Factors Influencing the Adoption of Shared Autonomous Vehicles
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Theories, Theoretical Models and Hypotheses
2.1.1. Determinants of Users’ Attitude Towards SAV Adoption
2.1.2. Determinants of Users’ Intention to Use SAVs
2.1.3. Determinants of Perceived Behavioural Control
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Measurement Items
3.2. Survey Design and Administration
3.3. Demographics of Respondents
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Measurement Model Analysis
4.2. Structural Model Analysis
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kyriakidis, M.; Happee, R.; de Winter, J.C.F. Public opinion on automated driving: Results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents. Transp. Res. Part. F Traffic. Psychol. Behav. 2015, 32, 127–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fagnant, D.J.; Kockelman, K. Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: Opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transp. Res. A Policy 2015, 77, 167–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krueger, R.; Rashidi, T.H.; Rose, J.M. Preferences for shared autonomous vehicles. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2016, 69, 343–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levin, M.W.; Kockelman, K.M.; Boyles, S.D.; Li, T. A general framework for modeling shared autonomous vehicles with dynamic network-loading and dynamic ride-sharing application. Compu. Environ. Urban Syst. 2017, 64, 373–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Miwa, T.; Zeng, W.; Bell, M.G.H.; Morikawa, T. Shared Autonomous Taxi System and Utilization of Collected Travel-Time Information. J. Adv. Transp. 2018, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panagiotopoulos, I.; Dimitrakopoulos, G. An empirical investigation on consumers’ intentions towards autonomous driving. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2018, 95, 773–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piao, J.; McDonald, M.; Hounsell, N.; Graindorge, M.; Graindorge, T.; Malhene, N. Public Views towards Implementation of Automated Vehicles in Urban Areas. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 14, 2168–2177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liljamo, T.; Liimatainen, H.; Pöllänen, M. Attitudes and concerns on automated vehicles. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behavr. 2018, 59, 24–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haboucha, C.J.; Ishaq, R.; Shiftan, Y. User preferences regarding autonomous vehicles. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2017, 78, 37–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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? Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol. 2017, 67, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bansal, P.; Kockelman, K.M.; Singh, A. Assessing public opinions of and interest in new vehicle technologies: An Austin perspective. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2016, 67, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becker, F.; Axhausen, K.W. Literature review on surveys investigating the acceptance of automated vehicles. Transportation 2017, 44, 1293–1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- 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. Transp. Res. A Policy 2016, 94, 374–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jing, P.; Huang, H.; Ran, B.; Zhan, F.; Shi, Y. Exploring the factors affecting mode choice intention of autonomous vehicle based on an extended theory of planned behavior—A case study in China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, T.; Tao, D.; Qu, X.; Zhang, X.; Lin, R.; Zhang, W. The roles of initial trust and perceived risk in public’s acceptance of automated vehicles. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2019, 98, 207–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zmud, J.; Sener, I.N.; Wagner, J. Consumer Acceptance and Travel Behavior Impacts of Automated Vehicles. Tex. A&M Transp. Inst. PRC 2016, 15–49. [Google Scholar]
- Yuen, K.F.; Wang, X.; Wong, Y.D.; Zhou, Q. Antecedents and outcomes of sustainable shipping practices: The integration of stakeholder and behavioural theories. Transp. Res. E Logist. 2017, 108, 18–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahman, M.M. Driver acceptance of advanced driver assistance systems and semi-autonomous driving systems. Master’s Thesis, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS, USA, August 2016; pp. 1–162. [Google Scholar]
