IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i5p2787-d759935.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attention Pedestrians Ahead: Evaluating User Acceptance and Perceptions of a Cooperative Intelligent Transportation System-Warning System for Pedestrians

Author

Listed:
  • Yanghanzi Zhang

    (School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Cassie Building, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK)

  • Shuo Li

    (School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Cassie Building, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK)

  • Philip Blythe

    (School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Cassie Building, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK)

  • Simon Edwards

    (School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Cassie Building, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK)

  • Weihong Guo

    (School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Cassie Building, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK)

  • Yanjie Ji

    (Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Urban ITS, Jiangsu Province Collaborative Innovation Centre of Modern Urban Traffic Technologies, School of Transportation, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China)

  • Jin Xing

    (School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Cassie Building, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK)

  • Paul Goodman

    (School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Cassie Building, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK)

  • Graeme Hill

    (School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Cassie Building, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK)

Abstract

Warning system for pedestrians (WSP), one of cooperative intelligent transport system (C-ITS) applications, is designed to increase safety for pedestrians but also for drivers and other road users. The evaluation of end-user acceptance and perceptions of this technology is crucial before deploying it in transportation systems. Five WSP human–machine interfaces (HMIs) were designed and simulated using a driver’s first-view video footage of driving through a pedestrian crossing in Newcastle upon Tyne. The five WSP designs were evaluated with 24 younger end users (35 years old and younger). This study first evaluated the usefulness of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) in modelling end-user acceptance in terms of behavioural intentions to use WSP. The results suggest that the UTAUT can be applied to investigate the end-user acceptance of WSP, with performance expectancy and effort expectancy influencing the behavioural intentions to use WSP. Furthermore, we investigated end-user attitudes towards various WSP human–machine interface (HMI) designs. Participants showed more positive attitudes towards visual-only interfaces than towards audio-only and multi-modal (combinations of visual and audio) interfaces. Above all, the findings of this research increase our understanding of public acceptance and perceptions of this C-ITS application.

Suggested Citation

  • Yanghanzi Zhang & Shuo Li & Philip Blythe & Simon Edwards & Weihong Guo & Yanjie Ji & Jin Xing & Paul Goodman & Graeme Hill, 2022. "Attention Pedestrians Ahead: Evaluating User Acceptance and Perceptions of a Cooperative Intelligent Transportation System-Warning System for Pedestrians," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-13, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:5:p:2787-:d:759935
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/2787/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/2787/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edwards, S. & Hill, G. & Goodman, P. & Blythe, P. & Mitchell, P. & Huebner, Y., 2018. "Quantifying the impact of a real world cooperative-ITS deployment across multiple cities," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 102-113.
    2. Vaezipour, Atiyeh & Rakotonirainy, Andry & Haworth, Narelle & Delhomme, Patricia, 2017. "Enhancing eco-safe driving behaviour through the use of in-vehicle human-machine interface: A qualitative study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 247-263.
    3. Shuo Li & Phil Blythe & Weihong Guo & Anil Namdeo, 2019. "Investigating the effects of age and disengagement in driving on driver’s takeover control performance in highly automated vehicles," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(5), pages 470-497, July.
    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. Junhee Kang & Sehyun Tak & Sungjin Park, 2023. "Analyzing the Impact of C-ITS Services on Driving Behavior: A Case Study of the Daejeon–Sejong C-ITS Pilot Project in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-21, August.

    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. Leviäkangas, Pekka & Öörni, Risto, 2020. "From business models to value networks and business ecosystems – What does it mean for the economics and governance of the transport system?," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    2. Saeed Nosratabadi & Amir Mosavi & Shahaboddin Shamshirband & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Andry Rakotonirainy & Kwok Wing Chau, 2019. "Sustainable Business Models: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-30, March.
    3. Sikai Chen & Shuya Zong & Tiantian Chen & Zilin Huang & Yanshen Chen & Samuel Labi, 2023. "A Taxonomy for Autonomous Vehicles Considering Ambient Road Infrastructure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-27, July.
    4. Naweed, Anjum & Chapman, Janine & Trigg, Joshua, 2018. "“Tell them what they want to hear and get back to work”: Insights into the utility of current occupational health assessments from the perspectives of train drivers," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 234-244.
    5. Xin Chang & Xingjian Zhang & Haichao Li & Chang Wang & Zhe Liu, 2022. "A Survey on Mixed Traffic Flow Characteristics in Connected Vehicle Environments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-22, June.
    6. Nosratabadi, Saeed & Mosavi, Amir & Shamshirband, Shahaboddin & Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras & Rakotonirainy, Andry & Chau, Kwok Wing, 2020. "Sustainable Business Models: A Review," OSF Preprints u4xw3, Center for Open Science.
    7. Oviedo-Trespalacios, Oscar, 2018. "Getting away with texting: Behavioural adaptation of drivers engaging in visual-manual tasks while driving," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 112-121.
    8. Douglas Mitieka & Rose Luke & Hossana Twinomurinzi & Joash Mageto, 2023. "Smart Mobility in Urban Areas: A Bibliometric Review and Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-23, April.
    9. Junhee Kang & Sehyun Tak & Sungjin Park, 2023. "Analyzing the Impact of C-ITS Services on Driving Behavior: A Case Study of the Daejeon–Sejong C-ITS Pilot Project in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-21, August.
    10. Nosratabadi, Saeed & Mosavi, Amir & Shamshirband, Shahaboddin & Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras & Rakotonirainy, Andry & Chau, Kwok Wing, 2020. "Sustainable Business Models: A Review," OSF Preprints ts54m, Center for Open Science.
    11. Mariano Gallo & Mario Marinelli, 2020. "Sustainable Mobility: A Review of Possible Actions and Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-39, September.
    12. Zhiyuan Yu & Doudou Jin, 2021. "Determinants of Users’ Attitude and Intention to Intelligent Connected Vehicle Infotainment in the 5G-V2X Mobile Ecosystem," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-19, September.
    13. Vaezipour, Atiyeh & Rakotonirainy, Andry & Haworth, Narelle & Delhomme, Patricia, 2018. "A simulator evaluation of in-vehicle human machine interfaces for eco-safe driving," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 696-713.
    14. Jurijus Zaranka & Robertas Pečeliūnas & Vidas Žuraulis, 2021. "A Road Safety-Based Selection Methodology for Professional Drivers: Behaviour and Accident Rate Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-18, November.

    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:14:y:2022:i:5:p:2787-:d:759935. 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.