IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i19p12798-d935758.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Interrelationship between Road Pricing Acceptability and Self-Driving Vehicle Adoption: Insights from Four Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Mohamad Shatanawi

    (Department of Transport Technology and Economics, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Műegyetem rkp. 3, 1111 Budapest, Hungary)

  • Mohammed Hajouj

    (Department of Transport Technology and Economics, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Műegyetem rkp. 3, 1111 Budapest, Hungary)

  • Belal Edries

    (Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, 2 Dublin, Ireland)

  • Ferenc Mészáros

    (Department of Transport Technology and Economics, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Műegyetem rkp. 3, 1111 Budapest, Hungary)

Abstract

Driverless vehicles (i.e., autonomous and shared autonomous vehicles) are associated with many advantages for the transportation market. However, they may also increase the traveled miles on roads due to improved accessibility, thus aggravating congestion. Road pricing (RP) is a possible solution for mitigating traffic-related problems like congestion. Despite its benefits, RP is usually resented by the public, which may hinder its introduction. This study investigates the factors that may influence RP acceptability in the era of driverless vehicles and driverless vehicle adoption in the presence of RP. For this purpose, a survey was distributed in Hungary, Jordan, Ukraine, and Brazil. The study applied factor analysis, multiple linear regression, and multinomial logit modeling to examine RP acceptability and driverless vehicle adoption. All examined factors have a significant impact on mode choice. For instance, respondents willing to share their trips with others due to the application of RP, opted for shared autonomous vehicles, while those who enjoy driving were less likely to choose autonomous vehicles. In terms of RP acceptability, the respondents who were environmentally conscious in their trip planning showed more acceptance of RP. This study shows the significant impacts of the investigated factors on RP acceptability and driverless vehicle adoption.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohamad Shatanawi & Mohammed Hajouj & Belal Edries & Ferenc Mészáros, 2022. "The Interrelationship between Road Pricing Acceptability and Self-Driving Vehicle Adoption: Insights from Four Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-32, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:19:p:12798-:d:935758
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12798/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12798/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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).
    2. Ubbels, Barry & Verhoef, Erik, 2006. "Acceptability of road pricing and revenue use in the Netherlands," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 32, pages 69-94.
    3. Kottenhoff, Karl & Brundell Freij, Karin, 2009. "The role of public transport for feasibility and acceptability of congestion charging - The case of Stockholm," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 297-305, March.
    4. Thomas Leicht & Anis Chtourou & Kamel Ben Youssef, 2018. "Consumer innovativeness and intentioned autonomous car adoption," Post-Print hal-02511554, HAL.
    5. André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), 2011. "A Handbook of Transport Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 12679.
    6. Yap, Menno D. & Correia, Gonçalo & van Arem, Bart, 2016. "Preferences of travellers for using automated vehicles as last mile public transport of multimodal train trips," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 1-16.
    7. Mohamad Shatanawi & Fatma Abdelkhalek & Ferenc Mészáros, 2020. "Urban Congestion Charging Acceptability: An International Comparative Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-15, June.
    8. André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Robert Vickerman, 2011. "Handbook Of Transport Economics," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-00754912, HAL.
    9. Bureau, Benjamin & Glachant, Matthieu, 2008. "Distributional effects of road pricing: Assessment of nine scenarios for Paris," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 42(7), pages 994-1007, August.
    10. Kocak, Nazan A. & Jones, Peter & Whibley, David, 2005. "Tools for road user charging (RUC) scheme option generation," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 391-405, September.
    11. Small, Kenneth A., 1992. "Using the Revenues from Congestion Pricing," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt32p9m3mm, University of California Transportation Center.
    12. Di Ciommo, Floridea & Monzón, Andrés & Fernandez-Heredia, Alvaro, 2013. "Improving the analysis of road pricing acceptability surveys by using hybrid models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 302-316.
