Usage Intention of Shared Autonomous Vehicles with Dynamic Ride Sharing on Long-Distance Trips
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Generalized Ordered Logit Model
4. Survey Design and Data Processing
Sample Description
5. Estimation Results
5.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
5.2. Generalized Ordered Logit Model Estimation Results
5.3. Discussion
5.4. Practical Implications
6. Conclusions and Future Research
6.1. Findings and Inferences
6.2. Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Menon, N.; Zhang, Y.; Rawoof Pinjari, A.; Mannering, F. A statistical analysis of consumer perceptions towards automated vehicles and their intended adoption. Transp. Plan. Technol. 2020, 43, 253–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheela, P.V.; Mannering, F. The effect of information on changing opinions toward autonomous vehicle adoption: An exploratory analysis. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2020, 14, 475–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gurumurthy, K.M.; Kockelman, K.M. Modeling Americans’ autonomous vehicle preferences: A focus on dynamic ride-sharing, privacy & long-distance mode choices. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 150, 119792. [Google Scholar]
- Engelberg, J.K.; Hill, L.L.; Rybar, J.; Styer, T. Distracted driving behaviors related to cell phone use among middle-aged adults. J. Transp. Health 2015, 2, 434–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dicianno, B.E.; Sivakanthan, S.; Sundaram, S.A.; Satpute, S.; Kulich, H.; Powers, E.; Deepak, N.; Russell, R.; Cooper, R.; Cooper, R.A. Systematic review: Automated vehicles and services for people with disabilities. Neurosci. Lett. 2021, 761, 136103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fagnant, D.J.; Kockelman, K. Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: Opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2015, 77, 167–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Kockelman, K.M.; Boesch, P.M.; Ciari, F. Tracking a system of shared autonomous vehicles across the Austin, Texas network using agent-based simulation. Transportation 2017, 44, 1261–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, M.; Holthausen, B.E.; Stuck, R.E.; Walker, B.N. No risk no trust: Investigating perceived risk in highly automated driving. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 22–25 September 2019; pp. 177–185. [Google Scholar]
- Menon, N.; Pinjari, A.; Zhang, Y.; Zou, L. Consumer perception and intended adoption of autonomous-vehicle technology: Findings from a university population survey. In Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board 95th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 10–14 January 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Nees, M.A. Acceptance of self-driving cars: An examination of idealized versus realistic portrayals with a self-driving car acceptance scale. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 19–23 September 2016; pp. 1449–1453. [Google Scholar]
- Farzin, I.; Abbasi, M.; Macioszek, E.; Mamdoohi, A.R.; Ciari, F. Moving toward a More Sustainable Autonomous Mobility, Case of Heterogeneity in Preferences. Sustainability 2023, 15, 460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbasi, M.; Hosseinlou, M.H.; Sarreshtehdari, A.; Mandzuka, S. Evaluation of Transit Signal Priority for Bus Rapid Transit in Heterogeneous Traffic Flow. Teh. Vjesn. 2021, 28, 2080–2087. [Google Scholar]
- Shaygan, M.; Mamdoohi, A.; Masoumi, H.E. Car ownership models in Iran: A review of methods and determinants. Transp. Telecommun. 2017, 18, 45–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, T.; Tao, D.; Qu, X.; Zhang, X.; Lin, R.; Zhang, W. The roles of initial trust and perceived risk in public’s acceptance of automated vehicles. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2019, 98, 207–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kapser, S.; Abdelrahman, M. Acceptance of autonomous delivery vehicles for last-mile delivery in Germany–Extending UTAUT2 with risk perceptions. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2020, 111, 210–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stocker, A.; Shaheen, S. Shared automated mobility: Early exploration and potential impacts. Road Veh. Autom. 2018, 4, 125–139. [Google Scholar]
- Jin, S.T.; Kong, H.; Wu, R.; Sui, D.Z. Ridesourcing, the sharing economy, and the future of cities. Cities 2018, 76, 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaheen, S.; Cohen, A. Shared ride services in North America: Definitions, impacts, and the future of pooling. Transp. Rev. 2019, 39, 427–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loeb, B.; Kockelman, K.M.; Liu, J. Shared autonomous electric vehicle (SAEV) operations across the Austin, Texas network with charging infrastructure decisions. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2018, 89, 222–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- LaMondia, J.J.; Fagnant, D.J.; Qu, H.; Barrett, J.; Kockelman, K. Shifts in long-distance travel mode due to automated vehicles: Statewide mode-shift simulation experiment and travel survey analysis. Transp. Res. Rec. 2016, 2566, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolarova, V.; Steck, F. Estimating impact of autonomous driving on value of travel time savings for long-distance trips using revealed and stated preference methods. In Mapping the Travel Behavior Genome; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 561–575. [Google Scholar]
