Keywords

1 Introduction

The current private car-based mobility paradigm is facing severe challenges, such as meeting climate goals, reducing congestion and air pollution (Banister, 2008; Fournier et al., 2020; Geels et al., 2017; Kuss & Nicholas, 2022; Pribyl et al., 2020). To respond to these challenges, several trends have emerged, including electrification, automation, low-carbon transition, shared transportation, and intermodal transport (Fagnant & Kockelman, 2015; Geels, 2012; Hirschhorn et al., 2019). Innovative mobility modes and systems are developing, such as mobility as a service (MaaS), car-sharing systems, and automated vehicles (Firnkorn & Müller, 2011; Pangbourne et al., 2020). Of particular interest in this chapter is the automated minibus. Automated minibuses are compact, electric-powered, pod-like vehicles deployed in public transport systems (Huber et al., 2022; Nemoto et al., 2021; Nordhoff et al., 2018). This chapter presents the AVENUE social impact assessment, focusing on social acceptance as the capability to attract and retain users.

Social acceptance of an innovation is a prerequisite for its use. Acceptance does not inevitably lead to the adoption (use) of the innovation but rather signifies/represents a positive intentional attitude towards the innovation (Kilian-Yasin et al., 2016). Assessing social acceptance is thus crucial for predicting whether, and under which circumstances, an innovation will be accepted and used. One consideration that is often forgotten in studies on social acceptance is the previously unmet needs that impact social acceptance.

Therefore, in this chapter, an approach based on needs and attitudes is applied to assess social acceptance. Attitudes towards automated minibuses are comprised of the subsequent dimensions: perceived risks and benefits, performance expectations, trustworthiness of the technology, effectiveness, accessibility, price, and willingness to use (Banister, 2008; Hirschhorn et al., 2019; Kyriakidis et al., 2015; Nordhoff et al., 2018). Recent studies demonstrate that attitudes on automated minibuses, such as willingness to use, are strongly influenced by previous experiences with the automated minibuses (Zoellick et al., 2019). These prior experiences are also a vital predictor to evaluate behavioural intentions. Hence, to assess the potential of automated minibuses, it is important to incorporate insights on user experiences.

The following research questions are guiding the research:

  • What mobility needs does the customer have, and how can these be met by automated minibuses?

  • What attitude do customers have towards automated minibuses, and how does that influence acceptance?

  • And finally, how does the specific user experience affect the attitude towards and acceptance of automated minibuses?

2 Research Approach

To answer these research questions, a multi-method study was designed, combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Table 15.1 provides an overview of the studies. The mobility needs assessment (RQ1) consists of 20 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with citizens; 8 citizens live in a pilot site and 12 citizens live in an area with potential automated minibus service.

Table 15.1 Overview studies conducted for the social impact assessment
Full size table

To evaluate the attitudes towards automated minibuses and mobility in general (RQ2), a quantitative, representative survey among 1.816 potential users of four cities (Copenhagen, Geneva, Luxembourg, and Lyon) that host pilot sites of the AVENUE project was conducted. User experiences (RQ3) were evaluated through a survey among 68 users in the AVENUE pilot site in Copenhagen.

2.1 Mobility Needs, Mobility Gaps

Two qualitative studies were conducted to identify mobility requirements and their associated deficiencies. One of the studies was conducted in Germany, specifically in Singen, a small village situated between Karlsruhe and Stuttgart, while the other was conducted in Copenhagen’s Nordhavn area. The objective of the study conducted in Singen was to gain an understanding of the current situation, problems, and needs of the residents regarding their mobility. Furthermore, the study aimed to analyse expectations and concerns regarding possible future mobility solutions, such as the automated minibus. The objective of the study conducted in Copenhagen was to gain insight into the mobility needs, attitudes, and mobility behaviour of citizens living near an AVENUE pilot site. Moreover, our objective was to determine whether the presence of an automated minibus in their neighbourhood had an impact on their mobility needs, attitudes, and mobility behaviour.

Participants were selected based on a theory-based sampling method. A qualitative approach does not strive for statistical representativeness but rather psychosocial representativeness. Therefore, theoretically relevant criteria were defined for the selection of the respondents: age, gender, PRM, place of residence, perceived mobility gaps, satisfaction with PT, as well as current mobility behaviour. Twelve citizens were selected from Singen and eight from Copenhagen. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted in Singen. In Copenhagen, the data collection was divided into different steps. First, exploratory interviews were conducted to gain an understanding of the participants’ attitudes towards mobility and their mobility behaviour. In order to assess a change in attitude, participants were sent six online surveys over the course of 6 weeks. After the completion of the six questionnaires, a concluding interview was conducted to evaluate the alterations in perceived needs, attitudes, and mobility behaviour.

2.2 Attitudes and Social Acceptance

To understand how automated minibuses are perceived and accepted in cities across Europe, a large-scale, representative online survey was launched in the four AVENUE cities in 2021. The online questionnaire was fully structured and programmed in ‘Questback/Tivian’. A total of 1816 citizens participated in the survey across the four AVENUE demonstrator cities. The survey invitation was disseminated through a sample procured from a market research institute. The sample was representative based on gender and age distribution. The sample structure was diverse, reaching all age groups, female and male potential users, employees, as well as students and households with or without children (see Table 15.2). For data analysis, the statistical software SPSS was used.

Table 15.2 Sample structure representative online survey
Full size table

A three-step approach was followed in developing the questionnaire. First, the main parameters and indictors were assessed based on theoretical insights and literature. Second, a repository of questions used in previous questionnaires on automated driving was created (based on Bernauer & Wicki, 2018; Keolis Downer, 2018; Kilian-Yasin et al., 2016; Schoettle & Sivak, 2014). The questions were grouped according to our main parameters and indicators. Where necessary, additional questions were formulated. Third, experts, such as public transport operators in the cities of focus, provided feedback on the questions.

