Autonomous vehicle technologies are anticipated to transform road transportation systems, promising enhanced traffic safety and efficiency across different modes, including public buses (PB) and ride-pooling services (RPS). However, in India, there is a growing security concern/fear of crime concerning conventional PB and RPS because of the recent rise in crimes committed on them. Moreover, the introduction of driverless modes of PB and RPS may further heighten commuters’ crime concerns on such services because of the absence of a driver. Thus, this study investigates the acceptance of autonomous public buses (APB) and autonomous ride-pooling services (ARPS), as well as how commuters’ characteristics influence the perceived risks of crime and victimization and their willingness to use the modes. To achieve this, a stated preference survey was designed and conducted across India. The survey resulted in 732 complete responses. The results show that socioeconomic attributes, vehicle automation, and security-related measures significantly influence commuters’ perceived fear of crime and willingness to use APB and ARPS in India. More specifically, young commuters demonstrate higher willingness to use APB and ARPS, while females exhibit lower willingness to use APB and ARPS. In addition, the presence of a security officer on these modes decreases commuters’ concerns about crime. Moreover, travel distance is positively associated with commuters’ perceived level of crime and victimization, while it has a negative relationship with their unwillingness to use APB and ARPS. APB and ARPS are yet to be introduced in India, and Indian commuters have not experienced the security concerns associated with them; thus, the results of this study can serve as the base for guideline formulation for security concerns in India. Based on the results of this study, a set of policy implications, such as female-only transit units, enhancing security measures on the automated modes, and design framework and infrastructure, were proposed. These policy implications can be instrumental in increasing the acceptability of APB and ARPS in India and other countries with similar characteristics.
JoewonoT. B.MatthewA.RizkiM.Loyalty of Paratransit Users in the Era of Competition with Ride Sourcing. Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 13, No. 22, 2021, pp. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212719.
2.
AlotaibiO.PotoglouD.Introducing Public Transport and Relevant Strategies in Riyadh City, Saudi Arabia: A Stakeholders’ Perspective. Urban, Planning and Transport Research, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2018, pp. 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650020.2018.1463867.
3.
MayoF. L.TaboadaE. B.Ranking Factors Affecting Public Transport Mode Choice of Commuters in an Urban City of a Developing Country Using Analytic Hierarchy Process: The Case of Metro Cebu, Philippines. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Vol. 4, 2020, p. 100078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2019.100078.
4.
LiK.Investigating the Effect Crime Has on Uber and Yellow Taxi Pickups in NYC. Honors Theses. Paper 924. Colby College Economics Department, 2019.
5.
CeccatoV.Loukaitou-SiderisA.. Fear of Sexual Harassment and Its Impact on Safety Perceptions in Transit Environments: A Global Perspective. Violence Against Women, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2022, pp. 26–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801221992874.
6.
Orozco-FontalvoM.SotoJ.ArévaloA.Women’s Perceived Risk of Sexual Harassment in a Bus Rapid Transit ( BRT ) System: The Case of Barranquilla, Colombia. Journal of Transport & Health, Vol. 14, 2019, p. 100598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2019.100598.
7.
GirmaM.WoldetensaeB.Passengers’ Perceptions on Security and Safety in Public Transportation in Ethiopia: A Case Study Of Addis Ababa. Scientific Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport, Vol. 113, 2021, pp. 61–73. https://doi.org/10.20858/SJSUTST.2021.113.5.
8.
MeshramA.ChoudharyP.VelagaN. R.Assessing and Modelling Perceived Safety and Comfort of Women during Ridesharing. Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 48, 2020, pp. 2852–2869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2020.08.233.
9.
GaoY.ChenJ.The Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development of Shared Transportation: The Chinese Online Car-Hailing Policy Evaluation in the Digitalization Era. Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 11, No. 9, 2019, p. 2596. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092596.
10.
VayouphackS.Ridesharing in Developing Countries: Perspectives from India and Thailand. Dissertation. Auckland University of Technology, 2020.
11.
TripathiK.BorrionH.BelurJ.Sexual Harassment of Students on Public Transport: An Exploratory Study in Lucknow, India. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, Vol. 19, No. 3–4, 2017, pp. 240–250. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41300-017-0029-0.
12.
MadanM.NallaM. K.Sexual Harassment in Public Spaces: Examining Gender Differences in Perceived Seriousness and Victimization. International Criminal Justice Review, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2016, pp. 80–97.
13.
