CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34Transportation and Mobility InnovationsTransportation Planning and OptimizationElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure

Encouraging the Sustainable Adoption of Autonomous Vehicles for Public Transport in Belgium: Citizen Acceptance, Business Models, and Policy Aspects

Open access
Camps-Aragó, Pol, Temmerman, Laura, Vanobberghen, Wim, Delaere, Simon·2022·Sustainability
DOI 10.3390/su14020921
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Several mobility-related issues persist in and around urban areas. Autonomous vehicles promise substantial environmental, safety, and economic benefits but may also cause unintended adverse effects that stem from single-passenger mobility becoming more affordable and accessible. While using them for public transport (i.e., autonomous shuttles) can help avoid such downsides, there are many challenges to their adoption, particularly ones that are related to citizen acceptance and economic aspects. Based on a novel survey of Brussels’ citizens, we provide insights from user opinions on last-mile autonomous shuttle services and analyze the effect of various attitudinal and socio-demographic factors affecting such acceptance. Our respondents exhibit an overall positive acceptance albeit with a limited willingness to pay for it. In addition, based on expert interviews, we provide a discussion on appropriate business models and policy recommendations to help ensure the timely adoption of AVs in Belgium that adapts to mobility needs and policy goals.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/su14020921

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Some studies indicate a substantial increase in accessibility and encouragement of urban sprawl from AVs.

    “Similarly, some studies indicate a substantial increase in accessibility and encouragement of urban sprawl from AVs [34][35][36][37].”

    From Assessing the Role of Autonomous Vehicles in Urban Areas: A Systematic Review of Literature (2024) · cites this paper as [35]

    Section 2.1 says AVs can increase access to mobility services, particularly for people unable to drive. Section 2.2 describes a possible pathway from AV use to longer commutes and, eventually, urban sprawl. The paper does not establish that the increase in accessibility would be substantial. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Cities may be able to lower the number of single-passenger vehicles on the road by implementing AVs for public transportation, resulting in lower emissions and better air quality.

    “Cities may be able to lower the number of single-passenger vehicles on the road by implementing AVs for public transportation, resulting in lower emissions and better air quality [35,65,71].”

    From Assessing the Role of Autonomous Vehicles in Urban Areas: A Systematic Review of Literature (2024) · cites this paper as [35]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 70

