2017. "Developing Policy Scenarios for Sustainable Urban Growth Management: A Delphi Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-27, October.
    14. Beeramoole, Prithvi Bhat & Arteaga, Cristian & Pinz, Alban & Haque, Md Mazharul & Paz, Alexander, 2023. "Extensive hypothesis testing for estimation of mixed-Logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    15. Kum Fai Yuen & Do Thi Khanh Huyen & Xueqin Wang & Guanqiu Qi, 2020. "Factors Influencing the Adoption of Shared Autonomous Vehicles," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-17, July.
    16. Sarah Dennis & Alexander Paz & Tan Yigitcanlar, 2021. "Perceptions and Attitudes Towards the Deployment of Autonomous and Connected Vehicles: Insights from Las Vegas, Nevada," Journal of Urban Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3-4), pages 75-95, October.
    17. Liang, Xiao & Correia, Gonçalo Homem de Almeida & van Arem, Bart, 2016. "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, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 115-129.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xiaojun Shao & Xiaoxiang Ma & Feng Chen & Mingtao Song & Xiaodong Pan & Kesi You, 2020. "A Random Parameters Ordered Probit Analysis of Injury Severity in Truck Involved Rear-End Collisions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-18, January.
    2. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    3. Staus, Alexander, 2008. "Standard and Shuffled Halton Sequences in a Mixed Logit Model," Working Papers 93856, Universitaet Hohenheim, Institute of Agricultural Policy and Agricultural Markets.
    4. Campbell, Danny & Hutchinson, W. George & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2006. "Lexicographic Preferences in Discrete Choice Experiments: Consequences on Individual-Specific Willingness to Pay Estimates," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12224, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    5. Sandor, Zsolt & Andras, P.Peter, 2004. "Alternative sampling methods for estimating multivariate normal probabilities," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 207-234, June.
    6. Caliendo, Marco & Cobb-Clark, Deborah A. & Pfeifer, Harald & Uhlendorff, Arne & Wehner, Caroline, 2024. "Managers’ risk preferences and firm training investments," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    7. Marco A. Palma & Dmitry V. Vedenov & David Bessler, 2020. "The order of variables, simulation noise, and accuracy of mixed logit estimates," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(5), pages 2049-2083, May.
    8. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    9. Rose, John M. & Hensher, David A. & Caussade, Sebastian & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Jou, Rong-Chang, 2009. "Identifying differences in willingness to pay due to dimensionality in stated choice experiments: a cross country analysis," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 21-29.
    10. Campbell, Danny, 2007. "Combining mixed logit models and random effects models to identify the determinants of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7975, Agricultural Economics Society.
    11. Abay, Kibrom A., 2013. "Examining pedestrian-injury severity using alternative disaggregate models," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 123-136.
    12. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Budziński, Wiktor, 2019. "Simulation error in maximum likelihood estimation of discrete choice models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 73-85.
    13. Patil, Priyadarshan N. & Dubey, Subodh K. & Pinjari, Abdul R. & Cherchi, Elisabetta & Daziano, Ricardo & Bhat, Chandra R., 2017. "Simulation evaluation of emerging estimation techniques for multinomial probit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 9-20.
    14. Biswas, Mehek & Bhat, Chandra R. & Ghosh, Sulagna & Pinjari, Abdul Rawoof, 2024. "Choice models with stochastic variables and random coefficients," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    15. Cherchi, Elisabetta & Guevara, Cristian Angelo, 2012. "A Monte Carlo experiment to analyze the curse of dimensionality in estimating random coefficients models with a full variance–covariance matrix," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 321-332.
    16. Stephane Hess, 2014. "Latent class structures: taste heterogeneity and beyond," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 14, pages 311-330, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Campbell, Danny & Hutchinson, W. George & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Derive Individual-Specific WTP Estimates for Landscape Improvements under Agri-Environmental Schemes: Evidence from the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Irel," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12220, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    18. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2010. "Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 720-734, July.
    19. Junyi Shen, 2009. "Latent class model or mixed logit model? A comparison by transport mode choice data," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(22), pages 2915-2924.
    20. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth E., 2011. "Recovery of inter- and intra-personal heterogeneity using mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 973-990, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jotrge:v:110:y:2023:i:c:s0966692323001059. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-transport-geography .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.