    13. Sonja Haustein, 2012. "Mobility behavior of the elderly: an attitude-based segmentation approach for a heterogeneous target group," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 1079-1103, November.
    14. Yitian Wang & Zixuan Peng & Keming Wang & Xiaolin Song & Baozhen Yao & Tao Feng, 2015. "Research on Urban Road Congestion Pricing Strategy Considering Carbon Dioxide Emissions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-20, August.
    15. Wadud, Zia & MacKenzie, Don & Leiby, Paul, 2016. "Help or hindrance? The travel, energy and carbon impacts of highly automated vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1-18.
    16. Yacan Wang & Yu Wang & Luyao Xie & Huiyu Zhou, 2018. "Impact of Perceived Uncertainty on Public Acceptability of Congestion Charging: An Empirical Study in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-21, December.
    17. van den Berg, Vincent A.C. & Verhoef, Erik T., 2016. "Autonomous cars and dynamic bottleneck congestion: The effects on capacity, value of time and preference heterogeneity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 43-60.
    18. Glavic, Drazenko & Milos, Mladenovic & Luttinen, Tapio & Cicevic, Svetlana & Trifunovic, Aleksandar, 2017. "Road to price: User perspectives on road pricing in transition country," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 79-94.
    19. S. Jaensirisak & M. Wardman & A. D. May, 2005. "Explaining Variations in Public Acceptability of Road Pricing Schemes," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 39(2), pages 127-154, May.
    20. Sebastian Bamberg & Daniel Rölle & Christoph Weber, 2003. "Does habitual car use not lead to more resistance to change of travel mode?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 97-108, February.
    21. Pettigrew, Simone & Cronin, Sophie L., 2019. "Stakeholder views on the social issues relating to the introduction of autonomous vehicles," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 64-67.
    22. Vonk Noordegraaf, Diana & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2014. "Policy implementation lessons from six road pricing cases," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 172-191.
    23. Luo, Qi & Saigal, Romesh & Chen, Zhibin & Yin, Yafeng, 2019. "Accelerating the adoption of automated vehicles by subsidies: A dynamic games approach," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 226-243.
    24. Perrine, Kenneth A. & Kockelman, Kara M. & Huang, Yantao, 2020. "Anticipating long-distance travel shifts due to self-driving vehicles," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    25. Winslott-Hiselius, Lena & Brundell-Freij, Karin & Vagland, Asa & Byström, Camilla, 2009. "The development of public attitudes towards the Stockholm congestion trial," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 269-282, March.
    26. Hensher, David A. & Li, Zheng, 2013. "Referendum voting in road pricing reform: A review of the evidence," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 186-197.
    27. Dieplinger, Maria & Fürst, Elmar, 2014. "The acceptability of road pricing: Evidence from two studies in Vienna and four other European cities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 10-18.
    28. Lavieri, Patrícia S. & Bhat, Chandra R., 2019. "Modeling individuals’ willingness to share trips with strangers in an autonomous vehicle future," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 242-261.
    29. Schade, Jens & Schlag, Bernhard, 2000. "Acceptability of Urban Transport Pricing," Research Reports 72, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    30. Huang, Yantao & Kockelman, Kara M. & Quarles, Neil, 2020. "How will self-driving vehicles affect U.S. megaregion traffic? The case of the Texas Triangle," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    31. Omid M. Rouhani, 2016. "Next Generations of Road Pricing: Social Welfare Enhancing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-15, March.
    32. Chen, T. Donna & Kockelman, Kara M. & Hanna, Josiah P., 2016. "Operations of a shared, autonomous, electric vehicle fleet: Implications of vehicle & charging infrastructure decisions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 243-254.
    33. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    34. Ryley, Tim & Gjersoe, Nathalia, 2006. "Newspaper response to the Edinburgh congestion charging proposals," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 66-73, January.
    35. Mohamad Shatanawi & Ferenc Mészáros, 2022. "Implications of the Emergence of Autonomous Vehicles and Shared Autonomous Vehicles: A Budapest Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-19, September.
    36. Bansal, Prateek & Kockelman, Kara M., 2017. "Forecasting Americans’ long-term adoption of connected and autonomous vehicle technologies," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 49-63.