NatarajanM.Rapid Assessment of “Eve Teasing” (Sexual Harassment) of Young Women during the Commute to College in India. Crime Science, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2016, pp. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-016-0054-9.
14.
National Crime Records Bureau. Crime in India-2021. Government of India, 2022.
StöcklH.QuiggZ.Violence Against Women and Challenges during Pandemic. The BMJ, Vol. 374, No. 6, 2021, pp. 68–73. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1926.
17.
CuiJ.SabaliauskaiteG.LiewL. S.ZhouF.ZhangB.Collaborative Analysis Framework of Safety and Security for Autonomous Vehicles. IEEE Access, Vol. 7, 2019, pp. 148672–148683. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2946632.
18.
KimK.KimJ. S.JeongS.ParkJ. H.KimH. K.Cybersecurity for Autonomous Vehicles: Review of Attacks and Defense. Computers and Security, Vol. 103, 2021, p. 102150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2020.102150.
19.
SanguinettiA.KuraniK.FergusonB.Vehicle Design May Be Critical to Encourage Ride-Pooling in Shared Automated Vehicles. University of California Office of the President, 2019, pp. 8–10. https://doi.org/10.7922/G2MC8X71.
20.
DolinsS.StrömbergH.WongY. Z.KarlssonM.Sharing Anxiety Is in the Driver’s Seat: Analyzing User Acceptance of Dynamic Ridepooling and Its Implications for Shared Autonomous Mobility. Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 13, No. 14, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147828.
21.
SalonenA. O.Passenger’s Subjective Traffic Safety, in-Vehicle Security and Emergency Management in the Driverless Shuttle Bus in Finland. Transport Policy, Vol. 61, 2018, pp. 106–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.10.011.
22.
AzadM.HoseinzadehN.BrakewoodC.CherryC. R.HanL. D.Fully Autonomous Buses: A Literature Review and Future Research Directions. Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 2019, 2019, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4603548.
23.
PortouliE.KaraseitanidisG.LytrivisP.AmditisA.RaptisO.KaraberiC.Public Attitudes Towards Autonomous Mini Buses Operating in Real Conditions in a Hellenic City. Proc., IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Los Angeles, CA, IEEE, New York, June 11–14, 2017, pp. 571–576. https://doi.org/10.1109/IVS.2017.7995779.
24.
LeeJ.MaoR.PervezA.Perceived Risk of Crime on Driverless Public Bus and Ride-Pooling Services in China. Travel Behaviour and Society, Vol. 35, 2024, p. 100730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2023.100730.
25.
ZwickF.AxhausenK. W.Ride-Pooling Demand Prediction: A Spatiotemporal Assessment in Germany. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 100, 2022, p. 103307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2022.103307.
AllenJ.MuñozJ. C.de D. OrtúzarJ.Understanding Public Transport Satisfaction: Using Maslow’s Hierarchy of (Transit) Needs. Transport Policy, Vol. 81, 2019, pp. 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.06.005.
28.
ChenY.ZahediF. M.Individuals’ Internet Security Perceptions and Behaviors: Polycontextual Contrasts Between the United States and China. The International Encyclopedia of Gender, Media, and Communication, Vol. 40, No. 1, 2016, pp. 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119429128.iegmc129.
29.
OualiL. A. B.GrahamD. J.BarronA.TrompetM.Gender Differences in the Perception of Safety in Public Transport. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A: Statistics in Society, Vol. 183, No. 3, 2020, pp. 737–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12558.
30.
SanguinettiA.KuraniK.FergusonB.Is It OK to Get in a Car with a Stranger? Risks and Benefits of Ride-Pooling in Shared Automated Vehicles. University of California, 2019, p. 42p. https://doi.org/10.7922/G27M064Z.
31.
ReichowD.FriemelT. N.Mobile Communication, Social Presence, and Perceived Security on Public Transport. Mobile Media and Communication, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020, pp. 268–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157919878759.
32.
WangY.GuJ.WangS.WangJ.Understanding Consumers’ Willingness to Use Ride-Sharing Services: The Roles of Perceived Value and Perceived Risk. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 105, 2019, pp. 504–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.05.044.
33.
AbenozaR. F.CeccatoV.SusiloY. O.CatsO.Individual, Travel, and Bus Stop Characteristics Influencing Travelers’ Safety Perceptions. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2018. 2672: 19–28.
34.