For the majority of the questions, we applied a 5-point Likert scale (Brosius et al., 2012). Only the endpoints are named with (1) describing the negative configuration, e.g. ‘fully disagree’ or ‘not important at all’, and (5) describing the positive form, e.g. ‘fully agree’ or ‘very important’. To not overstrain respondents, an additional answer option (6) ‘I can’t judge’ or ‘I don’t know’ was added in specific questions. To avoid cancelling none of the questions was set as mandatory.

2.3 User Experience

User surveys were conducted to acquire a more in-depth understanding of the users’ interaction with the new service and their perceptions of it. In the user survey, users were asked to reflect on their experience using the automated minibus and to evaluate its usability. The survey consisted of two blocks. A first block of the survey was dedicated to the evaluation of the service. A second block of the survey addressed more general questions about attitudes towards automated minibuses. The second block contained questions that were also part of the large-scale representative survey.

A total of 68 respondents in Copenhagen completed the survey. The survey consisted of two blocks. These participants were asked to conduct the survey, while using the automated minibus. Therefore, the decision to use the service was not influenced by the researchers. The user survey was conducted online, using Questback/Tivian software. Passengers received a flyer from the safety operators with concise information and a link to the online survey. Since the questionnaire could also be completed via mobile devices, passengers had the choice whether they wanted to answer the questionnaire during their ride with the automated minibus or afterwards.

Additionally, respondents were recruited through the aforementioned large-scale representative survey (see Sect. 2.2). In this survey, respondents were asked whether they had previously used an automated minibus. If they had, they were subsequently requested to respond to a set of questions from the user survey. A total of 126 respondents of the large-scale representative survey indicated that they had previously used an automated minibus service and completed the additional user survey questions. In the presentation of the results of the user survey (Sect. 5.1), this group is not mixed with the users of the Nordhavn site. In comparing users to non-users (Sect. 5.2), these respondents are treated as a separate group.

3 Mobility Needs

A crucial element for the successful implementation of innovations is their compatibility with current, actual, and latent needs. The first step in understanding how new mobility systems like automated minibuses can meet these needs is to understand current, actual, latent, and unmet needs in both prospective and actual AVENUE pilot sites. Therefore, the main aim of this needs assessment is to understand what the relevant needs are. In the analysis and in presenting the results, we divide between the mobility needs and the aspects that are required or are in place to fulfil these needs. The latter is termed ‘reliefs’ in Table 15.3.

Table 15.3 Mobility needs
Full size table

According to Schmitt and Altstötter-Gleich (2010), attitude is defined as the ‘degree to which a person likes or dislikes an object’ (2010, p. 146). The attitude thus always refers to a specific attitude object. In the context of this study, the attitude object is the ‘integration of automated minibuses’, which is expressed by the perceived suitability of the automated minibus to best meet personal mobility needs.

3.1 Needs Assessment: Singen and Nordhavn

Singen has a population of approximately 3800 and is approximately 10 square kilometres in size. The village is characterized by a significant difference in altitude. Due to the difference in altitude, the village is divided into two distinct sections, namely ‘Unterdorf’, which is located in the lower part, and ‘Oberdorf’, located in the upper part. The majority of the stores, as well as the train station, are situated on the outskirts of Unterdorf. The village is well connected to major roads, such as the B10. Additionally, there is a bus route that connects Singen to other nearby villages. Cars are the most used transportation mode among our participants, followed by walking and cycling, while trains and buses are used only rarely or not at all (Fig. 15.1).

Fig. 15.1
A state outline map of Germany highlighting Remchingen and a satellite road map of Remchingen. The latter highlights Singen and Wilferdingen.

Location of Singen, Remchingen

Full size image

Nordhavn is a dynamic industrial port that is currently being transformed into Copenhagen’s new international waterfront district, accommodating both residential and commercial structures. Upon completion of Nordhavn’s development, the area will accommodate more than 40,000 residents and 40,000 employees. The vision is for Nordhavn to become an environmentally friendly neighbourhood and contribute to Copenhagen’s image as an environmental metropolis. The introduction of new energy sources and eco-friendly modes of transportation will help establish Nordhavn as a leading example of eco-friendly construction and design. Currently, the Nordhavn area is served by a nearby S-train station and bus stops. However, there are no direct buses or trains operating in the area. This presents a significant opportunity for automated vehicles to serve as a novel public transport (PT) solution and enhance the connectivity of the region beyond its current status. The automated minibus route is located in the Århusgadekvarteret area.

Our participants use all available public transportation options. They consider the metro to be an integral part of their daily mobility, alongside walking and cycling. At the beginning of the study, participants expressed a strong preference for walking. Private cars were less attractive to the study respondents, and in some cases, even a strong aversion against their use was identified (Fig. 15.2).

Fig. 15.2
A connection map has several locations indicated and labeled in a foreign language. It highlights routes via flight and road to Kobenhavn, which is boxed as a coastal region.

Location of Nordhavn

Full size image

3.2 Needs for Effectiveness

The analysis indicates that effectiveness is the primary need for mobility. The ability to travel swift and uninterrupted from point A to point B is essential for effective mobility. In order to achieve effectiveness, both spatial and temporal flexibility are essential. A combination of spatial and temporal flexibility allows users to access and use the transport mode whenever and wherever they want, providing users with a certain degree of freedom.

Respondents in Singen stress the importance of being able to reach and leave the train station at any given moment to catch a scheduled train and then return to the station. This mobility need is not being met at this time. The perception of impracticality is based on factors such as the distance of bus stops and departure times, as well as the frequency of bus stops. Hence, travelling by bus is currently perceived as ineffective and time-consuming.

