IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i9p3623-d1383383.html

Bus Drivers’ Behavioral Intention to Comply with Real-Time Control Instructions: An Empirical Study from China

Author

Listed:
  • Weiya Chen

    (School of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410075, China
    Rail Data Research and Application Key Laboratory of Hunan Province, Changsha 410075, China)

  • Ying Chen

    (School of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410075, China
    Rail Data Research and Application Key Laboratory of Hunan Province, Changsha 410075, China)

  • Yufen Wang

    (School of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410075, China
    Rail Data Research and Application Key Laboratory of Hunan Province, Changsha 410075, China)

  • Xiaoping Fang

    (School of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410075, China
    Rail Data Research and Application Key Laboratory of Hunan Province, Changsha 410075, China)

Abstract

Developing intelligent bus control systems is crucial for fostering the sustainability of urban transportation. Control instructions are produced in real time by the bus control system; these are important technical commands to stabilize the order in which buses operate and improve service reliability. Understanding the behavioral intention of bus drivers to comply with these instructions will help improve the effectiveness of intelligent bus control system implementation. We have developed a psychological model that incorporates decomposed variables of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and other influencing variables to explain the micromechanisms that determine bus drivers’ behavioral intention to comply with real-time control instructions during both peak and off-peak-hour scenarios. A total of 258 responses were obtained and verified for analysis. The results showed that the influential factors in the peak- and off-peak-hour scenarios were not identical. Female drivers had greater off-peak-hour behavior intention to comply than male drivers, and there were significant differences in peak-hour behavior intention among drivers of different ages. In both peak and off-peak-hour scenarios, perceived benefit positively and perceived risk negatively affected behavioral intention. Perceived controllability positively affected behavioral intention only during peak hours. Self-efficacy only negatively affected behavioral intention during off-peak hours. Three antecedent variables (i.e., trust, mental workload, and line infrastructure support) influenced drivers’ behavioral intentions indirectly via the decomposed variables of TPB. These results provide profound insights for the improvement and implementation of real-time control technology for bus services, thereby facilitating the development of smart and sustainable urban public transport systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Weiya Chen & Ying Chen & Yufen Wang & Xiaoping Fang, 2024. "Bus Drivers’ Behavioral Intention to Comply with Real-Time Control Instructions: An Empirical Study from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-23, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:9:p:3623-:d:1383383
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/9/3623/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/9/3623/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barbara H. Wixom & Peter A. Todd, 2005. "A Theoretical Integration of User Satisfaction and Technology Acceptance," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 85-102, March.
    2. Berrebi, Simon J. & Crudden, Sean Óg & Watkins, Kari E., 2018. "Translating research to practice: Implementing real-time control on high-frequency transit routes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 213-226.
    3. Fred D. Davis & Richard P. Bagozzi & Paul R. Warshaw, 1989. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(8), pages 982-1003, August.
    4. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Esperanza López Vázquez, 2011. "A Cross‐Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust‐Acceptance Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1919-1934, December.
    5. Bart W. Terwel & Fieke Harinck & Naomi Ellemers & Dancker D. L. Daamen, 2009. "Competence‐Based and Integrity‐Based Trust as Predictors of Acceptance of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1129-1140, August.
    6. Rui Jiang & Mao-Bin Hu & Bin Jia & Qing-Song Wu, 2003. "Realistic bus route model considering the capacity of the bus," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 34(3), pages 367-372, August.
    7. Woldeamanuel, Mintesnot & Nguyen, Dang, 2018. "Perceived benefits and concerns of autonomous vehicles: An exploratory study of millennials’ sentiments of an emerging market," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 44-53.
    8. Yan (Mandy) Dang & Yulei (Gavin) Zhang & Susan A. Brown & Hsinchun Chen, 2020. "Examining the impacts of mental workload and task-technology fit on user acceptance of the social media search system," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 697-718, June.
    9. Phillips, William & del Rio, Andrés & Muñoz, Juan Carlos & Delgado, Felipe & Giesen, Ricardo, 2015. "Quantifying the effects of driver non-compliance and communication system failure in the performance of real-time bus control strategies," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 463-472.
