Social Acceptance of Automated Driving inGermany and Japan
Conceptual Issues and Empirical Insights
Torsten Fleischer / Jens Schippl / Yukari Yamasaki(Karlsruhe Institute Of Technology)

Ayako Taniguchi / Nobutsugu Kanzaki / Minao Kukita(University of Tsukuba) (Nanzan University) (Nagoya University)

Satoshi Nakao(Kyoto University)

Kosuke Tanaka(Tokyo University of Science)1Comparative Analysis in JP and GER on Social Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles

Part A: Conceptual Issues

Torsten Fleischer, Jens Schippl, Yukari Yamasaki
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology

2Why ‘Social Acceptance’ of CAD? (1)Technology projects are also social programs.

CAD linked to “societal promises”. Usually four:
improve traffic safety
increase transportation efficiency
different (productive) time use while travellingprovide individual mobility options for currently excluded groups(elderly, people with impairments, …)
Social Acceptance as a prerequisite for the adoption / diffusion of
CAD technologies and services in order to fulfill these promises
and have an impact.
3

Why ‘Social Acceptance’ of CAD? (2)Public policy perspective: achieve related policy goals and avoid (potential,
anticipated, …) societal conflicts
Business perspective: achieve economic goals (new products and services,
profits, avoid sunk cost, SLO/CSR,… )Ethics perspective: SA a metaphor for dealing with moral issues, value conflicts
and acceptability
Research perspective: Understanding all of the above (and more) and providing
knowledge for orientation and action: structures and dynamics of sociotechnicalchange, conceptual and numerical models, empirical access,…
4

Who accepts? (Subjects of Acceptance)
an individual (“isolated”, in social context(s) (e.g. household, family, peers), in professionalrole (engineer, driver, city official,…))an organization (company, research institute, NGO/CSO, regulatory authority, …)
a “small” network of actors (e.g. local community, national government, …)
a “large” network of actors: (national, technological, regional,…) innovation system
actors may form actor networks that may act like single actors in certain contexts (e.g. afamily buying a car, national governments in international organizations)  “networks of
networks”
their relations and interactions are regulated by sets of common habits, routines or
established practices which are rooted in both informal constraints (sanctions, taboos,
customs, traditions, and codes of conduct), and formal rules (constitutions, laws, rights)(“institutions”)
5Innovations and institutionalization
Innovations that create new institutions, or substantially reorganize existing institutionalarrangements, are often called radical or transformative.
Innovation actor networks may need to modify existing or „create” new institutions in orderto enable new technologies to diffuse. They may fail to do so, even if the technology itself
might be functionally (and/or economically) superior.
Robust institutional configurations („regimes”) are a reason for technology lock-ins (andlock-outs).

The ability of innovation actor networks to modify existing or create new institutions (largely)
uncontested should be seen as an element of social acceptance.

6

NISTEP S&T Foresight Delphi 2019
Transportation service by level 4 automateddriving in urban areas (the system does all thedriving, but the driver responds appropriately
to system intervention requests, etc.)

Policy measures for social realization:
Legislation and regulation
ELSI issue response
Level 5 automated driving (the system
operates everything without limitations oflocation)'Flying cars and drones' that can transport
people in urban areas

Data: NISTEP Science & Technology Foresight Delphi 20197

Predicted Time

ImportanceSenatsverwaltung UVK Berlin

What to accept? (Objects of Acceptance)
an automated driving function

the fact that (and the way how) automated vehicles interact withme as a (current) non-user in road traffic
the set of rules that determines the behaviour of automatedvehicles in the event of a collision (and regulates any
consequences)

Daimler AG

a mobility service based on vehicles with automated driving
functionsAudi AGa vehicle (of what type?) with automated driving functions (which?)

new, automated mobility services operated by public institutions or
private companies
changed daily routines due to changing mobility services and tools
(…)
8

Bosch

a transformed mobility system (or my imagination thereof)Objects of Acceptance (Eurobarometer 2020)

Data: Eurobarometer 496(2020)

QB4: I am going to show you three pictures. For each of them, please tell me to what extent this picture corresponds to your idea of automated vehicles.

