Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Risk preference and adoption of autonomous vehicles

2019, Transportation Research Part A-policy and Practice

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRA.2019.06.007

Abstract

Despite an increasingly large body of research that focuses on the potential demand for autonomous vehicles (AVs), risk preference is an understudied factor. Given that AV technology and how it will interact with the evolving mobility system are highly risky, this lack of research on risk preference is a critical gap in current understanding. By using a stated preference survey of 1,142 individuals from Singapore, this study achieves three objectives. First, it develops one measure of psychometric risk preference and operationalizes prospect theory to create two economic risk preference parameters. Second, it examines how these psychometric and economic risk preferences are associated with socioeconomic variables. Third, it analyzes how risk preference influences the mode choice of AVs. The study finds that risk preference parameters are significantly associated with socioeconomic variables: the elderly, poor, females, and unemployed Singaporeans appear more risk-averse and tend to overestimate small probabilities of losses. Furthermore, all three risk preference parameters contribute to the prediction of AV adoption. These modeling results have policy implications at both the aggregate and disaggregate levels. At the aggregate level, people misperceive probabilities, are overall risk-averse, and hence under-consume AVs relative to the social optimum. At the disaggregate level, the elderly, poor, female, and unemployed are more risk-averse and thus are less likely to adopt AVs. These results suggest that it might be valuable for governments to implement policies to encourage technology adoption, particularly for disadvantaged social groups, although caution remains due to uncertainty in the long-term effects of AVs. Individualized risk preference parameters could also inform how to design regulations, safety standards, and liability allocations of AVs since many regulations are essentially mechanisms for risk allocation. One limitation of the paper is that risk preference is measured and modeled only as individual-specific but not alternative-specific variables. Future studies should examine the relationship between the multiple components of risk preference and the multiple risky aspects of AVs.

References (49)