  1. UNECE. Statistics of Road Traffic Accidents in Europe and North America; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2019; Volume LV. [CrossRef] · DOI
  2. Rayle, L.; Dai, D.; Chan, N.; Cervero, R.; Shaheen, S. Just a better taxi? A survey-based comparison of taxis, transit, and ridesourcing services in San Francisco. Transp. Policy 2016, 45, 168-178. [CrossRef] · DOI
  3. Castiglione, J.; Chang, T.; Cooper, D.; Hobson, J.; Logan, W.; Young, E.; Charlton, B.; Wilson, C.; Mislove, A.; Chen, L.; et al. TNCs today: A profile of San Francisco transportation network company activity. San Franc. Cty. Transp. Auth. June 2016, 2017, 21.
  4. OECD. Urban Mobility System Upgrade: How Shared Self-Driving Cars Could Change City Traffic, Paris, France. 2015. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1787/5jlwvzdk29g5-en (accessed on 14 December 2021). · DOI
  5. Meyer, G., Beiker, S., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 137-153. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  6. Meyer, G., Beiker, S., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 229-245. [CrossRef] · DOI
  7. Fagnant, D.J.; Kockelman, K. Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: Opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transp. Res. Part Policy Pract. 2015, 77, 167-181. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  8. Taiebat, M.; Brown, A.L.; Safford, H.R.; Qu, S.; Xu, M. A Review on Energy, Environmental, and Sustainability Implications of Connected and Automated Vehicles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 11449-11465. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  9. Kopelias, P.; Demiridi, E.; Vogiatzis, K.; Skabardonis, A.; Zafiropoulou, V. Connected & autonomous vehicles-Environmental impacts-A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 712, 135237. [CrossRef] · DOI
  10. Greenblatt, J.B.; Saxena, S. Autonomous taxis could greatly reduce greenhouse-gas emissions of US light-duty vehicles. Nat. Clim. Change 2015, 5, 860-863. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  11. Nunes, A.; Reimer, B.; Coughlin, J.F. People must retain control of autonomous vehicles. Nature 2018, 556, 169-171. [CrossRef] · DOI
  12. Ainsalu, J.; Arffman, V.; Bellone, M.; Ellner, M.; Haapamäki, T.; Haavisto, N.; Josefson, E.; Ismailogullari, A.; Lee, B.; Madland, O.; et al. State of the Art of Automated Buses. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3118. [CrossRef] · DOI
  13. Bischoff, J.; Maciejewski, M. Simulation of City-wide Replacement of Private Cars with Autonomous Taxis in Berlin. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2016, 83, 237-244. [CrossRef] · DOI
  14. Singh, S. Critical Reasons for Crashes Investigated in the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey. Traffic Saf. Facts Crash Stats 2015, 2, 1-2.
  15. Wijnen, W.; Stipdonk, H. Social costs of road crashes: An international analysis. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2016, 94, 97-106. [CrossRef] · DOI
  16. Ostermeijer, F.; Koster, H.R.A.; van Ommeren, J. Residential parking costs and car ownership: Implications for parking policy and automated vehicles. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2019, 77, 276-288. [CrossRef] · DOI
  17. Andersson, P.; Ivehammar, P. Benefits and costs of autonomous trucks and cars. J. Transp. Technol. 2019, 9, 2. Available online: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-163735 (accessed on 14 December 2021). [CrossRef] · DOI
  18. Walnum, H.J.; Aall, C.; Løkke, S. Can Rebound Effects Explain Why Sustainable Mobility Has Not Been Achieved? Sustainability 2014, 6, 9510. [CrossRef] · DOI
  19. Gehrke, S.R.; Felix, A.; Reardon, T.G. Substitution of Ride-Hailing Services for More Sustainable Travel Options in the Greater Boston Region. Transp. Res. Rec. 2019, 2673, 438-446. [CrossRef] · DOI
  20. Feys, M.; Rombaut, E.; Vanhaverbeke, L. Experience and Acceptance of Autonomous Shuttles in the Brussels Capital Region. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8403. [CrossRef] · DOI
  21. Pigeon, C.; Alauzet, A.; Paire-Ficout, L. Factors of acceptability, acceptance and usage for non-rail autonomous public transport vehicles: A systematic literature review. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2021, 81, 251-270. [CrossRef] · DOI
  22. Krueger, R.; Rashidi, T.H.; Rose, J.M. Preferences for shared autonomous vehicles. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2016, 69, 343-355. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  23. Asgari, H.; Jin, X. Incorporating Attitudinal Factors to Examine Adoption of and Willingness to Pay for Autonomous Vehicles. Transp. Res. Rec. 2019, 2673, 418-429. [CrossRef] · DOI
  24. Cartenì, A. The acceptability value of autonomous vehicles: A quantitative analysis of the willingness to pay for shared autonomous vehicles (SAVs) mobility services. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2020, 8, 100224. [CrossRef] · DOI
  25. Bansal, P.; Daziano, R.A. Influence of choice experiment designs on eliciting preferences for autonomous vehicles. Transp. Res. Procedia 2018, 32, 474-481. [CrossRef] · DOI
  26. 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. [CrossRef] · DOI
  27. Liu, P.; Guo, Q.; Ren, F.; Wang, L.; Xu, Z. Willingness to pay for self-driving vehicles: Influences of demographic and psychological factors. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2019, 100, 306-317. [CrossRef] · DOI