    37. Tariq Munir & Hussein Dia & Hadi Ghaderi, 2021. "A Systematic Review of the Role of Road Network Pricing in Shaping Sustainable Cities: Lessons Learned and Opportunities for a Post-Pandemic World," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-20, October.
    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. Mohamad Shatanawi & Fatma Abdelkhalek & Ferenc Mészáros, 2020. "Urban Congestion Charging Acceptability: An International Comparative Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-15, June.
    2. Shatanawi, Mohamad & Alatawneh, Anas & Mészáros, Ferenc, 2022. "Implications of static and dynamic road pricing strategies in the era of autonomous and shared autonomous vehicles using simulation-based dynamic traffic assignment: The case of Budapest," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    3. Mehdizadeh, Milad & Shariat-Mohaymany, Afshin, 2020. "Who are more likely to break the rule of congestion charging? Evidence from an active scheme with no referendum voting," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 63-79.
    4. Georgina Santos & Erik Verhoef, 2011. "Road Congestion Pricing," Chapters, in: André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 23, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Dieplinger, Maria & Fürst, Elmar, 2014. "The acceptability of road pricing: Evidence from two studies in Vienna and four other European cities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 10-18.
    6. Elmar Fürst & Maria Dieplinger, 2014. "The acceptability of road pricing in Vienna: the preference patterns of car drivers," Transportation, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 765-784, July.
    7. Andrea Baranzini & Stefano Carattini & Linda Tesauro, 2021. "Designing Effective and Acceptable Road Pricing Schemes: Evidence from the Geneva Congestion Charge," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 417-482, July.
    8. Milenković, Marina & Glavić, Draženko & Maričić, Milica, 2019. "Determining factors affecting congestion pricing acceptability," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 58-74.
    9. Virginia Petraki & Panagiotis Papantoniou & Asimina Korentzelou & George Yannis, 2022. "Public Acceptability of Environmentally Linked Congestion and Parking Charging Policies in Greek Urban Centers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-15, July.
    10. Mohammadhossein Abbasi & Amir Reza Mamdoohi & Grzegorz Sierpiński & Francesco Ciari, 2023. "Usage Intention of Shared Autonomous Vehicles with Dynamic Ride Sharing on Long-Distance Trips," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-17, January.
    11. Schuitema, Geertje & Steg, Linda & Forward, Sonja, 2010. "Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 99-109, February.
    12. Marazi, Naveed Farooz & Majumdar, Bandhan Bandhu & Sahu, Prasanta K. & Potoglou, Dimitris, 2022. "Congestion pricing acceptability among commuters: An Indian perspective," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    13. Marletto, Gerardo, 2019. "Who will drive the transition to self-driving? A socio-technical analysis of the future impact of automated vehicles," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 221-234.
    14. Huang, Yantao & Kockelman, Kara M. & Quarles, Neil, 2020. "How will self-driving vehicles affect U.S. megaregion traffic? The case of the Texas Triangle," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    15. Mohamed Alawadhi & Jumah Almazrouie & Mohammed Kamil & Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil, 2020. "A systematic literature review of the factors influencing the adoption of autonomous driving," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 11(6), pages 1065-1082, December.
    16. Krabbenborg, Lizet & van Langevelde-van Bergen, Chris & Molin, Eric, 2021. "Public support for tradable peak credit schemes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 243-259.
    17. Li, Dun & Huang, Youlin & Qian, Lixian, 2022. "Potential adoption of robotaxi service: The roles of perceived benefits to multiple stakeholders and environmental awareness," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 120-135.
    18. Hysing, Erik & Isaksson, Karolina, 2015. "Building acceptance for congestion charges – the Swedish experiences compared," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 52-60.
    19. Hensher, David A. & Li, Zheng, 2013. "Referendum voting in road pricing reform: A review of the evidence," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 186-197.
    20. Becker, Henrik & Becker, Felix & Abe, Ryosuke & Bekhor, Shlomo & Belgiawan, Prawira F. & Compostella, Junia & Frazzoli, Emilio & Fulton, Lewis M. & Guggisberg Bicudo, Davi & Murthy Gurumurthy, Krishna, 2020. "Impact of vehicle automation and electric propulsion on production costs for mobility services worldwide," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 105-126.

    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:19:p:12798-:d:935758. 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.