IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v80y2019icp86-93.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shared automated vehicles: A statistical analysis of consumer use likelihoods and concerns

Author

Listed:
  • Barbour, Natalia
  • Menon, Nikhil
  • Zhang, Yu
  • Mannering, Fred

Abstract

Shared automated vehicles have the potential to revolutionize future transportation mode choice. Because shared automated vehicles could be a disruptive transportation modal alternative, understanding the factors that may affect the likelihood of using and possible concerns is extremely important. To do so, the current paper uses a survey of American Automobile Association members to ask whether or not survey respondents were willing to use shared automated vehicles if they became available. They were also asked their main concerns associated with this technology (safety, privacy, reliability, travel time or travel cost). Two random parameter logit models were estimated to gain insights into the likely usage/concerns processes. Some of the key variables playing statistically significant roles in the willingness to use of shared automated vehicles were ethnicity, household size, daily travel times, and vehicle crash history. Respondents from one vehicle households, that were in close proximity to grocery stores, and have previously been involved in a vehicle crash, were found to be more willing to use shared automated vehicles. Other variables significant in the analysis were high education indicator and driving alone for commute indicator. With regard to shared automated vehicle concerns, the characteristics of respondents who were more or less likely to be concerned with safety, reliability, privacy, and travel time/travel cost were identified. While the opinions and perceptions towards shared automated vehicles are likely to fluctuate in the coming years as more and more information relating to the potential of such sharing becomes available, the findings provide an important initial assessment before this technology becomes widely available to the public. The more is known about shared automated vehicles and their early adopters, the better and seamless the potential modal transition can be. Learning what groups of people are more or less willing to use this technology will help to improve the overall mobility of all. Combining the significant variables provides a rough profile description of early users of shared automated vehicles and their environment. This helps to prioritize possible investments and allows the policy and auto makers to identify the critical needs of the users. This initial assessment provides the characteristics of early adopters and their travel behavior. The model estimation results clearly show that different socio-demographic groups value different aspects and have different concerns relating to shared automated vehicles.

Suggested Citation

  • Barbour, Natalia & Menon, Nikhil & Zhang, Yu & Mannering, Fred, 2019. "Shared automated vehicles: A statistical analysis of consumer use likelihoods and concerns," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 86-93.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:80:y:2019:i:c:p:86-93
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.05.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X18306917
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.05.013?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. McFadden, Daniel & Ruud, Paul A, 1994. "Estimation by Simulation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(4), pages 591-608, November.
    2. Greenblatt, Jeffery & Shaheen, Susan PhD, 2015. "Automated Vehicles, On-Demand Mobility and Environmental Impacts," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt23r1h80t, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    3. Mustapha Harb & Yu Xiao & Giovanni Circella & Patricia L. Mokhtarian & Joan L. Walker, 2018. "Projecting travelers into a world of self-driving vehicles: estimating travel behavior implications via a naturalistic experiment," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1671-1685, November.
    4. Mannering, Fred & Winston, Clifford & Starkey, William, 2002. "An exploratory analysis of automobile leasing by US households," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 154-176, July.
    5. Circella, Giovanni & Tiedeman, Kate & Handy, Susan & Alemi, Farzad & Mokhtarian, Patricia, 2016. "What Affects Millennials’ Mobility? Part I: Investigating the Environmental Concerns, Lifestyles, Mobility-Related Attitudes and Adoption of Technology of Young Adults in California," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt6wm51523, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    6. Bills, Tierra S. & Walker, Joan L., 2017. "Looking beyond the mean for equity analysis: Examining distributional impacts of transportation improvements," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 61-69.
    7. Adam Stocker & Susan Shaheen, 2017. "Shared Automated Vehicles: Review of Business Models," International Transport Forum Discussion Papers 2017/09, OECD Publishing.
    8. Felix Becker & Kay W. Axhausen, 2017. "Literature review on surveys investigating the acceptance of automated vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1293-1306, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Gopindra Sivakumar Nair & Sebastian Astroza & Chandra R. Bhat & Sara Khoeini & Ram M. Pendyala, 2018. "An application of a rank ordered probit modeling approach to understanding level of interest in autonomous vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1623-1637, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xiao, Jingyi & Goulias, Konstadinos G., 2022. "Perceived usefulness and intentions to adopt autonomous vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 170-185.
    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. Saeed, Tariq Usman & Burris, Mark W. & Labi, Samuel & Sinha, Kumares C., 2020. "An empirical discourse on forecasting the use of autonomous vehicles using consumers’ preferences," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    4. Wali, Behram & Santi, Paolo & Ratti, Carlo, 2023. "Are californians willing to use shared automated vehicles (SAV) & renounce existing vehicles? An empirical analysis of factors determining SAV use & household vehicle ownership," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    5. Pettigrew, Simone & Booth, Leon & Farrar, Victoria & Brown, Julie & Karl, Charles & Godic, Branislava & Vidanaarachchi, Rajith & Thompson, Jason, 2024. "Public support for proposed government policies to optimise the social benefits of autonomous vehicles," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 264-270.
    6. Jinping Guan & Shuang Zhang & Lisa A. D’Ambrosio & Kai Zhang & Joseph F. Coughlin, 2021. "Potential Impacts of Autonomous Vehicles on Urban Sprawl: A Comparison of Chinese and US Car-Oriented Adults," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-16, July.
    7. Sigma Dolins & Yale Z. Wong & John D. Nelson, 2021. "The ‘Sharing Trap’: A Case Study of Societal and Stakeholder Readiness for On-Demand and Autonomous Public Transport in New South Wales, Australia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-19, August.
    8. Liliana Andrei & Oana Luca & Florian Gaman, 2022. "Insights from User Preferences on Automated Vehicles: Influence of Socio-Demographic Factors on Value of Time in Romania Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-22, August.
    9. Sigma Dolins & Helena Strömberg & Yale Z. Wong & MariAnne Karlsson, 2021. "Sharing Anxiety Is in the Driver’s Seat: Analyzing User Acceptance of Dynamic Ridepooling and Its Implications for Shared Autonomous Mobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-22, July.
    10. Petrović, Đorđe & Mijailović, Radomir M. & Pešić, Dalibor, 2022. "Persons with physical disabilities and autonomous vehicles: The perspective of the driving status," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 98-110.
    11. Laura Heubeck & Franziska Hartwich & Franziska Bocklisch, 2023. "To Share or Not to Share—Expected Transportation Mode Changes Given Different Types of Fully Automated Vehicles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-25, March.
    12. Wang, Jinghui & Yang, Hao, 2023. "Low carbon future of vehicle sharing, automation, and electrification: A review of modeling mobility behavior and demand," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    13. Behnood, Ali & Haghani, Milad & Golafshani, Emadaldin Mohammadi, 2022. "Determinants of purchase likelihood for partially and fully automated vehicles: Insights from mixed logit model with heterogeneity in means and variances," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 119-139.