9Dimensions of Social AcceptanceSubjects of AcceptanceIndividuals(„isolated“)In their social context(s)In their professional role

Organizations as Actors
Regulators, Legislators
Companies, Utilities
Assurances
NGOs / CSOs

Actor Networks as Actors
Communities, Regions, Nation States
etc.

10

Types of Relationship

Attitude-oriented (passive):
Ignorance
Indifference
Tolerance
Approval(Endorsement?) (Trust?)

Preference-oriented (hypothetical):Objects of AcceptanceConcrete Characteristics: e.g. “being
driven by an automation (on a highway)”
Products and services (e.g. automatedvehicles, robo-shuttles, L3 personal cars)

Impacts of systemic change: less ormore traffic, safer traffic, suburbanisation
etc.

Willingness-to-adopt (…use, buy, pay,…)
Willingness-to-adapt

Sociotechnical configurations (mobility

Action-oriented (active, observable):

Access to xy, participation in xy: cost,protest – participate, adopt – not adopt,change – maintain, permit – reject,(legitimize – de-legitimize)mobility for disabled p.

futures)

Privacy, Cybersecurity: data provision,
centralised control

A working definition of Social AcceptanceSocial acceptance of a technology can be defined asa favourable or positive response (like attitude, stated preference or action) by agiven actor group or actor network (e.g. nation state, region, local community,organization),
relating to a proposed or emerging technology or an imaginary of a socio-technicalregime or socio-technical system modified by this technology,
and the reasonable expectation to find explicit or tacit approval of the related
processes of its institutionalization.

11

Comparative Analysis in JP and GER on Social Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles

Part B: Empirical Insights

Prof. Ayako Taniguchi
University of Tsukuba

12

As a first step
Dimensions of Social Acceptancein our joint research,
we focused on
the orange part
Subjects of AcceptanceObjects of Acceptance
Types of Relationshipof this diagram

Individuals(„isolated“)In their social context(s)In their professional role

Organizations as Actors
Regulators, Legislators
Companies, Utilities
Assurances
NGOs / CSOs

Actor Networks as Actors
Communities, Regions, Nation States
etc.

13

Attitude-oriented (passive):
Ignorance
Indifference
Tolerance
Approval(Endorsement?) (Trust?)

Preference-oriented (hypothetical):Concrete Characteristics: e.g. “being
driven by an automation (on a highway)”
Products and services (e.g. automatedvehicles, robo-shuttles, L3 personal cars)

Impacts of systemic change: less ormore traffic, safer traffic, suburbanisation
etc.

Willingness-to-adopt (…use, buy, pay,…)
Willingness-to-adapt

Sociotechnical configurations (mobility

Action-oriented (active, observable):

Access to xy, participation in xy: cost,protest – participate, adopt – not adopt,change – maintain, permit – reject,(legitimize – de-legitimize)mobility for disabled p.

futures)

Privacy, Cybersecurity: data provision,
centralised control

Online questionnaire survey overview• Survey methods
Date: 5th – 14th May 2020
Target：General public of Japan/Germany
Answer method：Online questionnaire survey
Age(20-60), gender and residential area are equally allocated
NOTE!
The data is not representativeof both countries,
We focused on specific region;

14

Japan

Germany

Target：Japan citizens

Target：Germany citizens

500 samples

500 samples(Tokyo250・Aichi250)(Berlin250・NordrheinWestfalen250)

capital area and highly motorized area

Special thanks to;*Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research(KAKEN-HI) No. 17K18947*TOYOTA’s Research fundAgreement of AVs
Question: Please tell us how much you agree with the following statements about Level 3 to 5.
I agree with the idea of creating a "society realizing an autonomous vehicle system“.

JAPAN

GERMANY

LV5

31%

26%

16%

15%

22%

14%

LV4

23%

LV3

18%

LV5

10% 11%

LV4

7% 9%

32%

33%

19%

LV3

7% 10%

31%

31%

22%

0%
1_Strongly Disagree
15

12%
12%

29%

12%

26%

36%

20%
2_Disagree

27%

17%

22%

21%

40%

60%

80%

100%

3_Neutral

4_Agree

5_Strongly Agree

As the level ofautomation increases,
people have anegative attitude. Thisis especially true inGermany.
Japan has amore positive
attitude than
Germany.