- Rahman, M.M.; Lesch, M.F.; Horrey, W.J.; Strawderman, L. Assessing the utility of TAM, TPB, and UTAUT for advanced driver assistance systems. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017, 108, 108–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hung, S.Y.; Ku, Y.C.; Chien, J.C. Understanding physicians’ acceptance of the Medline system for practicing evidence-based medicine: A decomposed TPB model. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2012, 81, 130–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Booth, D.A.; Shepherd, R. Sensory influences on food acceptance—The neglected approach to nutrition promotion. Nutr. Bull. 1998, 13, 39–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, C.-Y.; Kao, Y.-S. UTAUT2 Based Predictions of Factors Influencing the Technology Acceptance of Phablets by DNP. Hindawi Publ. Corp. Math. Probl. Eng. 2015, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alalwan, A.A.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Rana, N.P. Factors influencing adoption of mobile banking by Jordanian bank customers: Extending UTAUT2 with trust. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2017, 37, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Thong, J.Y.L.; Xu, X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 2012, 36, 157–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warsha, P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 982–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey; National Technical Information Service: Springfield, VA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Milakis, D.; Van Arem, B.; Van Wee, B. Policy and society related implications of automated driving: A review of literature and directions for future research. J. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2017, 21, 324–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fagnant, D.J.; Kockelman, K.M. Dynamic ride-sharing and fleet sizing for a system of shared autonomous vehicles in Austin. Transportation 2018, 45, 143–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Limayem, M.; Hirt, S.G.; Cheung, C.M.K. How habit limits the predictive power of intention: The case of information systems continuance. MIS Q. 2007, 31, 705–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, S.S.; Malhotra, N.K.; Narasimhan, S. Research note—Two competing perspectives on automatic use: A theoretical and empirical comparison. Inf. Syst. Res. 2005, 16, 418–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moons, I.; De Pelsmacker, P. An extended decomposed theory of planned behaviour to predict the usage intention of the electric car: A multi-group comparison. Sustainability 2015, 7, 6212–6245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zeithaml, V.A. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value—A means- end model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 1988, 52, 2–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Power, J.D. Automotive Emerging Technologies Study Results. Available online: http://www.jdpower.com/sites/default/files/2014057_US%20_Auto_ET.pdf (accessed on 28 July 2015).
- Bay, A.J.T.S. Innovation Adoption in Robotics Consumer Intentions to Use Autonomous Vehicles. Master’s Thesis, Norwegian School of Economics, Bergen, Norway, 2016; pp. 1–119. [Google Scholar]
- Hsieh, P.J. Physicians’ acceptance of electronic medical records exchange: An extension of the decomposed TPB model with institutional trust and perceived risk. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2015, 84, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Taylor, S.; Todd, P. Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory of planned behavior—A study of consumer adoption intentions. Int. J. Res. Mark. 1995, 12, 137–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shih, Y.Y.; Fang, K. The use of a decomposed theory of planned behavior to study Internet banking in Taiwan. Int. Res. 2004, 14, 213–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Payre, W.; Cestac, J.; Delhomme, P. Intention to use a fully automated car: Attitudes and a priori acceptability. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2014, 27, 252–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Petschnig, M.; Heidenreich, S.; Spieth, P. Innovative alternatives take action—Investigating determinants of alternative fuel vehicle adoption. Transp. Res. A Policy 2014, 61, 68–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Morri, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shaw, N.; Sergueeva, K. The non-monetary benefits of mobile commerce: Extending UTAUT2 with perceived value. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 45, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nasri, W.; Charfeddine, L. Factors affecting the adoption of Internet banking in Tunisia: An integration theory of acceptance model and theory of planned behavior. J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 2012, 23, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acheampong, R.A.; Cugurullo, F. Capturing the behavioural determinants behind the adoption of autonomous vehicles: Conceptual frameworks and measurement models to predict public transport, sharing and ownership trends of self-driving cars. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2019, 62, 349–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Indrawati and Putri, D.A. Analyzing Factors Influencing Continuance Intention of E-Payment Adoption Using Modified UTAUT 2 Model. Presented at International Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICoICT), Bandung, Indonesia, 3–4 May 2018; 2018; pp. 167–173. [Google Scholar]
