IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v147y2024icp140-157.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How effective is automated vehicle education? – A Kentucky case study revealing the dynamic nature of education effectiveness

Author

Listed:
  • Wang, Song
  • Li, Zhixia
  • Wang, Yi
  • Wyatt, Daniel Aaron

Abstract

This study is motivated by the need to quantitatively understand the dynamic nature of Automated Vehicle (AV) education's effectiveness, given the fact that existing research has identified factors that associated with the change of AV acceptance between before and after education. To address this research gap, an online state-wide survey study was conducted in Kentucky, USA, offering the opportunity to receive AV education via watching a video and assessing survey respondents' AV acceptance before and after education. By employing a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) approach with multi-layer endogenous variables included, what makes AV education effective and the underlying reasons were identified and quantitatively revealed with focusing on respondents' socio-demographics, affordability, travel needs, built environment, and exposure level to AV knowledge. As a result, significant factors that impact the probability of “AV acceptance being increased after education” were identified from the aforementioned perspectives. Overall, older generations are less likely to increase their AV acceptance after education for two particular reasons: (a) concerning the comfortableness of Level 5 (full) automation and (b) living in the rural setting, which leads to fewer chances of experiencing automated driving. From a gender perspective, women are more likely to be affected by AV education because they are less familiar with AV technology than men. Also, our results suggest that Level 5 comfort rating plays the most influential role in determining the likelihood of increasing AV acceptance after education. The likelihood is improved by 33% if there is a one-unit increase in the Level 5 comfort rating. As such, the research informs AV policymakers of identities that make AV education effective for future AV education considerations.

