What influences the decision to use automated public transport? Using UTAUT to understand public acceptance of automated road transport systems

The main aim of this study was to use an adapted version of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) to investigate the factors that influence users’ acceptance of automated road transport systems (ARTS). A questionnaire survey was administered to 315 users of a CityMobil2 ARTS demonstration in the city of Trikala, Greece. Results provide evidence of the usefulness of the UTAUT framework for increasing our understanding of how public acceptance of these automated vehicles might be maximised. Hedonic Motivation, or users’ enjoyment of the system, had a strong impact on Behavioural Intentions to use ARTS in the future, with Performance Expectancy, Social Influence and Facilitating Conditions also having significant effects. The anticipated effect of Effort Expectancy did not emerge from this study, suggesting that the level of effort required is unlikely to be a critical factor in consumers’ decisions about using ARTS. Based on these results, a number of modifications to UTAUT are suggested for future applications in the context of automated transport. It is recommended that designers and developers should consider the above issues when implementing more permanent versions of automated public transport.

[1]  J. Zmud,et al.  Consumer acceptance and travel behavior : impacts of automated vehicles : final report. , 2016 .

[2]  Riender Happee,et al.  Conceptual Model to Explain, Predict, and Improve User Acceptance of Driverless Podlike Vehicles , 2016 .

[3]  Hans van der Heijden,et al.  User Acceptance of Hedonic Information Systems , 2004, MIS Q..

[4]  Seongcheol Kim,et al.  Driver's intention to use smartphone-car connectivity , 2013 .

[5]  J. Schade,et al.  Acceptability of urban transport pricing strategies , 2003 .

[6]  Linda Ng Boyle,et al.  Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to assess automation , 2011, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[7]  Natasha Merat,et al.  Acceptance of Automated Road Transport Systems (ARTS): An adaptation of the UTAUT model , 2016 .

[8]  Riender Happee,et al.  Public opinion on automated driving: results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents , 2015 .

[9]  Tao Zhou,et al.  Integrating TTF and UTAUT to explain mobile banking user adoption , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[10]  Eunil Park,et al.  Driver acceptance of car navigation systems: integration of locational accuracy, processing speed, and service and display quality with technology acceptance model , 2013, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[11]  Michael Sivak,et al.  A Survey of Public Opinion about Autonomous and Self-Driving Vehicles in the U.S., the U.K., and Australia , 2014 .

[12]  Ying-Feng Kuo,et al.  Towards an understanding of the behavioral intention to use 3G mobile value-added services , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[13]  Icek Ajzen,et al.  From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior , 1985 .

[14]  John D. Lee,et al.  Warn me now or inform me later: Drivers' acceptance of real-time and post-drive distraction mitigation systems , 2012, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[15]  Manfred Tscheligi,et al.  Acceptance of future persuasive in-car interfaces towards a more economic driving behaviour , 2009, AutomotiveUI.

[16]  S. West,et al.  Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. , 1994 .

[17]  Manfred Tscheligi,et al.  Predicting information technology usage in the car: towards a car technology acceptance model , 2012, AutomotiveUI.

[18]  Jason W. Osborne,et al.  Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. , 2005 .

[19]  Ching-Fu Chen,et al.  Habitual or reasoned? Using the theory of planned behavior, technology acceptance model, and habit to examine switching intentions toward public transit , 2011 .

[20]  Arne Höltl,et al.  Driver Assistance Systems for Transport System Efficiency: Influencing Factors on User Acceptance , 2013, J. Intell. Transp. Syst..

[21]  Riender Happee,et al.  A Conceptual Model to Explain, Predict, and Improve User Acceptance of Driverless Vehicles , 2016 .

[22]  Yan Xu,et al.  Examining user acceptance of SMS: An empirical study in China and Hong Kong , 2008, PACIS.

[23]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[24]  P. D. Site,et al.  Users' preferences towards innovative and conventional public transport , 2011 .

[25]  Luca Persia,et al.  Automated Vehicles and the Rethinking of Mobility and Cities , 2015 .

[26]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology , 2012, MIS Q..

[27]  Maxime Flament,et al.  Safe Integration of Fully Automated Road Transport Systems in Urban Environments , 2015 .

[28]  L. Steg,et al.  Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm , 2010 .

[29]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[30]  Andy P. Field,et al.  Discovering Statistics Using Ibm Spss Statistics , 2017 .

[31]  David González,et al.  Description and technical specifications of cybernetic transportation systems: an urban transportation concept , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Vehicular Electronics and Safety (ICVES).

[32]  Christer Carlsson,et al.  Adoption of Mobile Devices/Services — Searching for Answers with the UTAUT , 2006, Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'06).

[33]  Natasha Merat,et al.  Communication Between VRUs and Fully Automated Road Transport Systems: What's important? , 2016 .