- Dannemiller, K.A.; Mondal, A.; Asmussen, K.E.; Bhat, C.R. Investigating autonomous vehicle impacts on individual activity-travel behavior. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2021, 148, 402–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bansal, P.; Kockelman, K.M. Forecasting Americans’ long-term adoption of connected and autonomous vehicle technologies. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 95, 49–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bansal, P.; Kockelman, K.M. Are we ready to embrace connected and self-driving vehicles? A case study of Texans. Transportation 2018, 45, 641–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.H.; Mokhtarian, P.L.; Circella, G. How, and for whom, will activity patterns be modified by self-driving cars? Expectations from the state of Georgia. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2020, 70, 68–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maleki, M.; Chan, Y.; Arani, M. Impact of autonomous vehicle technology on long distance travel behavior. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2101.06097. [Google Scholar]
- de Almeida Correia, G.H.; Milakis, D.; van Arem, B.; Hoogendoorn, R. Vehicle automation and transport system performance. In Handbook on Transport and Urban Planning in the Developed World; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Yap, M.D.; Correia, G.; Van Arem, B. Preferences of travellers for using automated vehicles as last mile public transport of multimodal train trips. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2016, 94, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Winter, K.; Cats, O.; Martens, K.; van Arem, B. A stated-choice experiment on mode choice in an era of free-floating carsharing and shared autonomous vehicles. In Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board 96th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 8–2 January 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Zmud, J.; Sener, I.N.; Wagner, J. Consumer Acceptance and Travel Behavior: Impacts of Automated Vehicles; Texas A&M Transportation Institute: Dallas, TX, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Arentze, T.A.; Molin, E.J. Travelers’ preferences in multimodal networks: Design and results of a comprehensive series of choice experiments. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2013, 58, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haboucha, C.J.; Ishaq, R.; Shiftan, Y. User preferences regarding autonomous vehicles. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2017, 78, 37–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garidis, K.; Ulbricht, L.; Rossmann, A.; Schmäh, M. Toward a user acceptance model of autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Wailea-Makena, Hawaii, 7–10 January 2020; pp. 1381–1390. [Google Scholar]
- Dowling, G.R.; Staelin, R. A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. J. Consum. Res. 1994, 21, 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farzin, I.; Mamdoohi, A.R.; Ciari, F. Autonomous Vehicles Acceptance: A Perceived Risk Extension of Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology and Diffusion of Innovation, Evidence from Tehran, Iran. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2022, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roehrich, G. Consumer innovativeness: Concepts and measurements. J. Bus. Res. 2004, 57, 671–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leicht, T.; Chtourou, A.; Youssef, K.B. Consumer innovativeness and intentioned autonomous car adoption. J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 2018, 29, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Thong, J.Y.; Xu, X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 2012, 36, 157–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nastjuk, I.; Herrenkind, B.; Marrone, M.; Brendel, A.B.; Kolbe, L.M. What drives the acceptance of autonomous driving? An investigation of acceptance factors from an end-user’s perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2020, 161, 120319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuen, K.F.; Huyen, D.T.K.; Wang, X.; Qi, G. Factors influencing the adoption of shared autonomous vehicles. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, T.; Tao, D.; Qu, X.; Zhang, X.; Zeng, J.; Zhu, H.; Zhu, H. Automated vehicle acceptance in China: Social influence and initial trust are key determinants. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2020, 112, 220–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smyth, J.; Chen, H.; Donzella, V.; Woodman, R. Public acceptance of driver state monitoring for automated vehicles: Applying the UTAUT framework. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2021, 83, 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuen, K.F.; Choo, L.Q.; Li, X.; Wong, Y.D.; Ma, F.; Wang, X. A theoretical investigation of user acceptance of autonomous public transport. Transportation 2022, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mattioli, G.; Roberts, C.; Steinberger, J.K.; Brown, A. The political economy of car dependence: A systems of provision approach. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 66, 101486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbasi, M.; Hosseinlou, M.H.; JafarzadehFadaki, S. An investigation of Bus Rapid Transit System (BRT) based on economic and air pollution analysis (Tehran, Iran). Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2020, 8, 553–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macioszek, E.; Karami, A.; Farzin, I.; Abbasi, M.; Mamdoohi, A.R.; Piccioni, C. The Effect of Distance Intervals on Walking Likelihood in Different Trip Purposes. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acheampong, R.A.; Cugurullo, F.; Gueriau, M.; Dusparic, I. Can autonomous vehicles enable sustainable mobility in future cities? Insights and policy challenges from user preferences over different urban transport options. Cities 2021, 112, 103134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meelen, T.; Frenken, K. Stop saying Uber is part of the sharing economy. Fast Co. 2015, 14, 15–23. [Google Scholar]
- Washington, S.; Karlaftis, M.; Mannering, F.; Anastasopoulos, P. Statistical and Econometric Methods for Transportation Data Analysis; Chapman and Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Gelman, A.; Hill, J. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Iran, S.C.o. National Portal of Statistics. Available online: https://www.amar.org.ir (accessed on 4 December 2022).