Suggested Citation

  • Wang, Song & Li, Zhixia & Wang, Yi & Wyatt, Daniel Aaron, 2024. "How effective is automated vehicle education? – A Kentucky case study revealing the dynamic nature of education effectiveness," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 140-157.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:147:y:2024:i:c:p:140-157
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2023.12.022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X23003505
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tranpol.2023.12.022?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wang, Song & Li, Zhixia & Wang, Yi & Aaron Wyatt, Daniel, 2022. "How do age and gender influence the acceptance of automated vehicles? – Revealing the hidden mediating effects from the built environment and personal factors," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 376-394.
    2. Shelly Etzioni & Jamil Hamadneh & Arnór B. Elvarsson & Domokos Esztergár-Kiss & Milena Djukanovic & Stelios N. Neophytou & Jaka Sodnik & Amalia Polydoropoulou & Ioannis Tsouros & Cristina Pronello & N, 2020. "Modeling Cross-National Differences in Automated Vehicle Acceptance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-22, November.
    3. Nordhoff, Sina & Stapel, Jork & van Arem, Bart & Happee, Riender, 2020. "Passenger opinions of the perceived safety and interaction with automated shuttles: A test ride study with ‘hidden’ safety steward," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 508-524.
    4. Liu, Peng & Xu, Zhigang & Zhao, Xiangmo, 2019. "Road tests of self-driving vehicles: Affective and cognitive pathways in acceptance formation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 354-369.
    5. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Abrahamse, Wokje & Zhang, Long & Ren, Jingzheng, 2019. "Pleasure or profit? Surveying the purchasing intentions of potential electric vehicle adopters in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 69-81.
    6. Emberger, Guenter & Pfaffenbichler, Paul, 2020. "A quantitative analysis of potential impacts of automated vehicles in Austria using a dynamic integrated land use and transport interaction model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 57-67.
    7. Compostella, Junia & Fulton, Lewis M. & De Kleine, Robert & Kim, Hyung Chul & Wallington, Timothy J. & Brown, Austin L., 2021. "Travel time costs in the near- (circa 2020) and long-term (2030–2035) for automated, electrified, and shared mobility in the United States," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 153-165.
    8. Chikaraishi, Makoto & Khan, Diana & Yasuda, Banri & Fujiwara, Akimasa, 2020. "Risk perception and social acceptability of autonomous vehicles: A case study in Hiroshima, Japan," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 105-115.
    9. Anania, Emily C. & Rice, Stephen & Walters, Nathan W. & Pierce, Matthew & Winter, Scott R. & Milner, Mattie N., 2018. "The effects of positive and negative information on consumers’ willingness to ride in a driverless vehicle," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 218-224.
    10. Tor Andreassen & Bengt Lorentzen & Ulf Olsson, 2006. "The Impact of Non-Normality and Estimation Methods in SEM on Satisfaction Research in Marketing," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 39-58, February.
    11. Gurumurthy, Krishna Murthy & Kockelman, Kara M., 2020. "Modeling Americans’ autonomous vehicle preferences: A focus on dynamic ride-sharing, privacy & long-distance mode choices," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    12. Nielsen, Thomas Alexander Sick & Haustein, Sonja, 2018. "On sceptics and enthusiasts: What are the expectations towards self-driving cars?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 49-55.
    13. Pettigrew, Simone & Dana, Liyuwork Mitiku & Norman, Richard, 2019. "Clusters of potential autonomous vehicles users according to propensity to use individual versus shared vehicles," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 13-20.
    14. Enoch, M.P. & Cross, R. & Potter, N. & Davidson, C. & Taylor, S. & Brown, R. & Huang, H. & Parsons, J. & Tucker, S. & Wynne, E. & Grieg, D. & Campbell, G. & Jackson, A. & Potter, S., 2020. "Future local passenger transport system scenarios and implications for policy and practice," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 52-67.
    15. Wu, Jingwen & Liao, Hua & Wang, Jin-Wei, 2020. "Analysis of consumer attitudes towards autonomous, connected, and electric vehicles: A survey in China," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    16. Kaye, Sherrie-Anne & Buckley, Lisa & Rakotonirainy, Andry & Delhomme, Patricia, 2019. "An adaptive approach for trialling fully automated vehicles in Queensland Australia: A brief report," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 275-281.
    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. Wang, Song & Li, Zhixia & Wang, Yi & Aaron Wyatt, Daniel, 2022. "How do age and gender influence the acceptance of automated vehicles? – Revealing the hidden mediating effects from the built environment and personal factors," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 376-394.
    2. Liu, Peng & Xu, Zhigang, 2020. "Public attitude toward self-driving vehicles on public roads: Direct experience changed ambivalent people to be more positive," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    3. Fahimeh Golbabaei & Tan Yigitcanlar & Alexander Paz & Jonathan Bunker, 2023. "Perceived Opportunities and Challenges of Autonomous Demand-Responsive Transit Use: What Are the Socio-Demographic Predictors?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-18, August.
    4. Dai, Jingchen & Wang, Xiaokun Cara & Ma, Wenxin & Li, Ruimin, 2023. "Future transport vision propensity segments: A latent class analysis of autonomous taxi market," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    5. Swain, Ritwik & Truelove, Verity & Rakotonirainy, Andry & Kaye, Sherrie-Anne, 2023. "A comparison of the views of experts and the public on automated vehicles technologies and societal implications," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    6. Yilun Chen & Nirajan Shiwakoti & Peter Stasinopoulos & Shah Khalid Khan, 2022. "State-of-the-Art of Factors Affecting the Adoption of Automated Vehicles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-29, May.
    7. Liu, Peng, 2020. "Positive, negative, ambivalent, or indifferent? Exploring the structure of public attitudes toward self-driving vehicles on public roads," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 27-38.
    8. Li, Dun & Huang, Youlin & Qian, Lixian, 2022. "Potential adoption of robotaxi service: The roles of perceived benefits to multiple stakeholders and environmental awareness," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 120-135.
    9. Yoganathan, Vignesh & Osburg, Victoria-Sophie, 2024. "Heterogenous evaluations of autonomous vehicle services: An extended theoretical framework and empirical evidence," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    10. Shelly Etzioni & Jamil Hamadneh & Arnór B. Elvarsson & Domokos Esztergár-Kiss & Milena Djukanovic & Stelios N. Neophytou & Jaka Sodnik & Amalia Polydoropoulou & Ioannis Tsouros & Cristina Pronello & N, 2020. "Modeling Cross-National Differences in Automated Vehicle Acceptance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-22, November.
    11. Liu, Peng & Xu, Zhigang & Zhao, Xiangmo, 2019. "Road tests of self-driving vehicles: Affective and cognitive pathways in acceptance formation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 354-369.
    12. Guo, Yuntao & Souders, Dustin & Labi, Samuel & Peeta, Srinivas & Benedyk, Irina & Li, Yujie, 2021. "Paving the way for autonomous Vehicles: Understanding autonomous vehicle adoption and vehicle fuel choice under user heterogeneity," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 364-398.
    13. Talebian, Ahmadreza & Mishra, Sabyasachee, 2022. "Unfolding the state of the adoption of connected autonomous trucks by the commercial fleet owner industry," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    14. Peng Jing & Gang Xu & Yuexia Chen & Yuji Shi & Fengping Zhan, 2020. "The Determinants behind the Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-26, February.
    15. Rosell, Jordi & Allen, Jaime, 2020. "Test-riding the driverless bus: Determinants of satisfaction and reuse intention in eight test-track locations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 166-189.
    16. Pettigrew, Simone & Dana, Liyuwork Mitiku & Norman, Richard, 2019. "Clusters of potential autonomous vehicles users according to propensity to use individual versus shared vehicles," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 13-20.
    17. Pettigrew, Simone & Cronin, Sophie L., 2019. "Stakeholder views on the social issues relating to the introduction of autonomous vehicles," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 64-67.
    18. McLeay, Fraser & Olya, Hossein & Liu, Hongfei & Jayawardhena, Chanaka & Dennis, Charles, 2022. "A multi-analytical approach to studying customers motivations to use innovative totally autonomous vehicles," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    19. Bennett, Roger & Vijaygopal, Rohini & Kottasz, Rita, 2019. "Attitudes towards autonomous vehicles among people with physical disabilities," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 1-17.
    20. Du, Manqing & Zhang, Tingru & Liu, Jinting & Xu, Zhigang & Liu, Peng, 2022. "Rumors in the air? Exploring public misconceptions about automated vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 237-252.

    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:trapol:v:147:y:2024:i:c:p:140-157. 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: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description .

    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.