    10. Chen, Jingxu & Liu, Zhiyuan & Zhu, Senlai & Wang, Wei, 2015. "Design of limited-stop bus service with capacity constraint and stochastic travel time," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 1-15.
    11. James Flynn & William Burns & C.K. Mertz & Paul Slovic, 1992. "Trust as a Determinant of Opposition to a High‐Level Radioactive Waste Repository: Analysis of a Structural Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 417-429, September.
    12. Peng Liu & Run Yang & Zhigang Xu, 2019. "Public Acceptance of Fully Automated Driving: Effects of Social Trust and Risk/Benefit Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 326-341, February.
    13. Daganzo, Carlos F., 2009. "A headway-based approach to eliminate bus bunching: Systematic analysis and comparisons," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 913-921, December.
    14. Jennifer Dill & Cynthia Mohr & Liang Ma, 2014. "How Can Psychological Theory Help Cities Increase Walking and Bicycling?," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 80(1), pages 36-51, January.
    15. LAURENT, Gilles & CHANDON, Pierre & WANSINK, Brian, 2000. "A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion effectiveness," HEC Research Papers Series 698, HEC Paris.
    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. Gkiotsalitis, K. & Cats, O., 2021. "At-stop control measures in public transport: Literature review and research agenda," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Li, Ruimin & Han, Yuqian & Zhou, Huiyu, 2025. "What changes the autonomous vehicle acceptance after COVID-19? Evidence from China," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    4. Martínez-Estupiñan, Yerly & Delgado, Felipe & Muñoz, Juan Carlos & Watkins, Kari E., 2023. "Improving the performance of headway control tools by using individual driving speed data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    5. Ofir Turel & Catherine E. Connelly, 2012. "Team Spirit: The Influence of Psychological Collectivism on the Usage of E-Collaboration Tools," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 703-725, September.
    6. Sara Moussawi & Marios Koufaris & Raquel Benbunan-Fich, 2021. "How perceptions of intelligence and anthropomorphism affect adoption of personal intelligent agents," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 31(2), pages 343-364, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Yali Zhang & Haixin Zhang & Zhaojun Yang & Jun Sun & Chrissie Diane Tan, 2019. "Snowball Effect of User Participation in Online Environmental Communities: Elaboration Likelihood under Social Influence," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-15, September.
    9. Donglin Han & Huiying (Cynthia) Hou & Hao Wu & Joseph H. K. Lai, 2021. "Modelling Tourists’ Acceptance of Hotel Experience-Enhancement Smart Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-19, April.
    10. Gebauer, Judith, 2008. "User Requirements of Mobile Technology: A Summary of Research Results," Working Papers 08-0104, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    11. Strazzera, Elisabetta & Meleddu, Daniela & Atzori, Rossella, 2022. "A hybrid choice modelling approach to estimate the trade-off between perceived environmental risks and economic benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    12. Janotta, Frederica & Hogreve, Jens, 2024. "Ready for take-off? The dual role of affective and cognitive evaluations in the adoption of Urban Air Mobility services," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    13. Zhou, Chang & Tian, Qiong & Wang, David Z.W., 2022. "A novel control strategy in mitigating bus bunching: Utilizing real-time information," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 1-13.
    14. Kathrin Dudenhöffer, 2013. "Why electric vehicles failed," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 95-124, July.
    15. Wang, Yi-Shun & Yeh, Ching-Hsuan & Liao, Yi-Wen, 2013. "What drives purchase intention in the context of online content services? The moderating role of ethical self-efficacy for online piracy," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 199-208.
    16. Hye‐Jin Paek & Thomas Hove, 2019. "Mediating and Moderating Roles of Trust in Government in Effective Risk Rumor Management: A Test Case of Radiation‐Contaminated Seafood in South Korea," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2653-2667, December.
    17. Creed Tumlison & Rachael M. Moyer & Geoboo Song, 2017. "The Origin and Role of Trust in Local Policy Elites’ Perceptions of High‐Voltage Power Line Installations in the State of Arkansas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 1018-1036, May.
    18. Rolfsen Christian Nordahl & Lassen Ann Karina, 2020. "On-site inspections: the shift from forms to digital capture," Organization, Technology and Management in Construction, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 2064-2071, January.
    19. Zhou, Lingyi & Dai, Yixin, 2020. "Which is more effective in China? How communication tools influence public acceptance of nuclear power energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    20. Miaomiao Shen & Linxuan Yu & Jing Xu & Zihao Sang & Ruijia Li & Xiang Yuan, 2024. "Shaping the Future of Urban Mobility: Insights into Autonomous Vehicle Acceptance in Shanghai Through TAM and Perceived Risk Analysis," Papers 2405.05578, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:16:y:2024:i:9:p:3623-:d:1383383. 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.