# Towards Understanding Driver Acceptance of C-ITS Services--A Multi-Use Case Field Study Approach
## 4 Discussion
### Willingness to Pay  
Both field studies also investigated participants' _willingness to pay_ for C-ITS services. This willingness is influenced by several factors, including the specific use cases supported by the service, the opportunity to test the service in real-life settings, the degree of customization, perceived service quality, and the proposed pricing structure. In the ESRIUM project, 14 truck drivers strongly disagreed, and five more or less disagreed with paying for bad surface information. Three drivers indicated a willingness to pay, ranging from somewhat agree to agree. When asked whether their employers should cover the cost, 37% neither agreed nor disagreed. Similarly, in the ASFNAG study, 18% of online questionnaire respondents expressed willingness to pay for the service. Participants who experienced the  
Figure 15: Approval rates for topics relating to the usefulness.  
use cases firsthand during the test drives exhibited a higher willingness to pay, with approval rates between 50% and 75%, depending on the C-ITS service. Respondents preferred either a monthly fee or a pay-per-use model, typically ranging between 5-10 \(\upcels\) per month.  
Overall, willingness to pay remains low as presented in Figure 16, but is highly dependent on expected benefits. Certain user concerns must be alleviated through the information provided by C-ITS services. In the ASFINAG study, two-thirds of test drivers were willing to pay for traffic jam alerts, as they anticipated a higher level of personal safety. A similar trend is observed in the latest 2025 Global Automotive Consumer Study issued by Deloitte [40], where 48% of 1306 respondents in Germany expressed willingness to pay for safety-related services such as emergency assistance (e.g., collision detection).  
Lastly, personalization and seamless integration into daily driving habits influence IVIS acceptance. Research shows that users are more likely to accept IVIS when they can tailor settings to their needs [41]. Users may be more willing to pay for IVIS if these systems can be tailored to their individual driving behaviour.  
Data sharing is a sensitive topic for the users that should be kept in mind. Data exchange was accepted if the information was shared exclusively within the community of app users [35]. There appears to be a trade-off between privacy and the perceived benefits of the app--the higher the perceived value, the lower the privacy concerns [35]. This also suggests that if the perceived benefit for the individual is higher, the likelihood rises that the system is used, which may affect the willingness to pay.  
In summary, the results of both studies indicate that willingness to pay remains low unless users experience the benefits firsthand, for example, during test drives. In the ASFINAG study, male and female, professional and non-professional drivers showed similar reactions. This tendency is confirmed by the Deloitte study. However, willingness may increase if the in-vehicle information design is personalized and seamlessly integrated into users' daily routines.