SotoJ.Orozco-FontalvoM.UsecheS. A.Public Transportation and Fear of Crime at BRT Systems: Approaching to the Case of Barranquilla (Colombia) Through Integrated Choice and Latent Variable Models. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 155, 2022, pp. 142–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.11.001.
35.
LiuN.NikitasA.ParkinsonS.Exploring Expert Perceptions About the Cyber Security and Privacy of Connected and Autonomous Vehicles: A Thematic Analysis Approach. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 75, 2020, pp. 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.09.019.
36.
ManfredaA.LjubiK.GroznikA.Autonomous Vehicles in the Smart City Era: An Empirical Study of Adoption Factors Important for Millennials. International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 58, 2021, p. 102050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.102050.
37.
LiuY.LaiI. K. W.The Effects of Environmental Policy and the Perception of Electric Motorcycles on the Acceptance of Electric Motorcycles: An Empirical Study in Macau. SAGE Open, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019899091.
38.
RountreeP. W.LandK. C.Perceived Risk Versus Fear of Crime: Empirical Evidence of Conceptually Distinct Reactions in Survey Data. Social Forces, Vol. 74, No. 4, 1996, pp. 1353–1376. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/74.4.1353.
39.
LaGrangeR. L.FerraroK. F.SupancicM.Perceived Risk and Fear of Crime: Role of Social and Physical Incivilities. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 29, No. 3, 1992, pp. 311–334.
40.
BadioraA. I.OjewaleO. S.OkunolaO. H.Perceived Risk and Fear of Crime in Public Transport Nodes: The Experience from Nigerian Transit Environment. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2015, p. 139.
41.
DubeyR. N.Impact of Fear of Crimes on Public Transport Usage: A Case Study of Delhi. National Geographical Journal of India, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2020, pp. 247–258. https://doi.org/10.48008/ngji.1745.
42.
YavuzN.WelchE. W.Addressing Fear of Crime in Public Space: Gender Differences in Reaction to Safety Measures in Train Transit. Urban Studies, Vol. 47, No. 12, 2010, pp. 2491–2515. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009359033.
AbouelelaM.TirachiniA.ChaniotakisE.AntoniouC.Characterizing the Adoption and Frequency of Use of a Pooled Rides Service. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 138, 2022, p. 103632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2022.103632.
45.
AllenH.CárdenasG.PereyraL. P.SagarisL.Ella Se Mueve Segura. Un Estudio Sobre La Seguridad Personal de Las Mujeres y El Transporte Público En Tres Ciudades de América Latina. Books, CAF y FIA Foundation, 2019.
46.
GardnerN.CuiJ.CoiacettoE.Harassment on Public Transport and Its Impacts on Women’s Travel Behaviour. Australian Planner, Vol. 54, No. 1, 2017, pp. 8–15.
47.
SagarisL.Tiznado-AitkenI.Sustainable Transport and Gender Equity: Insights from Santiago, Chile. In Urban Mobility and Social Equity in Latin America: Evidence, Concepts, Methods (OviedoD.DuarteN. V.PintoA. M. A., eds.), Vol. 12, Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, 2020, pp. 103–134.
48.
SiH.ShiJ.HuaW.ChengL.De VosJ.LiW.What Influences People to Choose Ridesharing? An Overview of the Literature. Transport Reviews, Vol. 43, No. 6, 2023, pp. 1211–1236.
49.
PainR.Gender, Race, Age and Fear in the City. Urban Studies, Vol. 38, No. 5–6, 2001, pp. 899–913.
50.
WangK.AkarG.Effects of Neighborhood Environments on Perceived Risk of Self-Driving: Evidence from the 2015 and 2017 Puget Sound Travel Surveys. Transportation, Vol. 46, No. 6, 2019, pp. 2117–2136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-019-10069-9.
51.
Dunckel-GragliaA. and S. S. Brook. Women-Only Transportation: How “Pink” Public Transportation Changes Public Perception of Women’s Mobility. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2013, pp. 85–105. https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.16.2.5.
52.
PantazisC.‘Fear of Crime’, Vulnerability and Poverty. British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 40, No. 3, 2000, pp. 414–436.
53.
YavuzN.WelchE. W.SrirajP. S.Individual and Neighborhood Determinants of Perceptions of Bus and Train Safety in Chicago, Illinois: Application of Hierarchical Linear Modeling. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2007. 2034: 19–26.
54.
NobleJ.JardinA.From Victimization to Fear: Fear of Crime and Its Variations Among Victims. The British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 60, No. 2, 2020, pp. 468–489.