  1. Allais, M. (1953). Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l'école américaine. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 503-546.
  2. Bansal, P., & Kockelman, K. M. (2017). Forecasting Americans' long-term adoption of connected and autonomous vehicle technologies. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 95, 49-63.
  3. Camerer, C. F., & Kunreuther, H. (1989). Decision processes for low probability events: Policy implications. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 8(4), 565-592.
  4. Chen, D., Ahn, S., Chitturi, M., & Noyce, D. A. (2017). Towards vehicle automation: Roadway capacity formulation for traffic mixed with regular and automated vehicles. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 100, 196-221.
  5. Chen, Z., He, F., Yin, Y., & Du, Y. (2017). Optimal design of autonomous vehicle zones in transportation networks. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 99, 44-61.
  6. Chen, Z., He, F., Zhang, L., & Yin, Y. (2016). Optimal deployment of autonomous vehicle lanes with endogenous market penetration. Transportation research part C: emerging technologies, 72, 143-156.
  7. Daziano, R. A., Sarrias, M., & Leard, B. (2017). Are consumers willing to pay to let cars drive for them? Analyzing response to autonomous vehicles. Transportation research part C: emerging technologies, 78, 150-164.
  8. De Almeida Correia, G. H., & Van Arem, B. (2016). Solving the User Optimum Privately Owned Automated Vehicles Assignment Problem (UO-POAVAP): A model to explore the impacts of self-driving vehicles on urban mobility. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 87, 64-88.
  9. De Oliveira, Í. R. (2017). Analyzing the performance of distributed conflict resolution among autonomous vehicles. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 96, 92-112.
  10. De Palma, A., Ben-Akiva, M., Brownstone, D., Holt, C., Magnac, T., McFadden, D., . . . Wakker, P. (2008). Risk, uncertainty and discrete choice models. Marketing Letters, 19(3-4), 269- 285.
  11. Dhami, S. (2016). The Foundations of Behavioral Economic Analysis: Oxford University Press.
  12. Dupas, P. (2014). Short -run subsidies and long -run adoption of new health products: Evidence from a field experiment. Econometrica, 82(1), 197-228.
  13. Elias, W., & Shiftan, Y. (2012). The influence of individual's risk perception and attitudes on travel behavior. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46(8), 1241-1251.
  14. Fagnant, D. J., & Kockelman, K. (2015). Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 77, 167-181.
  15. Fehr-Duda, H., & Epper, T. (2012). Probability and risk: Foundations and economic implications of probability-dependent risk preferences. Annu. Rev. Econ., 4(1), 567-593.
  16. Freemark, Y., Hudson, A., & Zhao, J. (2019). Are cities prepared for autonomous vehicles? Planning for technological change by U.S. local governments? Journal of the American Planning Association (In Press).
  17. Goldstein, W. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1987). Expression theory and the preference reversal phenomena. Psychological review, 94(2), 236.
  18. Goncalo de Almeida Correia, G. H., Looff, E., van Cranenburgh, S., Snelder, M., & van Arem, B. (2019). On the impact of vehicle automation on the value of travel time while performing work and leisure activities in a car: Theoretical insights and results from a stated preference survey. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 119, 359-382.
  19. Gonzalez, R., & Wu, G. (1999). On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive psychology, 38(1), 129-166.
  20. Greene, D. L., German, J., & Delucchi, M. A. (2008). Fuel economy: the case for market failure Reducing climate impacts in the transportation sector (pp. 181-205): Springer.
  21. Guerra, E. (2016). Planning for cars that drive themselves: Metropolitan Planning Organizations, regional transportation plans, and autonomous vehicles. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 36(2), 210-224.
  22. Haboucha, C. J., Ishaq, R., & Shiftan, Y. (2017). User preferences regarding autonomous vehicles. Transportation research part C: emerging technologies, 78, 37-49.
  23. Harbeck, E. L., Glendon, A. I., & Hine, T. J. (2017). Reward versus punishment: Reinforcement sensitivity theory, young novice drivers' perceived risk, and risky driving. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 47, 13-22.
  24. Hensher, D. A., Ho, C., & Knowles, L. (2016). Efficient contracting and incentive agreements between regulators and bus operators: The influence of risk preferences of contracting agents on contract choice. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 87, 22- 40.
  25. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 263-291.
  26. Kam, C. D. (2012). Risk attitudes and political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 817-836.
  27. Kam, C. D., & Simas, E. N. (2012). Risk attitudes, candidate characteristics, and vote choice. Public Opinion Quarterly, nfs055.
  28. Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. New York: Hart, Schaffner and Marx.
  29. Krueger, R., Rashidi, T. H., & Rose, J. M. (2016). Preferences for shared autonomous vehicles. Transportation research part C: emerging technologies, 69, 343-355.
  30. Kyriakidis, M., Happee, R., & de Winter, J. C. (2015). Public opinion on automated driving: Results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 32, 127-140.
  31. Lamotte, R., de Palma, A., & Geroliminis, N. (2017). On the use of reservation-based autonomous vehicles for demand management. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 99, 205-227.
  32. Liu, E. M. (2013). Time to change what to sow: Risk preferences and technology adoption decisions of cotton farmers in China. Review of economics and statistics, 95(4), 1386- 1403.
  33. Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated choice methods: analysis and applications: Cambridge University Press.
  34. Madrian, B. C. (2014). Applying insights from behavioral economics to policy design. Annu. Rev. Econ., 6(1), 663-688.
  35. Maynard, T., Beecroft, N., & Gonzalez, S. (2014). Autonomous vehicles: handing over control.
  36. Mersky, A. C., & Samaras, C. (2016). Fuel economy testing of autonomous vehicles. Transportation research part C: emerging technologies, 65, 31-48.
  37. Morikawa, T., Ben-Akiva, M., & McFadden, D. (2002). Discrete choice models incorporating revealed preferences and psychometric data. Advances in Econometrics, 16, 29-56.
  38. Mosley, P., & Verschoor, A. (2005). Risk attitudes and the 'vicious circle of poverty'. The European journal of development research, 17(1), 59-88.
  39. Neumann, J. v., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior: Princeton university press Princeton.
  40. Nicholson, W., & Snyder, C. (2011). Microeconomic theory: Basic principles and extensions: Nelson Education.
  41. Prelec, D. (1998). The probability weighting function. Econometrica, 497-527.
  42. Starkey, N. J., & Isler, R. B. (2016). The role of executive function, personality and attitudes to risks in explaining self-reported driving behaviour in adolescent and adult male drivers. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 38, 127-136.
  43. Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Terrorism and probability neglect. Journal of Risk and uncertainty, 26(2- 3), 121-136.
  44. Talebpour, A., & Mahmassani, H. S. (2016). Influence of connected and autonomous vehicles on traffic flow stability and throughput. Transportation research part C: emerging technologies, 71, 143-163.
  45. Tanaka, T., Camerer, C. F., & Nguyen, Q. (2010). Risk and time preferences: linking experimental and household survey data from Vietnam. American economic review, 100(1), 557-571.
  46. Tversky, A., & Fox, C. R. (1995). Weighing risk and uncertainty. Psychological review, 102(2), 269. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and uncertainty, 5(4), 297-323.
  47. Wu, X., & Nie, Y. M. (2011). Modeling heterogeneous risk-taking behavior in route choice: A stochastic dominance approach. Transportation Research Part A, 45, 896-915.
  48. Xu, X., & Fan, C.-K. (2018). Autonomous vehicles, risk perceptions and insurance demand: An individual survey in China. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.
  49. Yap, M. D., Correia, G., & Van Arem, B. (2016). Preferences of travellers for using automated vehicles as last mile public transport of multimodal train trips. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 94, 1-16.