- Schumacker, R.E.; Lomax, R.G. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling; Psychology Press: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jitesh, J.T. Structural Equation Modelling: Application for Research and Practice with Amos and R; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Lavieri, P.S.; Bhat, C.R. Modeling individuals’ willingness to share trips with strangers in an autonomous vehicle future. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 124, 242–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKelvey, R.D.; Zavoina, W. A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level dependent variables. J. Math. Sociol. 1975, 4, 103–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fagnant, D.J.; Kockelman, K.M. The travel and environmental implications of shared autonomous vehicles, using agent-based model scenarios. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2014, 40, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Gonder, J.; Young, S.; Wood, E. Quantifying autonomous vehicles national fuel consumption impacts: A data-rich approach. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 122, 134–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rella Riccardi, M.; Mauriello, F.; Scarano, A.; Montella, A. Analysis of contributory factors of fatal pedestrian crashes by mixed logit model and association rules. Int. J. Inj. Control. Saf. Promot. 2022, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rella Riccardi, M.; Galante, F.; Scarano, A.; Montella, A. Econometric and Machine Learning Methods to Identify Pedestrian Crash Patterns. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeganeh, S.F.; Khademi, N.; Farahani, H.; Besharat, M.A. A qualitative exploration of factors influencing women’s intention to use shared taxis: A study on the characteristics of urban commuting behavior in Iran. Transp. Policy 2022, 129, 90–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coombes, B. Generation Y: Are they really digital natives or more like digital refugees. Synergy 2009, 7, 31–40. [Google Scholar]
- Arbib, J.; Seba, T. Rethinking Transportation 2020–2030. Rethink. May 2017, 143, 144. [Google Scholar]
Author | Variable | Mode | Model 3 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Demographic | Travel-Related 1 | Attitudinal 2 | |||
LaMondia et al. [20] | ✓ | - | - | AV | BLR |
Kolarova & Steck [21] | - | TC; TT; WT | - | AV | MXL |
Bansal and Kockelman [23] | ✓ | - | - | AV | DA |
Bansal and Kockelman [24] | ✓ | - | - | AV | DA |
Kim et al. [25] | ✓ | TP | CI, PNCM, TL; RA | AV | FA & KM |
Gurumurthy and Kockelman [3] | ✓ | - | - | AV & SAV | MNL |
Maleki et al. [26] | ✓ | - | - | AV | CA |
Characteristic/Variable | Count (Relative %) | Characteristic/Variable | Count (Relative %) |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Household car ownership | ||
Female | 356 (49.2) | 0 | 72 (10.0) |
Male | 367 (50.8) | 1 | 373 (51.6) |
Generation | 2 | 221 (30.6) | |
Z (lower than 21) | 63 (8.7) | 3+ | 57 (7.9) |
Millennial (22–37) | 438 (60.6) | Household size | |
X (38–53) | 150 (20.7) | 1 | 22 (3.0) |
Baby Boomer (54–72) | 49 (9.5) | 2 | 78 (10.8) |
Silent (more than 73) | 3 (0.4) | 3 | 245 (33.9) |
Marital Status | 4 | 240 (33.2) | |
Single | 411 (56.8) | 5+ | 138 (19.1) |
Married | 312 (43.2) | Income level | |
Education level | Very low | 17 (2.4) | |
Did not complete high school | 40 (5.5) | Low | 201 (27.8) |
High school diploma | 182 (36.3) | Average | 363 (50.2) |
Bachelor | 214 (29.6) | High | 124 (17.2) |
