Survey study reveals that trust and technological optimism govern autonomous transit acceptance for airport travel, highlighting the need for clear regulations.
Accessing airports using alternative travel modes like transit remains a challenge for many cities; particularly, the challenge is manifold for mid-sized cities, where reliance on private vehicles is predominant. This study explores individuals’ perceptions towards autonomous transit services (ATS) for accessing an international airport in Kelowna, the fastest-growing city in Canada. Given the novelty of ATS technology, this study uses the extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology to examine acceptance and behavioural intentions to use ATS. Data come from a survey of 1,311 participants in Kelowna, which used scenario-based questions covering major airport access factors (traffic, parking fees, luggage) to assess attitudes toward ATS for airport travel and perceptions towards ATS attributes like safety, efficiency, and ease of use. A structural equation modelling technique was used to evaluate relationships among nine latent constructs, such as trust, safety perceptions, technological optimism, and ease of use. Results show that trust in capabilities and safety of ATS boosts perceptions of it as an efficient, reliable, and safe mode for airport access. Technological optimism is found to increase trust, while unclear regulations around ATS hinder perceived ease of use. The multi-group analysis revealed significant variations in key relationships across gender, prior autonomous vehicle experience, and income groups. For instance, high-income individuals more readily translated ATS efficiency perceptions into adoption intentions. The findings highlight the need for policymakers to develop clear regulations, ensure reliable service delivery, and implement targeted marketing and pilot programs to build trust and facilitate ATS adoption.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hewage et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: