IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i6p2157-d331075.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Experimental Approach to Understanding the Impacts of Monitoring Methods on Use Intentions for Autonomous Vehicle Services: Survey Evidence from Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Ryosuke Abe

    (Japan Transport and Tourism Research Institute, 3-18-19 Toranomon, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0001, Japan)

  • Yusuke Kita

    (School of Environment and Society, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 O-okayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8552, Japan y.kita@plan.cv.titech.ac.jp (Y.K.), fukuda@plan.cv.titech.ac.jp (D.F.))

  • Daisuke Fukuda

    (School of Environment and Society, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 O-okayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8552, Japan y.kita@plan.cv.titech.ac.jp (Y.K.), fukuda@plan.cv.titech.ac.jp (D.F.))

Abstract

Safety guidelines for autonomous vehicles (AVs) in many regions or countries require AV service providers to have the means to communicate with vehicles and the ability to stop them safely in case of emergencies. The transition to full deployment of AV services is dependent on more advanced monitoring methods. This study uses a survey of approximately 2000 residents of Japanese cities to investigate how monitoring methods affect their intentions to use these services. In particular, the survey is designed to understand how individuals react to unattended operations and remote monitoring in road passenger services including buses and taxis; the survey includes direct questions about intentions to use autonomous buses and taxis and a stated choice experiment based on the respondents’ preferences over their current mode of transportation and autonomous taxis. The results show that monitoring methods have mixed impacts. On one hand, monitoring could affect the general acceptance of AV services. The difference in the overall resistance to using these services is particularly large between the onboard human and remote monitoring options. Individuals tend to express stronger resistance to more advanced remote monitoring. On the other hand, the stated choice results show that the effects of these monitoring factors could be less significant in the actual settings of transportation mode choices; the effects of travel cost and time factors are likely to be more significant. These results suggest that when individuals consider AVs in the context of real-world decisions, their resistance to new technologies is diminished in comparison to their responses to abstract questions.

Suggested Citation

  • Ryosuke Abe & Yusuke Kita & Daisuke Fukuda, 2020. "An Experimental Approach to Understanding the Impacts of Monitoring Methods on Use Intentions for Autonomous Vehicle Services: Survey Evidence from Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-16, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:6:p:2157-:d:331075
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/6/2157/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/6/2157/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Correia, Gonçalo Homem de Almeida & Looff, Erwin & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Snelder, Maaike & van Arem, Bart, 2019. "On the impact of vehicle automation on the value of travel time while performing work and leisure activities in a car: Theoretical insights and results from a stated preference survey," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 359-382.
    2. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    3. Yap, Menno D. & Correia, Gonçalo & van Arem, Bart, 2016. "Preferences of travellers for using automated vehicles as last mile public transport of multimodal train trips," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 1-16.
    4. 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.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    6. Xiaoxia Dong & Matthew DiScenna & Erick Guerra, 2019. "Transit user perceptions of driverless buses," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 35-50, February.
    7. Kolarova, Viktoriya & Steck, Felix & Bahamonde-Birke, Francisco J., 2019. "Assessing the effect of autonomous driving on value of travel time savings: A comparison between current and future preferences," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 155-169.
    8. Aizaki, Hideo, 2012. "Basic Functions for Supporting an Implementation of Choice Experiments in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 50(c02).
    9. Salonen, Arto O., 2018. "Passenger's subjective traffic safety, in-vehicle security and emergency management in the driverless shuttle bus in Finland," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 106-110.
    10. Abe, Ryosuke, 2019. "Introducing autonomous buses and taxis: Quantifying the potential benefits in Japanese transportation systems," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 94-113.
    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. Kassens-Noor, Eva & Kotval-Karamchandani, Zeenat & Cai, Meng, 2020. "Willingness to ride and perceptions of autonomous public transit," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 92-104.
    2. McQueen, Michael & Clifton, Kelly J., 2022. "Assessing the perception of E-scooters as a practical and equitable first-mile/last-mile solution," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 395-418.
    3. Christian A. Oberst & Reinhard Madlener, 2015. "Prosumer Preferences Regarding the Adoption of Micro†Generation Technologies: Empirical Evidence for German Homeowners," Working Papers 2015.07, International Network for Economic Research - INFER.
    4. 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.
    5. Elisa Giampietri & Dieter B. A. Koemle & Xiaohua Yu & Adele Finco, 2016. "Consumers’ Sense of Farmers’ Markets: Tasting Sustainability or Just Purchasing Food?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-14, November.
    6. Qingyun Tian & Yun Hui Lin & David Z. W. Wang, 2021. "Autonomous and conventional bus fleet optimization for fixed-route operations considering demand uncertainty," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(5), pages 2735-2763, October.
    7. 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.
    8. Boddupalli, Sreekar-Shashank & Garrow, Laurie A. & German, Brian J. & Newman, Jeffrey P., 2024. "Mode choice modeling for an electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) air taxi commuting service," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    9. Rashidi, Taha Hossein & Waller, Travis & Axhausen, Kay, 2020. "Reduced value of time for autonomous vehicle users: Myth or reality?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 30-36.
    10. Sungwon Lee & Devon Farmer & Jooyoung Kim & Hyun Kim, 2022. "Shared Autonomous Vehicles Competing with Shared Electric Bicycles: A Stated-Preference Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-19, November.
    11. Wang, Shenhao & Zhao, Jinhua, 2019. "Risk preference and adoption of autonomous vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 215-229.
    12. Cheng, Yung-Hsiang & Lai, Yen-Chu, 2024. "Exploring autonomous bus users’ intention: Evidence from positive and negative effects," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 91-101.
    13. Limin Tan & Changxi Ma & Xuecai Xu & Jin Xu, 2019. "Choice Behavior of Autonomous Vehicles Based on Logistic Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, December.
    14. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    15. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    16. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    17. Potoglou, Dimitris & Palacios, Juan & Feijoo, Claudio & Gómez Barroso, Jose-Luis, 2015. "The supply of personal information: A study on the determinants of information provision in e-commerce scenarios," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127174, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    18. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    20. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:6:p:2157-:d:331075. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.