Master | 240 (33.2) | Very high | 18 (2.5) |
Doctorate | 47 (6.5) | Familiarity with SAVs | |
Driving Experience | First ever heard | 384 (53.1) | |
No driving license | 123 (17.0) | Low | 210 (29.0) |
1–5 years | 125 (17.3) | Moderate | 105 (14.5) |
6–10 years | 190 (26.3) | High | 24 (3.3) |
11–15 years | 128 (17.7) | ||
More than 15 years | 157 (21.7) |
Construct | Item | Mean | Factor Loading | CA | CR | AVE | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attitude toward sharing | I can save money by participating in collaborative consumption/sharing | 3.69 | 0.842 | 0.71 | 0.88 | 0.66 | [57] |
I think participating in collaborative consumption/sharing will be fun | 3.42 | 0.717 | |||||
Ride-sharing is a good way to reduce fuel consumption. | 4.02 | 0.828 | |||||
Ride-sharing is a good way to reduce pollutant emission. | 3.10 | 0.847 | |||||
Car dependency | I like driving a car. | 3.83 | 0.799 | 0.70 | 0.76 | 0.52 | [33] |
A private car makes me feel safe. | 3.86 | 0.656 | |||||
I’m worried about losing the pleasure of driving when using SAVs. | 3.06 | 0.692 | |||||
Personal innovativeness | I have a positive attitude toward innovations | 4.08 | 0.736 | 0.75 | 0.81 | 0.69 | [37] |
Among my peers, I am usually the first to try out new technologies | 3.54 | 0.914 | |||||
Price evaluation | I could save money by using SAVs | 4.12 | 0.698 | 0.75 | 0.86 | 0.56 | [40] |
SAVs would offer better value for money | 3.25 | 0.821 | |||||
The benefits of an autonomous car will justify the price | 3.82 | 0.724 | |||||
Perceived usefulness | SAVs can reduce air pollution. | 4.06 | 0.762 | 0.83 | 0.86 | 0.51 | [42] |
Using SAVs will relieve my stress of driving. | 3.56 | 0.655 | |||||
SAVs will reduce emissions. | 3.61 | 0.686 | |||||
SAVs can reduce traffic accidents. | 3.26 | 0.733 | |||||
SAVs can reduce traffic congestion, thereby shortening the riding time. | 3.80 | 0.637 | |||||
Overall, SAVs is useful and advantageous. | 2.97 | 0.745 | |||||
Privacy concerns | I believe that using SAVs would threaten my privacy. | 3.27 | 0.830 | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.64 | [14,33] |
I am concerned that SAVs will collect too much personal information from me. | 3.41 | 0.821 | |||||
I am concerned that SAVs will use my personal information for other purposes without my authorization | 3.52 | 0.754 | |||||
Model fit: . |
Construct | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Attitude toward sharing | 0.81 1 | |||||
2 | Car dependency | −0.05 | 0.72 | ||||
3 | Personal innovativeness | 0.56 | 0.11 | 0.83 | |||
4 | Price evaluation | 0.53 | 0.05 | 0.72 | 0.75 | ||
5 | Perceived usefulness | 0.35 | 0.24 | 0.64 | 0.57 | 0.71 | |
6 | Privacy concern | −0.34 | 0.08 | −0.32 | −0.35 | −0.22 | 0.80 |
Variable | Coefficient | Marginal Effect | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Low | Moderate | High | |||
Attitude toward Sharing | 1.336 | 0.000 | −0.219 | −0.089 | 0.308 |
Perceived Usefulness | 1.728 | 0.038 | −0.479 | −0.196 | 0.675 |
0.048 | 0.078 | −0.008 | −0.003 | 0.011 | |
−2.385 | 0.030 | 0.391 | 0.159 | −0.550 | |
−4.482 | 0.001 | 0.735 | 0.298 | −1.033 | |
Pedestrian experienced a severe crash (dummy variable) | 1.740 | 0.033 | −0.168 | −0.108 | 0.276 |
No driving license (1 if true; otherwise 0) | 0.314 | 0.073 | −0.051 | −0.021 | 0.072 |
Women with PhD | −1.188 | 0.025 | 0.252 | 0.036 | −0.288 |
Households owning at least three private cars (1 if true; otherwise 0) | −0.517 | 0.074 | 0.095 | 0.029 | −0.124 |