The bus stop is so far from my house. Until I have walked to the bus stop, I may as well walk right down to the station. (Participant from Singen)

In Copenhagen, participants expressed satisfaction with the spatial flexibility of the transportation system, owing to the tightly knit network of stations that can be quickly accessed from any location. Furthermore, metro and train can bypass traffic congestion on the streets and provide a direct connection between two locations. Nonetheless, the requirement for temporal flexibility freedom is not always fully fulfilled, as trains and metros in Copenhagen operate with reduced frequency in certain areas or at specific times of the day, such as at night. The advantages of the bus network in Copenhagen are seen in the accessibility of the bus stops. However, some bus lines and stations have recently been eliminated due to the extension of the metro. Therefore, some participants complained about longer travel times or poorer access to the bus stops. Due to the substantial traffic volume in Copenhagen, private cars and buses are not regarded as flexible and effective mobility alternatives.

3.3 Cognitive Relief

The cognitive needs are those mobility needs that involve stress reduction and psychological well-being, such as being able to travel spontaneously without requiring detailed planning and not having to change the means of transport several times on one trip. Using bicycles provides cognitive relief because no planning is required, but it can also lead to other stressful problems, such as fear that the bike will be stolen. Copenhagen has a relatively flexible public transportation system, which provides a certain degree of cognitive relief. Nonetheless, certain issues remain, such as the positioning of bus stops, as well as the frequency and network of the public transportation system. As for cycling, the well-developed cycling paths provide an alternative to the congested streets, thus offering cognitive relief from the stress of being stuck in traffic with the car. On the contrary, the situation is sometimes referred to as ‘cycling chaos’, which may also result in stress and diminish the cognitive relief derived from cycling (see also the section on safety).

3.4 Reliability

The need for reliability involves a need for the mode of transport to arrive punctually and sufficient information supply. To attain a high level of effectiveness, a high level of reliability of the respective means of transport is required.

I always ask myself, which is the fastest transport? There are two things I’m considering, firstly with which mode of transport I’m reaching my destination faster and also in time regarding the punctuality. So that I can trust it. (Participant from Copenhagen, a man without handicap, age 55)

The bus system in Singen fails to meet the needs for reliability and punctuality due to delays and an inadequate information policy. Therefore, the need for reliability can be better fulfilled through using the car. In Copenhagen, the need for reliability is also considered to be inadequately met by the metro and train. At times, the trains are subject to delays owing to disruptions, maintenance, or train failures. Hence, the reliability of the public transportation system is compromised and fails to provide adequate freedom, flexibility, and cognitive relief, thereby compromising its effectiveness.

3.5 Needs for Physical Relief

Needs for physical reliefs relate needs that are associated with the physical environment, such as the need for comfort. This need is particularly acute in Singen due to its steep, hilly roads. These areas are easily accessible by car but can be challenging when walking, using a bike, or taking the bus. The need for physical relief is especially acute if larger purchases must be transported.

… And then there is again the question of how to get up the hill with the purchase? That’s why I use the car again. (Participant from Singen)

In addition to the topography, poor road conditions (few bike lanes, parked cars, detours over railroad tracks) and bad weather are problems for physical relief when using the bicycle. Thus, bicycles provide less physical relief in comparison to a car.

In the Copenhagen study, we identified several elements of physical relief, including the ability to transport purchases, provide protection from adverse weather conditions, and maintain high standards of hygiene. A specific need is expressed by respondents with reduced mobility (PRM) stating a need for physical relief due to the physical burden of their handicap. The reduction in the number of bus lines and stations in Copenhagen has led to a decrease in the accessibility of bus stops, which has resulted in a reduction in physical relief.

3.6 Needs for Emotional Relief

The need for emotional relief is multifaceted. Among other aspects, it encompasses perceptions of safety and security. In general, all forms of transportation should be safe and secure. In Singen, a special need for safety when returning home from the train station at night was explicitly addressed. The area around the train station, including the underpass, has been called a particularly dangerous area, so using the car is considered a better way to ensure emotional well-being. In Copenhagen, public transport doesn’t always meet the need for emotional comfort and security because trains and metros run at a lower frequency in certain areas or at certain times of the day. In general, female participants expressed a sense of discomfort while awaiting trains at night.

When it is really late in the night I never use busses, to be honest. And also, the trains are only every 20 min, so I do not feel comfortable waiting at the station or even being in the s-train. (Participant from Copenhagen, woman, age 40)

Moreover, not all participants in Copenhagen felt safe when riding the bicycle. Several participants even referred to the current situation in Copenhagen as ‘cycling chaos’, which results in a sense of unease. Fun, entertainment, or other emotional experiences while travelling were not mentioned as a major need. This need only exists for long-distance trips and is not relevant for shorter trips.

3.7 Needs for Environmental Relief

Environmental relief and impacts on climate change are a mobility need that is not important to the majority of respondents in Singen. Only participants who already have a strong awareness of environmental protection value this need highly.

To be honest, the environmental aspect was not a reason for me. Or just like everyone tries to be a bit resource-conserving, but that wasn’t really a motive for me. (Participant from Singen)

In Copenhagen, two groups of respondents can be distinguished. One group consists of ‘engaged environmental advocates’, who are highly involved in climate change and sustainability. These individuals disapprove of the fact that the majority of buses in Copenhagen utilize fossil fuels. Nonetheless, they express optimism regarding the public transportation system, which is regarded as an environmentally friendly system, wherein resources are utilized effectively. The other group are ‘environmental friends’ who are aware of climate change but for whom sustainable mobility is less relevant. Thus, the current transportation system meets their need for sustainable transportation.

3.8 Needs for Financial Relief

Price was not a mobility need for the participants in case the price is seen as reasonable for the mode of transportation.

The costs are important when thinking of which mode of transport. But it is more that it should be a justified price, like when I get a high standard of service and good quality, I’m willing to pay more. (Participant from Copenhagen, a man without handicap, age 55)

In Singen, for example, the high bus fares were criticized. The degree of current need fulfilment is—in the view of the citizens—disproportionate to the ticket prices.

3.9 Wrap Up

The needs identified among the respondents show one thing above all: there is no acute need for ‘automated’ minibuses. Neither the need for being electrically powered in the sense of greater environmental friendliness nor for being automated in the sense that no driver is needed has priority. Other needs are the focus. The main needs identified are needs for a high level of effectiveness, gained by a high level of flexibility and reliability and specific types of relief: cognitive relief, emotional relief, and physical relief. Environmental relief and financial relief are secondary needs.

4 Attitudes and Acceptance

The following chapter presents the results of the representative, large-scale quantitative study on attitudes and acceptance of automated minibuses by the citizens of the four AVENUE pilot cities.

4.1 Awareness and Willingness to Use Automated Minibuses

A slight majority of respondents (55%) knew about the existence of automated minibuses before the survey. In 2021, the awareness of automated minibuses was greatest in Luxembourg (72%) and lowest in Copenhagen (40%). The difference in awareness is most likely due to difference in visibility of the pilot sites. The site in Luxembourg was situated in a central area, while the site in Copenhagen was located in a new neighbourhood. There is a wide range of information sources through which participants had gained awareness of the automated minibuses: newspaper (37%), radio/tv (50%), the Internet (33%), social media (15%), seen on the test site (22%), or via friends (13%). Only a small number of respondents (7% overall) have used the automated minibus service before (Table 15.4). That could be due to the small portion of the cities covered by the automated minibus service, and in addition, the Corona pandemic decreased the willingness to use PT in general.

Table 15.4 Awareness of automated shuttles
Full size table

To gain insight into the acceptance of citizens to use the automated minibus services, respondents were asked to think about their willingness to use the automated minibus. The consensus in academic literature (see among others Nordhoff et al., 2020; Hirschhorn et al., 2019; Zoellick et al., 2019) is that there is generally a high level of acceptance and willingness to use automated minibuses. We inquired for willingness to use the automated minibuses in three different scenarios of deployment to obtain a more nuanced picture of the willingness to use automated minibuses. The respondents were presented with information on these three deployment scenarios before the questions; see Box 1.

Box 1 Explanation Provided to the Respondents on the Three Automated Minibus Modes of Deployment

The automated minibuses can be integrated in the public transport system to bridge the distance between your place of departure or destination to a public transport station. This is called a service that bridges the first and last mile.

The automated minibuses can provide a service that is not based on a fixed timetable. The automated minibus comes at a time requested by you, to a location specified by you. This location can be the nearest bus stop, or even your doorstep. This is called an on-demand, door-to-door service.

The automated minibuses service can be integrated in a system together with other means of transportation. This means that you can easily combine a trip with the automated minibus with a trip on the train, bus or taxi. As the automated minibuses will operate on-demand, the system will allow you to plan your trip seamlessly. This is called a seamless, intermodal trip.

The willingness to use is high. Irrespective of the scenario, more than 50% ‘would be willing’ or even be ‘very willing’ to use automated minibuses, even two-thirds (63%) in case an on-demand service is offered (see Table 15.4). The willingness to use the automated minibuses as an on-demand service is high in all four cities, with the highest level observed in Geneva, where a generally higher use of buses is observed. Willingness is lowest in Copenhagen. Here, potential users believe that automated minibuses are best suited for short to medium distances. For these distances, however, bicycles already offer an adequate alternative due to the topography of Copenhagen (Fig. 15.3).

Fig. 15.3
A stacked bar chart of the percentage breakdown of not willing to willing scores of 1 to 5 and 0 if do not know. 59 to 69% gave 4 or 5 as scores. The overall breakdown is 25% willing and 38% very willing. Copenhagen, 26% willing and 33% very willing. Geneva, 29% and 40%. Luxembourg, 23% and 41%. Lyon, 26% and 39%.

Willingness to use automated minibus per city if the automated minibus offers an on-demand, door-to-door service (in %, n = 1816)

Full size image

Likewise, the willingness to use the automated minibuses as a service that links the first and last mile is high in all four cities, once again highest in Geneva, where a higher usage of buses is observed, followed by Lyon. By contrast, it is lower in Copenhagen and Luxembourg, but differences are only partially significant (Fig. 15.4).

Fig. 15.4
A stacked bar chart of the percentage breakdown of not willing to willing scores of 1 to 5 and 0 if unsure. 22 to 26% are willing with a score of 4. The breakdown is as follows. Overall, 25% were willing and 30% are very willing. Copenhagen, 22% willing and 23% very willing. Geneva, 34% and 35%. Luxembourg, 23% and 29%. Lyon, 26% and 36%.

Willingness to use automated minibus per city if the automated minibus offers a service that bridges the first and last mile (in %, n = 1816)

Full size image

Similar effects can be seen in the scenario where the service is offered as part of a seamless trip (Fig. 15.5).

Fig. 15.5
A stacked bar chart of the percentage breakdown of not willing to willing scores of 1 to 5 and 0 if unsure. 48 to 65% are willing to very willing. The breakdown is as follows. Overall, 28% are willing and 27% are very willing. Copenhagen, 24% willing and 28% very willing. Geneva, 36% and 29%. Luxembourg, 22% and 26%. Lyon, 32% and 28%.

Willingness to use automated minibus per city if the automated minibus is part of a seamless, intermodal trip (in %, n = 1816)

Full size image

In addition to the willingness to use, the respondents were also asked to think about their willingness to reduce their car use. Of interest are those respondents that actually (field time 2021) own a car; therefore, the results exclude respondents who do not own a car. Hence, the presented figures are based on a slightly smaller sample, as only 1526 out of the 1816 respondents own a car. The willingness to reduce the use of one’s car is generally high in all scenarios. In the case of an on-demand, even more than 50% would be ‘willing to reduce use of own car’ (Fig. 15.6).

Fig. 15.6
A stacked bar chart of percent scores. 4 to 5 scores are 48 to 65%. If the minibus is part of a seamless, intermodal trip, 24% are willing. 25% are very willing. If it offers a service that bridges the first and last mile, 24% are willing but 25% are very willing. If it offers an on-demand, door-to-door service, 58% are willing or very willing.

Willingness to reduce the use of your car if the automated minibus… (in %, n = 1526*). *Reduced base, as non-car owners are excluded

Full size image

Similar to the preceding question, respondents were asked to consider their willingness to give up the use of their car completely. Approximately 50% ‘would be willing’ to give up the use of their own car, in case of an on-demand service. If the automated minibus service would bridge the first and the last mile, 45% of car drivers are ‘willing’ (22%) or even ‘very willing’ (23%) to give up using their own car to use automated minibuses (Fig. 15.7).

Fig. 15.7
A stacked bar chart. 4 to 5 scores are 45 to 52%. If the minibus is part of a seamless, intermodal trip, 22% are willing. 23% are very willing. If the service bridges the first and last mile, 22% are willing and 23% are very willing. If it offers an on-demand, door-to-door service, 52% are willing or very willing.

Willingness to give up the use of your car if the automated minibus… (in %, n = 1526*) *Reduced base, as non-car owners are excluded

Full size image

The respondents were also asked to reflect on their willingness to increase the use of public transport if automated minibuses offer an on-demand service. At least 50% ‘would be willing’ to increase the use of public transport if the automated minibus offers an on-demand service (Fig. 15.8).

Fig. 15.8
A stacked bar chart of percentage distribution. 4 to 5 scores are 50 to 55%. If the bus is part of a seamless, intermodal trip, 24% are willing and 26% are very willing. If the service bridges the first and last mile, 25% are willing and 26% are very willing. If it offers an on-demand, door-to-door service, 25% are willing and 30% are very willing.

Willingness to increase the use of public transport systems (including current offers), if the automated minibus… (in %, n = 1816)

Full size image

The respondents were also asked to think about their willingness to pay for the automated minibus service. The willingness to pay more for an automated minibus, compared to current public transport, is low—see Fig. 15.9. About 6% are very willing, and 30% are willing to pay at least a bit more if the service would be on-demand door-to-door. The automated minibus is not regarded as a truly inspiring innovation (see two-factor model, Herzberg 1968) but rather as a service that removes existing deficits in terms of effectiveness and flexibility (hygiene factor), i.e. it merely reduces the existing dissatisfaction. This could explain why most people are not willing to pay more. The subjective measure might even be that respondents feel that they are paying too much for the current, rather unsatisfactory service.

Fig. 15.9
A stacked bar chart. More than the equivalent is 20 to 36%. If it is part of a seamless, intermodal trip, 16% are a bit more willing and 4% are a lot more willing. If the service bridges the first and last mile, it is 19% and 4%. If it has on-demand, door-to-door service, it is 30% and 6%. The equivalent option is the maximum with 36 to 49%.

Willingness to pay to use the automated minibus, if the automated minibus… (in %, n = 1273*). *This question was not asked in Luxembourg, as Luxembourg offers free public transport

Full size image

In addition to the different scenarios, respondents were asked to select a mobility option for a specific journey. The options differ in terms of flexibility and duration, cost, and environmental friendliness, see Fig. 15.10. Two of the options included the automated minibus. The results show that 25% prefer a fast but expensive option, either by private car or robotaxi, 26% prefer a cheap, environmentally friendly option, even if this implies a longer travel time, and 28% choose a service that incorporates the automated minibus. The latter seems to be mostly driven by the travel time. These results are in line with identified factors for selecting prefered mode of transport (see Fig. 15.11). Here, 59% of the respondents indicated that speed and travel are ranked first, second or third most important factor in selecting their prefered mode of transport.

Fig. 15.10
An illustration of a mobile screen of commuting preferences and include the following elements. 26% are environmental-friendly preferring walking or bike sharing. 28% select a service integrating the automated minibus. 25% prefer the fastest but more expensive solutions like Robotaxi and taxi.

Preference for mobility options

Full size image
Fig. 15.11
A horizontal bar chart of the importance of 9 factors for selecting the preferred mode of transport divided by the market segments. It includes speed and travel time at the top with 59%, followed by punctuality with 46%, and accessibility with 39%. Pleasure and joy have the least with 22%.

Importance of factors for selecting the preferred mode of transport, divided by the market segments (in %)

Full size image

4.2 Advantages and Concerns

The general impression is that the respondents have a positive perception of the advantages of automated minibuses. About two-thirds expect the automated minibuses to (‘agree’ or ‘fully agree’) provide more freedom for people with reduced mobility (64%) that they will increase flexibility by providing a greater number of start and stop locations (64%) and by increasing the frequency of PT offers (63%)—see Fig. 15.12.

Fig. 15.12
A stacked horizontal bar chart of 12 perceived advantages of automated minibuses on a scale of 1 to 5 and I cannot judge. 5 = fully agree and 1 = fully disagree. It includes be booked on demand in the future at the top for I cannot judge and provide enhanced freedom for people with mobility issues for fully agree.

Perceived advantages of automated minibuses (in %, n = 1816)

Full size image

Additionally, a positive environmental impact is expected, e.g. reducing the negative impact on the environment (60%) and congestion (49%). A pleasant and comfortable journey (54%) with guaranteed security due to installed video cameras inside the buses is expected (52%) by every second respondent. More prudent are the positive expectations concerning the question of whether the automated minibus will truly lead to fewer accidents by eliminating human errors.