Comparative Analysis in JP and GER on Social Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles

Tones of Argument Over AVs

Dr. Satoshi Nakao
Kyoto University
16

14 Tones given as a reason for the introduction of AVs
Question: The following is a discussion of the Autonomous Driving System(AVs). Do you agree with each tone?
Tone1: For the purpose of reducing the number of traffic accidents between road vehicles, the safety of cars should be
improved through automated driving systems.
Tone2: For the purpose of reducing the number of traffic accidents in which pedestrians are the victims, the safety ofcars should be improved through automated driving systems.
Tone3: AVs should be introduced to alleviate traffic congestion.
Tone4: AVs should be introduced to support the elderly going out.
Tone5: AVs should be introduced to reduce CO2 emissions by making the entire transport system more efficient.
Tone6: AVs should be introduced to support the vulnerable in depopulated areas.
Tone7: AVs should be introduced for effective use of travel time.
Tone8: AVs should be introduced to reduce the cost of transport services such as buses, taxis and trucks.
Tone9: AVs should be introduced to solve the shortage of drivers of transport services such as buses, taxis and trucks.
Tone10: Progress should be made in the social implementation of AV technology to revitalise the domestic economy.
Tone11: Progress should be made in the social implementation of AV technology so that the domestic automobile industry
does not lose to international competition.
Tone12: The government of our country should invest to support the social implementation of AV technology.
Tone13: In order to implement AV technology, the government of our country should relax road traffic regulations on
safety.
Tone14: In order to implement AV technology, the government of our country should conduct AV trials on public roads as17soon as possible.

Country

JP vs. GER: All Tones
Strongly Disagree

Disagree
NeutralAgree
Strongly Agree

The length of the barshows thepercentage of
people who chosethat option.
The higher the meanvalue, the higher theagreement with tone.

Tone1

Japanese tend toanswer “neutral”.

18

We’ll focus on 5 typesof tones..

JP
500

Mean

3.72

3.32

Tone6

GER

JP

500

500

3.65

3.22

Tone11

GER
500

500

3.35

3.03

Standard Deviation

1.01

1.29

1.02

1.28

1.00

1.26

1_Strongly Disagree

4%

15%

4%

16%

5%

19%

traffic

2_Disagree

5%8%support the

6%

8%

9%

10%

accidents

3_Neutral

30%

25%

vulnerable

32%

33%

45%

31%

(vehicles)

4_Agree

37%

33%

35%

26%

27%

29%

5_Strongly Agree

24%

18%

22%

18%

14%

11%

Mean

3.71

3.38

3.36

3.09

3.19

2.78

Standard Deviation

1.05

1.33

1.03

1.28

1.04

1.28

1_Strongly Disagree

4%

15%

5%

18%

7%

23%

2_Disagree

6%8%effective use

10%

9%

13%

16%

3_Neutral

31%

25%

of travel time

44%

31%

45%

30%

4_Agree

33%

28%

25%

28%

23%

21%

5_Strongly Agree

26%

24%

15%

14%

Mean

3.59

3.35

3.31

2.99

Standard Deviation

1.00

1.27

1.02

1_Strongly Disagree

4%

15%

reduce the6%

2_Disagree8%7%

cost of

3_Neutral

35%

27%

4_Agree34%33%

5_Strongly Agree

20%

19%

Mean

3.64

3.21

Standard Deviation

1.06

1.27

1_Strongly Disagree

4%

16%

solve the

2_Disagree

8%9%3_Neutral

32%

4_AgreeTone2
reducetraffic
accidents(pedestrians
)

Tone7

not lose tointernational
competition

Tone12government
shouldinvest in AVs

12%

9%

Tone13

2.99

2.21

1.27

government

1.08

1.22

19%

should relax

11%

41%

9%

12%

road traffic

17%

18%

transportatio

47%

31%

regulations

43%

24%

n services

24%

26%

on safety for

20%

13%

14%

12%

AVs

9%

4%

3.43

2.82

Tone14

3.24

2.87

1.00

1.27

1.01

1.28

5%

22%

6%

22%

shortage of

8%

15%

13%

14%

30%

bus and

43%

32%

44%

30%

31%

30%

truck drivers

28%

21%

25%

25%

5_Strongly Agree

24%

16%

16%

10%

12%

10%

Mean

3.47

3.38

3.4

2.8

Standard Deviation

1.00

1.28

0.97

1.23

1_Strongly Disagree

4%

14%

5%

22%

reduce CO2 2_Disagree

8%

8%

8%

13%

emissions

3_Neutral

42%

25%

42%

35%

4_Agree

30%

33%

33%

22%

5_Strongly Agree

17%

20%

12%

8%

Tone3

trafficcongestion

Tone4
support theelderly going
out

Tone5

Germans tend to answer“Strongly Disagree”.