    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. 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.
    2. Asmussen, Katherine E. & Mondal, Aupal & Bhat, Chandra R., 2022. "Adoption of partially automated vehicle technology features and impacts on vehicle miles of travel (VMT)," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 156-179.
    3. Perrine, Kenneth A. & Kockelman, Kara M. & Huang, Yantao, 2020. "Anticipating long-distance travel shifts due to self-driving vehicles," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    4. Stefan Hochguertel & Henry Ohlsson, 2009. "Compensatory inter vivos gifts," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(6), pages 993-1023.
    5. Kim, Sung Hoo & Circella, Giovanni & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2019. "Identifying latent mode-use propensity segments in an all-AV era," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 192-207.
    6. Delle Site, Paolo & Kilani, Karim & Gatta, Valerio & Marcucci, Edoardo & de Palma, André, 2019. "Estimation of consistent Logit and Probit models using best, worst and best–worst choices," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 87-106.
    7. Roberto Battistini & Luca Mantecchini & Maria Nadia Postorino, 2020. "Users’ Acceptance of Connected and Automated Shuttles for Tourism Purposes: A Survey Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-17, December.
    8. Vij, Akshay & Ryan, Stacey & Sampson, Spring & Harris, Susan, 2020. "Consumer preferences for on-demand transport in Australia," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 823-839.
    9. Bhat, Chandra R. & Sen, Sudeshna & Eluru, Naveen, 2009. "The impact of demographics, built environment attributes, vehicle characteristics, and gasoline prices on household vehicle holdings and use," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 1-18, January.
    10. Xiaowei Chen & Hongyu Zheng & Ze Wang & Xiqun Chen, 2021. "Exploring impacts of on-demand ridesplitting on mobility via real-world ridesourcing data and questionnaires," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1541-1561, August.
    11. Paolo Delle Site & Karim Kilani & Valerio Gatta & Edoardo Marcucci & André de Palma, 2018. "Estimation of Logit and Probit models using best, worst and best-worst choices," Working Papers hal-01953581, HAL.
    12. Mesa-Arango, Rodrigo & Ukkusuri, Satish V., 2014. "Attributes driving the selection of trucking services and the quantification of the shipper’s willingness to pay," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 142-158.
    13. 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.
    14. Islam, Mouyid, 2015. "Multi-Vehicle Crashes Involving Large Trucks: A Random Parameter Discrete Outcome Modeling Approach," Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, Transportation Research Forum, vol. 54(1).
    15. repec:dgr:uvatin:20070074 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Hardman, Scott & Lee, Jae Hyun & Tal, Gil, 2019. "How do drivers use automation? Insights from a survey of partially automated vehicle owners in the United States," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 246-256.
    17. Kailai Wang & Gulsah Akar, 2019. "Effects of neighborhood environments on perceived risk of self-driving: evidence from the 2015 and 2017 Puget Sound Travel Surveys," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 2117-2136, December.
    18. Bhat, Chandra R. & Sen, Sudeshna, 2006. "Household vehicle type holdings and usage: an application of the multiple discrete-continuous extreme value (MDCEV) model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 35-53, January.
    19. Ishant Sharma & Sabyasachee Mishra, 2023. "Ranking preferences towards adopting autonomous vehicles based on peer inputs and advertisements," Transportation, Springer, vol. 50(6), pages 2139-2192, December.
    20. Stefan Hochguertel & Henry Ohlsson, 2009. "Compensatory inter vivos gifts," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(6), pages 993-1023.
    21. Wang, Kaili & Salehin, Mohammad Faizus & Nurul Habib, Khandker, 2021. "A discrete choice experiment on consumer’s willingness-to-pay for vehicle automation in the Greater Toronto Area," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 12-30.

    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:80:y:2019:i:c:p:86-93. 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.