IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2022i1p460-d1016890.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Moving toward a More Sustainable Autonomous Mobility, Case of Heterogeneity in Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Iman Farzin

    (Transportation Planning Department, Faculty of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran 14115-111, Iran)

  • Mohammadhossein Abbasi

    (Transportation Planning Department, Faculty of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran 14115-111, Iran)

  • Elżbieta Macioszek

    (Department of Transport Systems, Traffic Engineering and Logistics, Faculty of Transport and Aviation Engineering, Silesian University of Technology, Krasińskiego 8 Street, 40-019 Katowice, Poland)

  • Amir Reza Mamdoohi

    (Transportation Planning Department, Faculty of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran 14115-111, Iran)

  • Francesco Ciari

    (Department of Civil, Geological and Mining Engineering, Polytechnique Montréal University, Montreal, QC H3T 1J4, Canada)

Abstract

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) have a number of potential advantages, although some research indicates that this technology may increase dependence on private cars. An alternative approach to bringing such technology to market is through autonomous taxis (ATs) and buses, which can assist in making transportation more sustainable. This paper aims at examining the role of attitudinal, travel-related, and individual factors in preferences for a modal shift from conventional cars toward ATs and exclusive-lane autonomous buses (ELABs), exploring the existence of heterogeneity and its possible sources. The proposed mixed logit model with a decomposition of random coefficients uses 1251 valid responses from a stated preference survey distributed in Tehran, in 2019. Results show that there is significant taste variation among individuals with respect to ATs’ travel costs, ELABs’ travel times, and walking distances to ELAB stations. Furthermore, exploring the sources of heterogeneity indicates that women are more sensitive to ATs’ travel costs and walking distances to ELAB stations while they are less sensitive to ELABs’ travel times. Moreover, travel time in discretionary activities reduces the utility of ELABs more than it does in mandatory activities. Transportation authorities can use these findings to establish more effective policies for the successful implementation of AVs.

Suggested Citation

  • Iman Farzin & Mohammadhossein Abbasi & Elżbieta Macioszek & Amir Reza Mamdoohi & Francesco Ciari, 2022. "Moving toward a More Sustainable Autonomous Mobility, Case of Heterogeneity in Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2022:i:1:p:460-:d:1016890
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/1/460/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/1/460/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Chesher & J. M. C. Santos Silva, 2002. "Taste Variation in Discrete Choice Models," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 69(1), pages 147-168.
    2. Kulviwat, Songpol & Bruner II, Gordon C. & Al-Shuridah, Obaid, 2009. "The role of social influence on adoption of high tech innovations: The moderating effect of public/private consumption," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(7), pages 706-712, July.
    3. Fanchao Liao & Eric Molin & Harry Timmermans & Bert van Wee, 2020. "Carsharing: the impact of system characteristics on its potential to replace private car trips and reduce car ownership," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 935-970, April.
    4. 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.
    5. Herminghaus, Stephan, 2019. "Mean field theory of demand responsive ride pooling systems," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 15-28.
    6. Thomas Leicht & Anis Chtourou & Kamel Ben Youssef, 2018. "Consumer innovativeness and intentioned autonomous car adoption," Post-Print hal-02511554, HAL.
    7. Hohenberger, Christoph & Spörrle, Matthias & Welpe, Isabell M., 2016. "How and why do men and women differ in their willingness to use automated cars? The influence of emotions across different age groups," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 374-385.
    8. Dahlberg, Matz & Eklöf, Matias, 2003. "Relaxing the IIA Assumption in Locational Choice Models: A Comparison Between Conditional Logit, Mixed Logit, and Multinomial Probit Models," Working Paper Series 2003:9, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
    9. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923.
    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. 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. Foroughi, Behzad & Nhan, Pham Viet & Iranmanesh, Mohammad & Ghobakhloo, Morteza & Nilashi, Mehrbakhsh & Yadegaridehkordi, Elaheh, 2023. "Determinants of intention to use autonomous vehicles: Findings from PLS-SEM and ANFIS," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    3. Kapser, Sebastian & Abdelrahman, Mahmoud & Bernecker, Tobias, 2021. "Autonomous delivery vehicles to fight the spread of Covid-19 – How do men and women differ in their acceptance?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 183-198.
    4. Xiaobei Jiang & Wenlin Yu & Wenjie Li & Jiawen Guo & Xizheng Chen & Hongwei Guo & Wuhong Wang & Tao Chen, 2021. "Factors Affecting the Acceptance and Willingness-to-Pay of End-Users: A Survey Analysis on Automated Vehicles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-12, November.
    5. Darja Topolšek & Dario Babić & Darko Babić & Tina Cvahte Ojsteršek, 2020. "Factors Influencing the Purchase Intention of Autonomous Cars," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Kenichiro Chinen & Yang Sun & Mitsutaka Matsumoto & Yoon-Young Chun, 2020. "Towards a Sustainable Society through Emerging Mobility Services: A Case of Autonomous Buses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-20, November.
    7. Manon Feys & Evy Rombaut & Lieselot Vanhaverbeke, 2021. "Does a Test Ride Influence Attitude towards Autonomous Vehicles? A Field Experiment with Pretest and Posttest Measurement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-20, May.
    8. 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.
    9. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    12. Esmeralda Ramalho, 2004. "Covariate Measurement Error in Endogenous Stratified Samples," Economics Working Papers 2_2004, University of Évora, Department of Economics (Portugal).
    13. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    14. Qian, Lixian & Grisolía, Jose M. & Soopramanien, Didier, 2019. "The impact of service and government-policy attributes on consumer preferences for electric vehicles in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 70-84.
    15. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    16. Feucht, Yvonne & Zander, Katrin, 2017. "Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Climate-Friendly Food in European Countries," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276930, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    17. Yavas, Volkan & Yavaş Tez, Özge, 2023. "Consumer intention over upcoming utopia: Urban air mobility," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    18. Frick, Bernd & Barros, Carlos Pestana & Prinz, Joachim, 2010. "Analysing head coach dismissals in the German "Bundesliga" with a mixed logit approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 151-159, January.
    19. Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Bas Donkers & Jorien Veldwijk & Marcel F. Jonker & Sylvia Buis & Jan Huisman & Patrick Bindels, 2021. "What Factors Influence Non-Participation Most in Colorectal Cancer Screening? A Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(2), pages 269-281, March.
    20. Chesher, Andrew, 2017. "Understanding the effect of measurement error on quantile regressions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 200(2), pages 223-237.

    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:15:y:2022:i:1:p:460-:d:1016890. 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.