GER
500

reducealleviate

Japanese more likely than
Germans to agree with all
tones.

JP

Sample size

Tone8

Tone9

Tone10
revitalize thedomestic
economygovernment
shouldconduct AVs
trials on
public roads

Comparing
the eachdistribution..

JP vs. GER: Tone1, tone2, tone4, tone6
Tone1: For the purpose of reducing the number of traffic accidents between road vehicles, the safety of cars should be
improved through automated driving systems.
Tone2: For the purpose of reducing the number of traffic accidents in which pedestrians are the victims, the safety ofcars should be improved through automated driving systems.
Tone4: AVs should be introduced to support
the elderly going out.
Tone6: AVs should be introduced to support
the vulnerable in depopulated areas.

Both Germans andJapanese have high mean
for these four tones.
In Germany, is AVs considered
not to be the right tooland not a good solution?
Technology may prevent accidents,
but it brings other.
19

JP vs. GER: Tone5
Tone5: AVs should be introduced to reduce CO2 emissions by making the entire transport system more efficient.

In Germany, the mean-value of
tone5, as well as tone 2 is thehighest.
In Japan, mean-value of tone5
is not as high as one of theother tones.
The percentage of “Agree” and“Strongly Agree” is higher forGermans than for Japanese

Germans are more concerned about theenvironment.

20“Climate Change” would be
a power word in Germany.

JP vs. GER: Tone7
Tone7: AVs should be introduced for effective use of travel time.

We thought the public
expected effective use of
travel time, however, themean-value of tone7 is
not high in bothcountries.

21

JP vs. GER: Tone9
Tone9: AVs should be introduced to solve the shortage of drivers of transport services such as buses, taxis and trucks.

The mean-value of
Tone9 is much higher inJapan than in Germany.

The results show thatwhile the driver shortageis a social problem inJapan, this is not thecase in Germany.
22

JP vs. GER: Tone13
Tone13: In order to implement AV technology, the government of our country should relax road traffic regulations on
safety.

The Germans are more likely
to strongly disagree with Tone13,
but Japanese does not disagree
so much.
The Japanese see
deregulation as a good thing,regardless of automated-driving.
“Deregulation” would be
a power word in Japan.
23

Comparative Analysis in JP and GER on Social Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles

NIMBY of AVs
Does this cityneed a landfill ?
but…
So where do
we build it ?

24

Yes!
Not
In
My
Back
Yard

Dr. Kosuke Tanaka
Tokyo University of ScienceNIMBY: AVs Society Realization
vs. Test in front of Your Home
5 point
It’s fine to introduce AVs in parts,

scale
AVs Society: I agree with the idea of creating a "society
an autonomous
system"butrealisingit's not good
to introducevehicleitto AV
societyas testsa whole.
Test in front of Your Home: Do you agree with conducting
driving
on the road in front of your home?

Test in front of Your Home

7

10

2

1

7

24

20

3

1

20

50

96

16

0

10

34

30

31

3

7

15

20

47

18

It is said that Japanese have a differencein private opinion and public stance
25

75.4
%

21.2
%

JP

80.4
%

Disagree

28

10.4
%

Agree

DisagreeAgree

The total
number ofcells is 500
samples.

Disagree

Agree
3.4%

AVs Society

NIMBY: agree
in principle
but disagree
on the details

Test in front of Your Home

AVs Society

Disagree

Almostthe same= reasonable(Judge by individual situation)
Agree

81

35

25

10

2

13

22

13

8

2

14

28

51

32

5

3

13

15

42

9

6

2

8

27

34

9.2%

GER

Are the Germans very reasonable?