- Madigan, R.; Louw, T.; Wilbrink, 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. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2017, 50, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, H. Travelers’ pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging context: Converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory of planned behavior. Tour. Manag. 2015, 47, 164–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, J.K.; Ji, Y.G. Investigating the importance of trust on adopting an autonomous vehicle. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2015, 31, 692–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuen, K.F.; Wang, X.; Wong, Y.D.; Zhou, Q. The effect of sustainable shipping practices on shippers’ loyalty: The mediating role of perceived value, trust and transaction cost. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2018, 116, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, L.t.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 1991, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joseph, F.; Hair, J.; Hair, J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson New Internatioanal Edition; Pearson Education Limited: Harlow, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Truong, Y.; McColl, R. Intrinsic motivations, self-esteem, and luxury goods consumption. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2011, 18, 555–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Yuen, K.F.; Thai, V.V. Corporate social responsibility and service quality provision in shipping firms: Financial synergies or trade-offs? Marit. Policy Manag. 2017, 44, 131–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuen, K.F.; Wang, X.; Ma, F.; Lee, G.; Li, X. Critical success factors of supply chain integration in container shipping: An application of resource-based view theory. Marit. Policy Manag. 2019, 46, 653–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuen, K.F.; Wong, Y.D.; Ma, F.; Wang, X. The determinants of public acceptance of autonomous vehicles: An innovation diffusion perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 121904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Theory Characteristics | Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) | Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2) |
---|---|---|
Paradigm | Psychology | Psychology and Behavioural Economics |
Basic Assumption | The adoption of an innovative product can be affected by attitudes, control and norms | The adoption of an innovative product can be affected by dimensions relating to expectations, values, habits and enjoyment |
Representative Constructs | Attitudes; subjective norms; perceived behavioural control | Performance expectation; effort expectation; habit; price value; hedonic motivation; social influence*; facilitating conditions |
Model Contribution | This theory can explain how attitudinal, normative and control belief components affect the adoption of SAVs | This theory can explain how the representative constructs facilitate the formation of positive attitudes towards SAV adoption |
Constructs | Response Anchors and Measures | Adapted Sources |
---|---|---|
Performance Expectation (PE) | Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (5) | [44,45] |
PE1. SAVs would enable me to save time | ||
PE2. SAVs will reduce traffic congestion | ||
PE3. SAVs will reduce emissions | ||
PE4. Overall, SAVs is useful and advantageous | ||
Effort Expectation (EP) | Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (5) | [44] |
EE1. Interacting with SAVs does not require a lot of mental effort | ||
EE2. It will be easy for me to travel in a SAV | ||
Habit (HT) | Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (5) | [46] |
HT1. Using SAVs would become a habit for me | ||
HT2. Using SAVs would be something I do without thinking | ||
HT3. Using SAVs would be a part of my daily routine | ||
HT4. I would be addicted to using SAVs | ||
Price Value (PV) | Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (5) | [46] |
PV1. I could save money by using SAVs | ||
PV2. I would like to search for cheap deals in SAV services | ||
PV3. SAVs would offer better value for money | ||
PV4. SAVs would offer valuable promotions for me | ||
Facilitating Conditions (FC) | Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (5) | [44,47] |
