IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v98y2020icp105-115.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk perception and social acceptability of autonomous vehicles: A case study in Hiroshima, Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Chikaraishi, Makoto
  • Khan, Diana
  • Yasuda, Banri
  • Fujiwara, Akimasa

Abstract

Given the impending introduction of self-driving cars to Japan within the next several years, gaining a better understanding of public opinion and risk perception of autonomous vehicles (AVs) is crucial. Though AVs have numerous potential social and economic benefits, including reduced travel time and environmental impacts, their implementation will depend on public acceptance. This study expanded on existing work by directly examining which aspects of AV use and function most affect risk perception. Participants were shown short animated video clips depicting the introduction of AVs into society at large, as well as three specific possible risk factors: system error, external interference with car controls (i.e., hacking), and the inability of the car to cope with unexpected events. Participants were then surveyed about their attitudes toward AVs and other potentially risky activities and technologies. The study established that the perceived advantages of all AV types (cars and buses, different automation levels) outweighed their perceived risks. Consistent with prior research, the two major aspects of perceived risk were dread and unfamiliarity. The results showed compared with other technologies, AV scores were neutral for dread risk but higher for unfamiliarity risk. The finding of high unfamiliarity indicates that public acceptance and perceived risks are likely to change as the public's knowledge increases. We also found that receiving information about a potential system error indirectly reduced AV acceptability, where dread and unfamiliarity to the AV risks served as mediators. The results suggest that proper management on the diffusion of information, which includes public information campaigns, test-ride events and transparency about safety options, will likely influence the ultimate social acceptability of AVs and will be crucial towards its successful introduction on the market.

Suggested Citation

  • Chikaraishi, Makoto & Khan, Diana & Yasuda, Banri & Fujiwara, Akimasa, 2020. "Risk perception and social acceptability of autonomous vehicles: A case study in Hiroshima, Japan," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 105-115.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:98:y:2020:i:c:p:105-115
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.05.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X20303589
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.05.014?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Greenblatt, Jeffery & Shaheen, Susan PhD, 2015. "Automated Vehicles, On-Demand Mobility and Environmental Impacts," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt23r1h80t, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    2. Peng Liu & Run Yang & Zhigang Xu, 2019. "How Safe Is Safe Enough for Self‐Driving Vehicles?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 315-325, February.
    3. repec:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2016.303628_6 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Xu, Xian & Fan, Chiang-Ku, 2019. "Autonomous vehicles, risk perceptions and insurance demand: An individual survey in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 549-556.
    5. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    6. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    7. Fagnant, Daniel J. & Kockelman, Kara, 2015. "Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 167-181.
    8. Reece A. Clothier & Dominique A. Greer & Duncan G. Greer & Amisha M. Mehta, 2015. "Risk Perception and the Public Acceptance of Drones," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(6), pages 1167-1183, June.
    9. Fleetwood, J., 2017. "Public health, ethics, and autonomous vehicles," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 107(4), pages 532-537.
    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. Dai, Jingchen & Wang, Xiaokun Cara & Ma, Wenxin & Li, Ruimin, 2023. "Future transport vision propensity segments: A latent class analysis of autonomous taxi market," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    2. Langford, Kieran & Kille, Tarryn & Lee, Seung-Yong & Zhang, Yahua & Bates, Paul R., 2022. "“In automation we trust” - Australian air traffic controller perspectives of increasing automation in air traffic management," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 352-362.
    3. Hussain, Qinaat & Alhajyaseen, Wael K.M. & Adnan, Muhammad & Almallah, Mustafa & Almukdad, Abdulkarim & Alqaradawi, Mohammed, 2021. "Autonomous vehicles between anticipation and apprehension: Investigations through safety and security perceptions," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 440-451.
    4. Wang, Song & Li, Zhixia & Wang, Yi & Wyatt, Daniel Aaron, 2024. "How effective is automated vehicle education? – A Kentucky case study revealing the dynamic nature of education effectiveness," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 140-157.
    5. Subodh Dubey & Ishant Sharma & Sabyasachee Mishra & Oded Cats & Prateek Bansal, 2021. "A General Framework to Forecast the Adoption of Novel Products: A Case of Autonomous Vehicles," Papers 2109.06169, arXiv.org.
    6. Dubey, Subodh & Sharma, Ishant & Mishra, Sabyasachee & Cats, Oded & Bansal, Prateek, 2022. "A General Framework to Forecast the Adoption of Novel Products: A Case of Autonomous Vehicles," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 63-95.
    7. Vendula Laciok & Katerina Sikorova & Bruno Fabiano & Ales Bernatik, 2021. "Trends and Opportunities of Tertiary Education in Safety Engineering Moving towards Safety 4.0," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, January.
    8. Nikitas, Alexandros & Parkinson, Simon & Vallati, Mauro, 2022. "The deceitful Connected and Autonomous Vehicle: Defining the concept, contextualising its dimensions and proposing mitigation policies," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 1-10.
    9. Namgung, Hyewon & Chikaraishi, Makoto & Fujiwara, Akimasa, 2023. "Influence of real and video-based experiences on stated acceptance of connected public transportation and autonomous vehicles in a transit mall: A hybrid choice modeling approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    10. Yi-Hui Christine Huang & Xiao Wang & Ivy Wai-Yin Fong & Qiudi Wu, 2021. "Examining the Role of Trust in Regulators in Food Safety Risk Assessment: A Cross-regional Analysis of Three Chinese Societies Using an Integrative Framework," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, November.
    11. Yan, Yingying & Zhong, Shiquan & Tian, Junfang & Li, Tong, 2022. "Continuance intention of autonomous buses: An empirical analysis based on passenger experience," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 85-95.