Public users during COVID-19 (1 if true; otherwise 0) | 0.331 | 0.094 | −0.052 | −0.022 | 0.074 |
Baby boomer (1 if true; otherwise 0) | 2.726 | 0.041 | −0.191 | −0.135 | 0.326 |
Threshold, | −0.692 | ||||
Threshold, | 0.080 | ||||
Model statistics | |||||
Number of observation | 723 | ||||
Log-likelihood at convergence | −568.008 | ||||
Restricted log-likelihood | −650.324 | ||||
0.127 |
Variable | Moderate Intention | High Intention | Marginal Effect | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficient | Coefficient | Low | Moderate | High | |||
Attitude toward Sharing | 1.682 | 0.000 | 1.142 | 0.000 | −0.279 | 0.022 | 0.257 |
Perceived Usefulness | 1.268 | 0.089 | 1.968 | 0.073 | −0.904 | 0.135 | 0.769 |
0.059 | 0.076 | 0.046 | 0.095 | −0.009 | −0.001 | 0.010 | |
−2.070 | 0.081 | −2.886 | 0.018 | 0.344 | 0.308 | −0.652 | |
−4.299 | 0.003 | −4.300 | 0.002 | 0.715 | 0.257 | −0.972 | |
Pedestrian experienced a severe crash (dummy variable) | 1.759 | 0.113 | 1.703 | 0.038 | −0.293 | −0.093 | 0.386 |
No driving license (1 if true; otherwise 0) | 0.237 | 0.250 | 0.351 | 0.052 | −0.039 | −0.040 | 0.079 |
Women with PhD | −0.784 | 0.233 | −1.547 | 0.015 | 0.130 | 0.219 | −0.349 |
Households owning at least three private cars (1 if true; otherwise 0) | −0.352 | 0.301 | −0.633 | 0.038 | 0.058 | 0.085 | −0.143 |
Public users during COVID-19 (1 if true; otherwise 0) | 0.301 | 0.208 | 0.328 | 0.105 | −0.050 | −0.024 | 0.074 |
Baby boomer (1 if true; otherwise 0) | 1.451 | 0.056 | 3.135 | 0.078 | −0.422 | 0.095 | 0.327 |
Constant | 0.324 | 0.736 | 0.478 | 0.608 | - | - | - |
Model statistics | |||||||
Number of observation | 723 | ||||||
Log-likelihood at convergence | −560.002 | ||||||
Restricted log-likelihood | −650.324 | ||||||
0.1389 |
Variables | Usage Intention | ||
---|---|---|---|
Attitude toward Sharing | L* (−) | M (+) | H (+) |
Perceived Usefulness | L (−) | M (+) | H (+) |
L (−) | M (−) | H (+) | |
L (+) | M (+) | H (−) | |
L (+) | M (+) | H (−) | |
Pedestrian experienced a severe crash (dummy variable) | L (−) | M (−) | H (+) |
No driving license (1 if true; otherwise 0) | L (−) | M (−) | H (+) |
Women with PhD | L (+) | M (+) | H (−) |
Households owning at least three private cars (1 if true; otherwise 0) | L (+) | M (+) | H (−) |
Public users during COVID-19 (1 if true; otherwise 0) | L (−) | M (−) | H (+) |
Baby boomer (1 if true; otherwise 0) | L (−) | M (+) | H (+) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Abbasi, M.; Mamdoohi, A.R.; Sierpiński, G.; Ciari, F. Usage Intention of Shared Autonomous Vehicles with Dynamic Ride Sharing on Long-Distance Trips. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1649. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021649
Abbasi M, Mamdoohi AR, Sierpiński G, Ciari F. Usage Intention of Shared Autonomous Vehicles with Dynamic Ride Sharing on Long-Distance Trips. Sustainability. 2023; 15(2):1649. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021649
Chicago/Turabian StyleAbbasi, Mohammadhossein, Amir Reza Mamdoohi, Grzegorz Sierpiński, and Francesco Ciari. 2023. "Usage Intention of Shared Autonomous Vehicles with Dynamic Ride Sharing on Long-Distance Trips" Sustainability 15, no. 2: 1649. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021649
APA StyleAbbasi, M., Mamdoohi, A. R., Sierpiński, G., & Ciari, F. (2023). Usage Intention of Shared Autonomous Vehicles with Dynamic Ride Sharing on Long-Distance Trips. Sustainability, 15(2), 1649. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021649