When it comes to perceived concerns, the picture is slightly more nuanced. Respondents show a high agreement with concerns regarding the operation of the automated minibus (this includes the interaction with motorized (49%) and nonmotorized traffic (46%), its reaction to unforeseen situations (54%), and issues of liability in the case of an accident (44%). Social concerns are also pertinent to respondents. 41% of the respondents are in agreement with the statement ‘jobs get lost’. These concerns are consistent with the results of our social media analysis. Here, more than 1200 comments were analysed. The comments were associated with different online textual contents, images, or video clips from around the world associated with the topic of automated public transit stemming from a variety of channels ranging from the online press to internet communities and blogposts through the multiple social networks. The study suggests that ‘social concerns’ is undoubtedly the most represented of the previously identified categories (concerning 43% of the comments). In particular, the negative consequences for the labour market (14.9% of the occurrences) seem to be a concern (Fig. 15.13).

Fig. 15.13
A stacked horizontal bar chart of 14 perceived concerns over automated minibuses on a scale of 1 to 5 and I cannot judge. 5 = fully agree and 1 = fully disagree. It includes the systems are not reliable at the top for I cannot judge and privacy is not protected for fully disagree.

Perceived concerns over automated minibuses (in %, n = 1816)

Full size image

Respondents are also worried that the software could be hacked, as 44% agree that this could happen. 43% would not feel safe in the event of harassment and assault, and 41% also express concern that the technology may not yet be fit to drive. These concerns also match the results of our social media study. Following social concerns, ‘security concerns’ (18% of the comments) are the most important concerns for people. Still, there seems to be a certain level of trust in ‘the system’. Only a small share of the respondents are worried that the system may not be secure (29%) or is not reliable (24%). Since many respondents still believe that it is unclear how the automated minibuses will react in critical situations, the presence of a safety operator is still important for the majority of participants.

Generally, criticisms and concerns towards the automated public transit system remain high, especially worries about safety, security, and society. These findings can be seen both in the large-scale, representative online survey and in our social media analysis. Nonetheless, both studies reveal that people are aware of the benefits of automated minibuses. This means that while the attitude towards the automated minibuses is still not exclusively positive, a change in attitude is observable. For example, the social media study described in Chap. 7.3 in Korbee et al. (2021) found that the most quoted comment is that automated PT is needed and its introduction is very welcome (17.6% of the comments). Moreover, the share of comments expressing that accidents with automated PT will be decreased has risen by 142.9% indicating that trust in automated PT also seems to have improved. At the same time, the part of negative remarks has mostly decreased in comparison to the first monitoring. For instance, the share of remarks asserting that automated public transports are dangerous has decreased (−27.8%), same for those claiming that automated minibuses are unreliable (−71.4%) or susceptible to being hacked, bugged, or used for terrorist attacks (−39.4%).

5 User Experience

A user survey is a widely accepted research tool for gaining valuable insights into the experiences of individuals using specific services and for investigating the usability of the new service (Korbee et al., 2019). The participants in this survey were approached by a safety operator while travelling with the automated minibus, i.e. they weren’t travelling with the automated minibus for the sole purpose of taking part in a user survey. In the online user survey, they were asked to reflect on their experience and assess the usability, their overall satisfaction, as well as their satisfaction with specific aspects.

5.1 User Experience and Acceptance

There is a wide range of information sources through which users became aware of the automated minibus: the most important sources are the internet (28%), direct contact on test site (28%), or informal sources such as word of mouth (17%) and friends (10%). Only one in five users read about it in newspapers (18%) and social media (16%) or heard a news item on the radio (16%).

The analysis of the motivation behind the use of the automated minibus reveals that the users did not plan on using the automated minibus but rather made a spontaneous decision, following emotions such as curiosity (88%), or they cannot cite a specific reason at all (43%). This demonstrates that the barriers to use the automated minibuses are quite low, but it also indicates that there is still a lack of real conviction for this new mobility system. Positive attitudes that could result in planned use (see Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991)) have not yet been established. Only 4% report that they use the automated minibus due to previous positive experiences. The analysis shows that use is presently not motivated by the market presence in the sense of concrete knowledge and conviction but is mainly driven by spontaneous interest.

Approximately half of the respondents (46%) utilized the automated minibuses as a substitute for cycling, while 17% substituted walking (as depicted in Fig. 15.14). A high substitution of active mobility could be due to the length and location of the line and the high modal share of cycling in Copenhagen.

Fig. 15.14
A pie chart on the question of what would you have used if there was not an automated minibus service. The data is as follows. Bike, 46%. Own car, 23%. Walking, 17%. Train, 8%. Bus, 5%. Tram, 2%. Other, 2%.

Means of transport replaced by the automated minibus (in %, n = 66)

Full size image

Users were asked to reflect on their satisfaction with their last ride. In general, the users expressed a high level of satisfaction with their previous ride, with a mean score of 4.5 out of a possible 5, with 5 being the highest level of satisfaction. Almost two-thirds (59%) of the users expressed a high level of satisfaction. An analysis of the aspects that users were most satisfied with indicates that especially the overall atmosphere in the automated minibus was experienced as pleasant: temperature (4.6), cleanliness (4.6), noise level in the bus (4.5), atmosphere in the bus (4.4), and security from outside the bus (4.4). Items that are more difficult to evaluate are related to the quality of service, such as punctuality, due to the lack of experience of the users. Most of the respondents had experienced the automated minibus for the first time. Consequently, more than 42% of the respondents did not answer these questions. If they were able to assess the quality of service, the subsequent features were satisfying:

  • Location of stops (4.3)

  • Punctuality (4.2)

  • Reliability (4.1)

  • Waiting time (4.1)

Compared to the highly satisfying aspects, the following aspects were rated slightly worse on average:

  • Speed/travel time (3.9)

  • Frequency of service (3.9)

  • Connection to other transport means (3.0)

The information offered on the bus is again satisfying (4.5); other information offers are rarely evaluated. This again underscores the fact that current users did not schedule their ride and therefore did not require more detailed information in advance.