    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. Wang, Fei & Zhang, Zhentai & Lin, Shoufu, 2023. "Purchase intention of Autonomous vehicles and industrial Policies: Evidence from a national survey in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    2. Gurumurthy, Krishna Murthy & Kockelman, Kara M., 2020. "Modeling Americans’ autonomous vehicle preferences: A focus on dynamic ride-sharing, privacy & long-distance mode choices," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    3. Merfeld, Katrin & Wilhelms, Mark-Philipp & Henkel, Sven & Kreutzer, Karin, 2019. "Carsharing with shared autonomous vehicles: Uncovering drivers, barriers and future developments – A four-stage Delphi study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 66-81.
    4. Liu, Peng & Ma, Yanjiao & Zuo, Yaqing, 2019. "Self-driving vehicles: Are people willing to trade risks for environmental benefits?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 139-149.
    5. Pons-Prats, Jordi & Živojinović, Tanja & Kuljanin, Jovana, 2022. "On the understanding of the current status of urban air mobility development and its future prospects: Commuting in a flying vehicle as a new paradigm," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    6. Liu, Peng & Xu, Zhigang & Zhao, Xiangmo, 2019. "Road tests of self-driving vehicles: Affective and cognitive pathways in acceptance formation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 354-369.
    7. Martin Adler & Stefanie Peer & Tanja Sinozic, 2019. "Autonomous, Connected, Electric Shared vehicles (ACES) and public finance: an explorative analysis," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-005/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    8. Zhou, Fan & Zheng, Zuduo & Whitehead, Jake & Washington, Simon & Perrons, Robert K. & Page, Lionel, 2020. "Preference heterogeneity in mode choice for car-sharing and shared automated vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 633-650.
    9. 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).
    10. Yingying Sun & Ziqiang Han, 2018. "Climate Change Risk Perception in Taiwan: Correlation with Individual and Societal Factors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, January.
    11. Liu, Peng & Zhang, Yawen & He, Zhen, 2019. "The effect of population age on the acceptable safety of self-driving vehicles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 341-347.
    12. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    13. Guo, Yuntao & Souders, Dustin & Labi, Samuel & Peeta, Srinivas & Benedyk, Irina & Li, Yujie, 2021. "Paving the way for autonomous Vehicles: Understanding autonomous vehicle adoption and vehicle fuel choice under user heterogeneity," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 364-398.
    14. Manivasakan, Hesavar & Kalra, Riddhi & O'Hern, Steve & Fang, Yihai & Xi, Yinfei & Zheng, Nan, 2021. "Infrastructure requirement for autonomous vehicle integration for future urban and suburban roads – Current practice and a case study of Melbourne, Australia," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 36-53.
    15. Regina Schoell & Claudia R. Binder, 2009. "System Perspectives of Experts and Farmers Regarding the Role of Livelihood Assets in Risk Perception: Results from the Structured Mental Model Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 205-222, February.
    16. Marion de Vries & Liesbeth Claassen & Marcel Mennen & Aura Timen & Margreet J. M. te Wierik & Danielle R. M. Timmermans, 2019. "Public Perceptions of Contentious Risk: The Case of Rubber Granulate in the Netherlands," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-16, June.
    17. Tang, Zhe-Yi & Tian, Li-Jun & Wang, David Z.W., 2021. "Multi-modal morning commute with endogenous shared autonomous vehicle penetration considering parking space constraint," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    18. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    19. Pan, Yuchen & Wu, Yu & Xu, Lu & Xia, Chengyi & Olson, David L., 2024. "The impacts of connected autonomous vehicles on mixed traffic flow: A comprehensive review," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 635(C).
    20. Rianne van Duinen & Tatiana Filatova & Peter Geurts & Anne van der Veen, 2015. "Empirical Analysis of Farmers' Drought Risk Perception: Objective Factors, Personal Circumstances, and Social Influence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 741-755, April.

    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:eee:trapol:v:98:y:2020:i:c:p:105-115. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description .

    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.