FC1. The Vietnam government is active in setting up facilities to enable SAV commerce. | ||
FC2. Advances in technology will enable safer SAVs | ||
FC3. SAVs would be compatible with other forms of transport I use | ||
FC4. I would be able to get help from others when I have difficulties using SAVs | ||
Hedonic Motivation (HM) | Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (5) | [47] |
HM1. Using SAVs would be fun | ||
HM2. Using SAVs would be enjoyable | ||
HM3. Using SAVs would be pleasant | ||
Attitude (AT) | Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (5) | [45] |
AT1. I am excited about the possibilities offered by new technologies | ||
AT2. I think advancements in technology is generally a positive thing | ||
Subjective Norm (SN) | Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (5) | [45] |
SN1. I will travel in a SAV if my friends does the same | ||
SN2. I will travel in a SAV if my family does the same | ||
SN3. I will travel in a SAV if my significant references do the same | ||
SN4. SAVs will be the norm on our roads in the future | ||
Perceived Behaviour Control (PVC) | Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (5) | [19,48] |
PVC1: I would have the necessary resources, time and opportunities to use SAVs | ||
PVC2: I would have the necessary knowledge to use SAVs | ||
PVC3: Whether or not I use SAVs when traveling is completely up to me | ||
Intention to Use SAVs (ITU) | Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (5) | [49] |
ITU1: I would consider using SAVs when they are available in the market | ||
ITU2: I would recommend SAVs to my family and peers | ||
ITU3: I would encourage others to use SAVs |
Characteristics | Indicators | Frequency (n = 268) | Proportion (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 126 | 47 |
Female | 134 | 53 | |
Age (years) | <18 | 52 | 19.4 |
18–35 | 94 | 35.1 | |
36–45 | 67 | 25 | |
>45 | 55 | 20.5 | |
Driving Experience | <1 year | 57 | 21.1 |
1–5 years | 63 | 24 | |
6–10 years | 59 | 21.9 | |
>10 years | 89 | 33 | |
Monthly Income (million VND) (1 USD = 23,500 VND) | <6 (<$255) | 69 | 25.6 |
6–12 ($255–$510) | 91 | 34.4 | |
13–20 ($510–$850) | 74 | 27.4 | |
>20 (>$850) | 34 | 12.6 |
Constructs | Indicator | λ | AVE | CR |
---|---|---|---|---|
Performance Expectation (PE) | PE1 | 0.70 | 0.54 | 0.82 |
PE2 | 0.75 | |||
PE3 | 0.73 | |||
PE4 | 0.76 | |||
Effort Expectation (EE) | EE1 | 0.59 | 0.57 | 0.72 |
EE2 | 0.89 | |||
Habit (HT) | HT1 | 0.84 | 0.74 | 0.92 |
HT2 | 0.90 | |||
HT3 | 0.90 | |||
HT4 | 0.79 | |||
Price Value (PV) | PV1 | 0.76 | 0.69 | 0.90 |
PV2 | 0.84 | |||
PV3 | 0.84 | |||
PV4 | 0.85 | |||
Hedonic Motivation (HM) | HM1 | 0.83 | 0.76 | 0.90 |
HM2 | 0.88 | |||
HM3 | 0.89 | |||
Facilitating Conditions (FC) | FC1 | 0.79 | 0.57 | 0.84 |
FC2 | 0.74 | |||
FC3 | 0.72 | |||
FC4 | 0.78 | |||
Attitude (AT) | AT1 | 0.83 | 0.69 | 0.82 |
AT2 | 0.83 | |||
Subjective Norm (SN) | SN1 | 0.94 | 0.70 | 0.90 |
SN2 | 0.94 | |||
SN3 | 0.81 | |||
SN4 | 0.6 | |||
Perceived Behavioural Control (PVC) | PVC1 | 0.83 | 0.54 | 0.81 |
PVC2 | 0.82 | |||
PVC3 | 0.51 | |||
Intention to Use SAVs (ITU) | ITU1 | 0.57 | 0.60 | 0.77 |
ITU2 | 0.88 | |||
ITU3 | 0.84 |
PE | EE | HT | PV | HM | FC | AT | SN | PVC | ITU | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PE | 0.54 a | 0.34 c | 0.28 | 0.25 | 0.31 | 0.34 | 0.21 | 0.08 | 0.22 | 0.27 |
EE | 0.58 b | 0.57 | 0.37 | 0.22 | 0.31 | 0.37 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.35 | 0.28 |
HT | 0.53 | 0.61 | 0.74 | 0.36 | 0.35 | 0.36 | 0.13 | 0.14 | 0.32 | 0.30 |
PV | 0.50 | 0.47 | 0.60 | 0.69 | 0.38 | 0.44 | 0.23 | 0.17 | 0.38 | 0.37 |
HM | 0.56 | 0.56 | 0.59 | 0.62 | 0.76 | 0.49 | 0.28 | 0.18 | 0.44 | 0.44 |
FC | 0.58 | 0.61 | 0.60 | 0.66 | 0.70 | 0.57 | 0.31 | 0.23 | 0.40 | 0.42 |
AT | 0.46 | 0.37 | 0.36 | 0.48 | 0.53 | 0.56 | 0.69 | 0.06 | 0.28 | 0.31 |
SN | 0.28 | 0.38 | 0.37 | 0.41 | 0.43 | 0.48 | 0.25 | 0.70 | 0.24 | 0.23 |
PVC | 0.47 | 0.59 | 0.57 | 0.62 | 0.66 | 0.63 | 0.53 | 0.49 | 0.54 | 0.52 |
ITU | 0.52 | 0.53 | 0.55 | 0.61 | 0.66 | 0.65 | 0.56 | 0.48 | 0.72 | 0.60 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yuen, K.F.; Huyen, D.T.K.; Wang, X.; Qi, G. Factors Influencing the Adoption of Shared Autonomous Vehicles. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4868. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17134868
Yuen KF, Huyen DTK, Wang X, Qi G. Factors Influencing the Adoption of Shared Autonomous Vehicles. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(13):4868. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17134868
Chicago/Turabian StyleYuen, Kum Fai, Do Thi Khanh Huyen, Xueqin Wang, and Guanqiu Qi. 2020. "Factors Influencing the Adoption of Shared Autonomous Vehicles" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 13: 4868. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17134868