  28. Alessandrini, A.; Alfonsi, R.; Site, P.D.; Stam, D. Users' Preferences towards Automated Road Public Transport: Results from European Surveys. Transp. Res. Procedia 2014, 3, 139-144. [CrossRef] · DOI
  29. Herrenkind, B.; Brendel, A.B.; Nastjuk, I.; Greve, M.; Kolbe, L.M. Investigating end-user acceptance of autonomous electric buses to accelerate diffusion. Transp. Res. Part Transp. Environ. 2019, 74, 255-276. [CrossRef] · DOI
  30. Papadima, G.; Genitsaris, E.; Karagiotas, I.; Naniopoulos, A.; Nalmpantis, D. Investigation of acceptance of driverless buses in the city of Trikala and optimization of the service using Conjoint Analysis. Util. Policy 2020, 62, 100994. [CrossRef] · DOI
  31. Portouli, E.; Karaseitanidis, G.; Lytrivis, P.; Amditis, A.; Raptis, O.; Karaberi, C. Public attitudes towards autonomous mini buses operating in real conditions in a Hellenic city. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 11-14 June 2017; pp. 571-576. [CrossRef] · DOI
  32. Medina, K.F.; Jenkins, R. GATEway: Public Perceptions of a Last-Mile Driverless Shuttle. 2017. Available online: https://gateway- project.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/D3.7_TRL-Workshop-Findings-Report (accessed on 14 December 2021).
  33. Dong, X.; DiScenna, M.; Guerra, E. Transit user perceptions of driverless buses. Transportation 2019, 46, 35-50. [CrossRef] · DOI
  34. Lee, Y.-C.; Mirman, J.H. Parents' perspectives on using autonomous vehicles to enhance children's mobility. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2018, 96, 415-431. [CrossRef] · DOI
  35. Kyriakidis, M.; Happee, R.; de Winter, J.C.F. Public opinion on automated driving: Results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2015, 32, 127-140. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  36. Roche-Cerasi, I. Public acceptance of driverless shuttles in Norway. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2019, 66, 162-183. [CrossRef] · DOI
  37. Salonen, A.O. Passenger's subjective traffic safety, in-vehicle security and emergency management in the driverless shuttle bus in Finland. Transp. Policy 2018, 61, 106-110. [CrossRef] · DOI
  38. Kostorz, N.; Hilgert, T.; Kagerbauer, M.; Vortisch, P. What Do People Think About Autonomous Minibuses in Germany? In Proceedings of the 8th Symposium of the European Association for Research in Transportation (hEART), Budapest, Hungary, 4-7 September 2019.
  39. Madigan, R.; Louw, T.; Wilbrink, M.; Schieben, A.; Merat, N. What influences the decision to use automated public transport? Using UTAUT to understand public acceptance of automated road transport systems. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2017, 50, 55-64. [CrossRef] · DOI
  40. Moták, L.; Neuville, E.; Chambres, P.; Marmoiton, F.; Monéger, F.; Coutarel, F.; Izaute, M. Antecedent variables of intentions to use an autonomous shuttle: Moving beyond TAM and TPB? Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol. 2017, 67, 269-278. [CrossRef] · DOI
  41. Acheampong, R.A.; Cugurullo, F. Capturing the behavioural determinants behind the adoption of autonomous vehicles: Conceptual frameworks and measurement models to predict public transport, sharing and ownership trends of self-driving cars. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2019, 62, 349-375. [CrossRef] · DOI
  42. Lee, C.; Ward, C.; Raue, M.; D'Ambrosio, L.; Coughlin, J.F. Age Differences in Acceptance of Self-driving Cars: A Survey of Perceptions and Attitudes. In Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Aging, Design and User Experience; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 3-13. [CrossRef] · DOI
  43. Nordhoff, S.; de Winter, J.; Madigan, R.; Merat, N.; van Arem, B.; Happee, R. User acceptance of automated shuttles in Berlin-Schöneberg: A questionnaire study. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2018, 58, 843-854. [CrossRef] · DOI
  44. Winter, S.R.; Rice, S.; Mehta, R.; Walters, N.W.; Pierce, M.B.; Anania, E.C.; Milner, M.N.; Rao, N. Do Americans differ in their willingness to ride in a driverless bus? J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 2018, 6, 267-278. [CrossRef] · DOI
  45. Alessandrini, A. Investigating users' attitudes towards conventional and automated buses in twelve European cities. Int. J. Transp. Econ. Riv. Internazionale Econ. Dei Trasp. 2016, XLIII 4, 413-436. [CrossRef] · DOI
  46. Pakusch, C.; Bossauer, P. User Acceptance of Fully Autonomous Public Transport. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on e-Business and Telecommunications (ICETE 2017), Madrid, Spain, 24-26 July 2017; Volume 2, pp. 52-60.
  47. Wicki, M.; Guidon, S.; Becker, F.; Axhausen, K.W.; Bernauer, T. How technology commitment affects willingness to use AVs: Results from realistic mode choice experiment for a self-driving shuttle service. In Proceedings of the 19th Swiss Transport Research Conference (STRC 2019), Ascona, Switzerland, 15-17 May 2019. [CrossRef] · DOI
  48. Hulse, L.M.; Xie, H.; Galea, E.R. Perceptions of autonomous vehicles: Relationships with road users, risk, gender and age. Saf. Sci. 2018, 102, 1-13. [CrossRef] · DOI
  49. Penmetsa, P.; Adanu, E.K.; Wood, D.; Wang, T.; Jones, S.L. Perceptions and expectations of autonomous vehicles-A snapshot of vulnerable road user opinion. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 143, 9-13. [CrossRef] · DOI
  50. Winter, K.; Wien, J.; Molin, E.; Cats, O.; Morsink, P.; van Arem, B. Taking The Self-Driving Bus: A Passenger Choice Experiment. In Proceedings of the 2019 6th International Conference on Models and Technologies for Intelligent Transportation Systems (MT-ITS), Cracow, Poland, 5-7 June 2019; pp. 1-8. [CrossRef] · DOI