Users appear to experience the ride in a relaxed atmosphere. This is confirmed by the results of the question ‘what describes your feeling/emotions towards automated minibuses best?’ These feelings are reported as being characterized by optimism (74%) and curiosity (68%). Suspicious or anxious feelings occur extremely rarely (less than 5%). These positive feelings are reinforced by the low incidence of problems. When asked explicitly, 26% of the respondents (16 users out of 62 users that answered this question) encountered problems during their trip: unplanned stops (7 users), conflicts with other road members (8 users), long interruptions (5 users), or sudden braking manoeuvre (8 users).

The willingness to use the automated minibuses again is very high; 76% are very willing to use the automated minibus again, as shown in the first bar of Fig. 15.15. Only 2% of the users are hesitant to use it again, and another 2% of the users indicate that they are not willing to use it again.

Fig. 15.15
A stacked bar chart of the percentage distribution of willingness scored from 2 to 5 and 0 for not willing. Scores 4 to 5 are 30 to 94%. Willingness to use again for n = 62, 18% are willing and 76% are very willing. Willingness to reduce use of own car is 21% and 45%. Willingness to give up usage of own car is 3% and 27%.

Willingness to use again (in %)

Full size image

In order to assess the acceptance of automated minibuses, it is essential to gain a more profound understanding of the perceived benefits (Fig. 15.16) and concerns (Fig. 15.17). Overall, the impression is that the respondents have a positive perception about the benefits of automated minibuses. All items asked had a minimum agreement of 50% for the perceived benefit that automated minibuses can reduce congestion and a maximum agreement of 95% that automated minibuses can be used for routes that are less popular. The perceived benefit that automated minibuses can reduce congestion received the most critical assessment, with only a small majority of 51% agreeing. These figures are similar to those in the original survey of Keolis Downer in Australia (Keolis Downer August, 2018). The potential benefits were scored on a 10-point scale, ranging from 8.1 for more efficient use of time to 8.9 for enhanced freedom for people with reduced mobility (PRM).

Fig. 15.16
A stacked bar chart of agreement percentages scored from 2 to 5 and I cannot judge. Scores 4 to 5 are 51 to 76%. For buses to be used for less popular routes, 17% agree and 59% strongly agree. For it to reduce negative environmental impact, it is 36% and 59%. For it to provide enhanced freedom for people with mobility issues, it is 27% and 53%.

Perceived benefits of automated minibuses (in %, n = 57)

Full size image
Fig. 15.17
A stacked bar chart of percentages. 4 to 5 scores are 2 to 24%. The bars are privacy protection, learning how to use it, losing jobs, systems not reliable, and so on. The high agreement is for the way automated buses react in unforeseen situations, interact with motorized or non-motorized road users, or accidents, or software may be hacked.

Perceived concerns about automated minibuses (in %, n = 54)

Full size image

When it comes to the perceived concerns, the picture is somewhat more differentiated. Five out of ten concerns are not classified as such by most users. Hence, over 50% of the users disagree with the concerns about privacy, the pleasure of driving, learning to use the new system, job losses, and the reliability of the systems. A smaller percentage of users disagree with apprehensions regarding the functioning of the automated minibus. This includes the interaction with motorized and nonmotorized traffic, its reaction to unforeseen situations, and issues of liability in the case of an accident.

AM development also includes creating services beyond transportation. An argument made in support of the development of such services is that it can increase the number of users and add an additional benefit to the system compared to other transport systems. One service discussed is the presence of a safety operator. Opinions differ on whether a safety operator is needed on board the automated minibus. For a smaller share of users (18%), the presence of a safety operator is (very) important. A larger proportion of users (53%) believe that a safety operator is not important (at all).

Suggested services, such as providing feedback via QR codes, in-vehicle entertainment, access to WIFI, and an app to help with trip planning, are generally not considered as important by the respondents of this survey (Fig. 15.18). In the answer category ‘other’, respondents suggested the following services:

  • Feedback from the vehicle concerning its decision-making and status

  • Screen indicating the journey status (number of stops, estimated time of arrival, etc.)

  • More handles in the bus, primarily for the passenger seat in the middle

  • A plan indicating the location of the bus stops

Fig. 15.18
A stacked bar chart of percentage distribution for importance. 4 to 5 scores are 13 to 52%. The bars are access to wifi on the bus is 18% important and 20% very important. An application that helps organize my journey is 32% important and 20% very important. Both giving feedback via Q R codes and entertainment with screens have 30% importance.

Evaluation of services (in %, n = 60)

Full size image

The price of the automated minibuses is an essential selection criterion for the users for using the automated minibus. A majority of 58% state that the price is (very) important for their decision to use the automated minibus. No one indicated that price is not important at all. To explore the opportunities for future use and business cases, a question was integrated to compare the willingness to pay for the automated minibus in comparison to other means of transport. Only 24% of the users refuse to pay the same or an even higher price. However, the fact that only 11% of users are willing to pay more indicates that users do not see such a large improvement that it would justify a higher willingness to pay. Again, this can be interpreted to imply that the automated minibus cannot entirely replace other systems but that it is seen as an obvious necessity that does not justify the additional cost for the user.