NIMBY: AVs Society Realization vs. Your Child Ride Alone
AVs Society: I agree with the idea of creating a "society realising an autonomous vehicle system"Your Child Ride Alone: I have no reservations about allowing my children to ride aloneYour Child Ride AloneYour Child Ride Alone

46

0

2

0

0

28

19

8

0

0

60

17

98

3

4

30

21

35

19

3

30

14

16

12

35

64.6
%

34.2
%

JP

When it comes to children, the responses
become More NIMBY-like in both countries
26

Disagree

1.8%

75.6
%

22.6
%

GER

Disagree

1.2%

Agree

139

6

6

1

1

33

16

8

1

0

47

22

55

6

0

19 skeptical
11 19about
27 the6
German are
realization of an AVs society as a whole,
15
5 situation
16 10on 31
judge by individual
its own
merits?
Agree

Agree

AVs Society

Disagree
Agree

AVs Society

Disagree5 point
scale-disagree with uniform introduction, but it is OK
to test in front of home: 10.4%.
-disagree with uniform introduction, but it is OK
to allow children to ride alone: 1.8%.

What causes NIMBY? ~analyzed by regression model~
Dependent Variable = Difference between“Agreement of LV5 AVs” & “Agreement of your child ride LV5”** : 1% , * : 5% significant

JP
Age

GE
-0.13 **

Male dummy
Living with Child under 12 (dammy)-0.092 *It is thought that families with children would beresistant to riding alone…
they are not NIMBY, but actually “YIMBY”.
Is it the effect of age?

Car ownership dummy
Number of driving movements
Experience with AVs

0.134 **

Trust in Technology

0.335 **

Trust in Government

Trust in companies in Japan and trust intechnology in Germany raises expectations forthe realization of AVs Society

Trust in companies like insurance
Trust in AVs development companies

0.188 **

Capital city dummy27

NIMBY is caused by unknown and fear

Fear of LV5 AVs

0.191 **

Knowledge about LV5 AVs-0.166 **-0.186 **Adjusted R2

0.099

0.124

Comparative Analysis in JP and GER on Social Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles

PRIVACY: Provision of Personal Information

Dr. Kosuke Tanaka
Tokyo University of Science28

Provision for Personal Information
Country

Germany
500

500

Mean

2.92

2.46

Standard Deviation

1.10

1.30

1_Strongly Disagree

12%

32%

Location Info. 2_Disagree

23%

21%

3_Neutral

34%

21%

4_Agree25%18%5_Strongly Agree

7%

7%

Mean

3.21

2.77

Standard Deviation

1.08

1.31

1_Strongly Disagree

8%

25%

2_Disagree

14%

16%

3_Neutral

37%

25%

4_Agree29%26%

5_Strongly Agree

11%

8%

Mean

2.86

2.35

Standard Deviation

1.07

1.27

1_Strongly Disagree

12%

37%

2_Disagree

22%

18%

3_Neutral

39%

25%

4_Agree21%15%5_Strongly Agree6%

6%

Imagesoutside AVs

Imagesinside AVs

29

Japan

Sample size

5 point
scale

Question: Do you agree with providing personal
information such as location information andimages inside and outside the vehicle whenusing an AV driving system? (* Recorded image data similar tocurrent driving recorders)

The Germans are negative about providing
location information, which is essential forsystem optimization, despite their strong
interest in reducing CO2 emissions.
The Japanese are less polarized and relatively
unconcerned about privacy.
The Germans have a strong interest in privacy.

Conclusion & Future Challenges■ Conceptual issues
 Current research focused on attitudes of (private) individuals
 Important to better understand roles of professional actors, organizations, actor networks andinstitutional change Dynamics (knowledge, familiarity, adaptation) difficult to assess■ Empirical study There seems to be a certain solid layer of skepticism in Germany.
 Don't be tricked by the power words (climate change in Germany, deregulation in Japan)!
 The Japanese may be more likely to be in a NIMBY situation where they are officially inagreement with AVs but are actually against them.
 Germans are more sensitive to privacy issues than the Japanese.
■Policy Implication
 NIMBYs are more likely to occur in people with high FEAR and UNKNOWN of AVs.
 Important to provide balanced information on pros and cons of AV rather than just emphasizing
the advantages

It is necessary to continue joint research
between Japan and Germany in the future
30Comparative Analysis in JP and GER on Social Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles

Thank you for your attention!

31