  51. Nordhoff, S.; de Winter, J.; Payre, W.; van Arem, B.; Happee, R. What impressions do users have after a ride in an automated shuttle? An interview study. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2019, 63, 252-269. [CrossRef] · DOI
  52. Adner, R. Ecosystem as Structure: An Actionable Construct for Strategy. J. Manag. 2017, 43, 39-58. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  53. Moore, J.F. Predators and Prey: A New Ecology of Competition. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1993, 71, 75-86.
  54. Christensen, C.M.; Rosenbloom, R.S. Explaining the attacker's advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network. Res. Policy 1995, 24, 233-257. [CrossRef] · DOI
  55. Peppard, J.; Rylander, A. From Value Chain to Value Network: Insights for Mobile Operators. Eur. Manag. J. 2006, 24, 128-141. [CrossRef] · DOI
  56. Iansiti, M.; Levien, R. Strategy as ecology. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2004, 82, 68-78.
  57. Agrawal, A.; Cockburn, I. The anchor tenant hypothesis: Exploring the role of large, local, R&D-intensive firms in regional innovation systems. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 2003, 21, 1227-1253. [CrossRef] · DOI
  58. Furr, N.; Shipilov, A. Building the right ecosystem for innovation. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2018, 59, 59-64.
  59. Clarysse, B.; Wright, D.; Bruneel, J.; Mahajan, A. Creating value in ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems. Res. Policy 2014, 43, 1164-1176. [CrossRef] · DOI
  60. Vanobberghen, W.; Rombaut, E.; Feys, M.; De Cauwer, C.; Vanhaverbeke, L.; Gobbato, F.; Grulois, G.; Temmerman, L.; de Séjournet, A. Piloting an autonomous shuttle in the Brussels Capital Regions: Living lab insights and user reactions and acceptance. In Proceedings of the Digital Living Lab Days Conference 2020: Connecting People and Technologies towards a Citizen-Centered Digital Future, 2-4 September 2020; pp. 193-217. Available online: https://issuu.com/enoll/docs/proceedings_final (accessed on 14 December 2021).
  61. Kim, J.-H.; Jang, S. A scenario-based experiment and a field study: A comparative examination for service failure and recovery. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 41, 125-132. [CrossRef] · DOI
  62. Brazil, W.; Caulfield, B.; O'Connor, A. The role of transport information in extreme weather events: A scenario based experiment. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2017, 5, 215-223. [CrossRef] · DOI
  63. Armitage, C.J.; Conner, M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 40, 471-499. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  64. Homburg, C.; Koschate, N.; Hoyer, W.D. Do Satisfied Customers Really Pay More? A Study of the Relationship between Customer Satisfaction and Willingness to Pay. J. Mark. 2005, 69, 84-96. [CrossRef] · DOI
  65. Daoud, J.I. Multicollinearity and Regression Analysis. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2017, 949, 012009. [CrossRef] · DOI
  66. Norman, G. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the "laws" of statistics. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 2010, 15, 625-632. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  67. Rehrl, K.; Zankl, C. Digibus©: Results from the first self-driving shuttle trial on a public road in Austria. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2018, 10, 51. [CrossRef] · DOI
  68. Evans, D.S.; Schmalensee, R. The Industrial Organization of Markets with Two-Sided Platforms; Working Paper 11603; National Bureau of Economic Research: Brussels, Belgium, September 2005. [CrossRef] · DOI
  69. Gawer, A.; Cusumano, M.A. How Companies Become Platform Leaders; MIT Sloan Management Review: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2008.
  70. Borhan, M.N.; Ibrahim, A.N.H.; Miskeen, M.A.A. Extending the theory of planned behaviour to predict the intention to take the new high-speed rail for intercity travel in Libya: Assessment of the influence of novelty seeking, trust and external influence. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 130, 373-384. [CrossRef] · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Camps-Aragó, P., Temmerman, L., Vanobberghen, W., & Delaere, S.
Affiliations
Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
Corresponding author
Camps-Aragó, Pol
ORCID
Venue
Sustainability
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-01-14
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
921
ISSN
2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/su14020921
OpenAlex
W4206093871
Cited by
34
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4
FWCI
1.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • VLAIO (HBC.2017.0612)
  • Innoviris (BRGIMP17)
  • European Commission (Grant # 952189)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Transportation and Mobility Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Transportation › Transportation Planning and Optimization
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Electric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Keywords
autonomous vehicles, autonomous shuttles, public transport, citizen acceptance, last-mile mobility, willingness to pay, business models, transport policy, urban mobility, sociodemographic factors, Brussels

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review