55.
LevineN.WachsM.Bus Crime in Los Angeles: II—Victims and Public Impact. Transportation Research Part A: General, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1986, pp. 285–293.
56.
CarterM.Gender Differences in Experience with and Fear of Crime in Relation to Public Transport. Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation, Vol. 2, 2005, p. 100.
57.
Loukaitou-SiderisA.Fear and Safety in Transit Environments from the Women’s Perspective. Security Journal, Vol. 27, 2014, pp. 242–256.
58.
KrugerT. P. J.LandmanK.Crime and Public Transport: Designing a Safer Journey. Proc., 26th Southern African Transport Conference (SATC 2007), Document Transformation Technologies, Pretoria, South Africa, July 9–12, 2007, pp. 112–126.
59.
CozensP. M.SavilleG.HillierD.Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED): A Review and Modern Bibliography. Property Management, Vol. 23, No. 5, 2005, pp. 328–356.
60.
CeccatoV.LangeforsL.NäsmanP.The Impact of Fear on Young People’s Mobility. European Journal of Criminology, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2023, pp. 486–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/14773708211013299.
61.
WallaceR. R.RodriguezD. A.WhiteC.LevineJ.Who Noticed, Who Cares? Passenger Reactions to Transit Safety Measures. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1999. 1666: 133–138.
62.
Nguyen-PhuocD. Q.YoungW.CurrieG.De GruyterC.Traffic Congestion Relief Associated with Public Transport: State-of-the-Art. Public Transport, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2020, pp. 455–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-020-00231-3.
63.
TaherdoostH.Determining Sample Size; How to Calculate Survey Sample Size. International Journal of Economics and Management Systems, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2017, pp. 237–239.
64.
WikströmP. O. H.CeccatoV.HardieB.TreiberK.Activity Fields and the Dynamics of Crime: Advancing Knowledge About the Role of the Environment in Crime Causation. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2010, pp. 55–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-009-9083-9.
65.
Loukaitou-SiderisA.FinkC.Addressing Women’s Fear of Victimization in Transportation Settings: A Survey of US Transit Agencies. Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 44, No. 4, 2009, pp. 554–587.
66.
ScarboroughB. K.Like-HaislipT. Z.NovakK. J.LucasW. L.AlaridL. F.Assessing the Relationship Between Individual Characteristics, Neighborhood Context, and Fear of Crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 38, No. 4, 2010, pp. 819–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.05.010.
67.
SchweitzerJ. H.KimJ. W.MackinJ. R.The Impact of the Built Environment on Crime and Fear of Crime in Urban Neighborhoods. Journal of Urban Technology, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1999, pp. 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630739983588.
68.
MaraziN. F.MajumdarB. B.SahuP. K.PotoglouD.Congestion Pricing Acceptability among Commuters: An Indian Perspective. Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 95, 2022, p. 101180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2022.101180.
69.
Adu-MirekuS.Fear of Crime Among Residents of Three Communities in Accra, Ghana. International Journal of Comparative Sociology Vol. 43, No. 2, 2002, pp. 153–168.
70.
GrimesS.Rural Areas in the Information Society: Diminishing Distance or Increasing Learning Capacity?Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2000, pp. 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00027-3.
71.
Loukaitou-SiderisA.Hot Spots of Bus Stop Crime: The Importance of Environmental Attributes. Journal of the American Planning association, Vol. 65, No. 4, 1999, pp. 395–411.
72.
People’s Perceptions of Personal Security and Their Concerns about Crime on Public Transport: Literature Review. The Department for Transport, London, 2002.
73.
NayakJ. K.BenazeerD.Identifying and Addressing the Issue of Women’s Fear of Victimization in Public Transport: A Case of Delhi. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 12, 2017, pp. 2392–2407.
74.
GerellM.Does the Association Between Flows of People and Crime Differ Across Crime Types in Sweden?European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2021, pp. 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-021-09478-3.
75.
WelshB. C.FarringtonD. P.Making Public Places Safer: Surveillance and Crime Prevention. Oxford University Press, New York, 2009.
76.
BhallaK.KhuranaN.BoseD.NavaratneK. V.TiwariG.MohanD.Official Government Statistics of Road Traffic Deaths in India Under-Represent Pedestrians and Motorized Two Wheeler Riders. Injury Prevention, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2017, pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2016-042053.
77.
SHOW Project. SHared Automation Operating Models for Worldwide Adoption. https://show-project.eu/
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