5.2 Users vs Non-users

An important question is whether respondents who have used an automated minibus are more willing to use the automated minibus in different scenarios and whether an experience with the automated minibuses decreased the perception of risks and improved the perception of benefits. In this section, therefore, we compare responses of non-users with those of users. In designing the questionnaires, we took care to keep the questions the same for the different target groups. Table 15.5 and Table 15.6 show a comparison between the responses of citizens who have never used an automated minibus (gathered through the survey in the four AVENUE cities, 2021) with citizens who have experience with an automated minibus service. For the second group, we present the results in two groups: the users from the survey in the four AVENUE cities (2021) and the users of the Copenhagen site (2020). Overall, users in Copenhagen appear to be most convinced. Slightly less but still partially more convinced than non-users are the users identified in the representative survey. These effects can be explained by several reasons: users may be more open-minded than non-users in the first place. Especially in Copenhagen, usage was strongly motivated by curiosity. This may also explain that these very open-minded users even show higher goodwill. Users in Copenhagen see the lowest risks and the highest benefits. This is especially the case for the statement that the automated minibuses will ‘reduce the negative impacts on the environment’. 95% of users in Copenhagen approve with this statement compared to 60% of the non-users. Both user groups display higher levels of agreement with the statements that ‘automated minibuses will be pleasant and comfortable’, that the ‘automated minibuses will cause fewer accidents’, and that the ‘automated minibuses will be more efficient’. However, non-users are not more likely to agree with the statement that the ‘automated minibuses can reduce congestion’. A higher percentage of users agree with the assertion that ‘the technology is not yet ready to drive on public roads’. Users identified in the representative survey do not differ substantially from non-users in terms of perceived risks.

Table 15.5 Perceived benefits of automated minibus services in non-users and users
Full size table
Table 15.6 Perceived risks of automated minibus services in non-users and users
Full size table

6 Conclusions

The AVENUE social impact assessment demonstrates that the majority of citizens are inclined towards a positive, receptive (goodwill) attitude. More than half of the potential users ‘would be willing’ or even ‘very willing’ to use the automated minibuses irrespective of the three different scenarios tested. Of the car owners, 50% would be willing to reduce or even give up the use of their own car if the automated minibus service was offered as part of an on-demand, door-to-door service.

It is critical to understand the perspective of users and potential users. For potential users, the benefit for them (as individual users) is the most important. Potential benefits include greater temporal and spatial flexibility, reduced waiting time, high speed, and more affordable transportation. Thus, it is essential that the automated minibus can compete with other means of transport in these aspects. Since automated minibuses also compete with private cars in terms of a possible lack of private atmosphere, especially for the critical reserved and unconvinced refusers, privacy must also be the focus. Given the current state of technology, the automated minibus operates at low speed (between 8 and 20 km/h). This low speed leads to low ratings by users (Nordhoff et al., 2018). These results are corroborated by Krueger et al. (2016) who define travel time and waiting time as critical determinants for the use and acceptance of the automated minibus. In addition, it is essential for customers that automated minibuses can fulfil the need for cognitive relief. The service option that best meets respondents’ needs is the on-demand service, which has the highest willingness to use of all three scenarios, with more than 60%. There are many unfulfilled needs due to gaps in the current PT offer but also resulting from gaps experienced in using one’s own car. This creates/leads to at least latent needs which could potentially be met by the automated minibuses. In particular, the need for more flexibility could be satisfied here.

In general, the impression is that respondents have a positive perception of the benefits of automated minibuses. When it comes to the perceived concerns, the picture is somewhat more nuanced. Respondents show a high level of agreement with concerns relating to the functioning of the automated minibus. Particularly, an increase in fears about how the automated minibuses may interact with other traffic members can be observed. As long as it is still unclear to many citizens how the automated minibuses may interact with other motorized or nonmotorized traffic members, a supervisor is still required. One way to positively influence attitudes is through well-targeted communication campaigns. An additional way to shift attitudes is to bring people in contact with the automated minibuses. This is because real experience in the automated minibus generally has a positive impact on the trust in the system: a comparison of the findings of the quantitative survey with potential users and the quantitative survey with users in Nordhavn demonstrates that user experience is an essential factor in reducing the perceived concerns and increasing acceptance of the automated minibus. Nevertheless, a high level of goodwill among potential users and a high level of satisfaction among users lead to a high level of willingness to (re)use and experience the new system several times. Yet, this does not result in a regular usage or substitution of privately owned cars, which can be observed especially in Copenhagen. The explanation for this is that, according to the findings of all included studies, citizens do not perceive an acute need for a complete substitution of current public transport offers. The extent to which classical transport modes can be substituted by automated minibuses also depends heavily on the satisfaction with the existing transport options. In cities like Copenhagen, where satisfaction with the offer of public transportation is already elevated, the need for new transportation services is thus lower. Potential users do not expect the automated minibus service to completely replace all current mobility options; it is not expected that the service will replace the use of private cars or bicycles completely, but they see the potential to substitute the current bus system.

Since there is a risk that negative experiences with conventional public transportation systems may also reduce acceptance of the automated minibuses, a clear differentiation of the new system from the existing bus offers must be communicated. The automated minibuses should not only be introduced as a new bus offer but as a completely new service that combines the advantages of a car (high level of flexibility) with the advantages public transport (higher cognitive and environmental relief as well as lower costs). We concluded that automated minibuses have the potential to fundamentally transform urban mobility when integrated as an on-demand, door-to-door service in a public transport or MaaS system. That said, it is not the innovation of automated minibuses itself that is key but rather its integration in the urban public transport systems and, at a later stage, in a MaaS / ITS. This integration will fulfil the mobility needs of potential users, taking the introduction of automated minibuses from a product innovation to a system innovation. Lastly, the AVENUE social impact assessment reaches the conclusion that by integrating automated minibuses into a public transport system, public transport can become as flexible as private cars. This will lead to high acceptance. Automated minibuses also have additional potential for improvement, as they are more efficient in use (shared) and thus contribute to a more sustainable urban mobility system.