Sie können Operatoren mit Ihrer Suchanfrage kombinieren, um diese noch präziser einzugrenzen. Klicken Sie auf den Suchoperator, um eine Erklärung seiner Funktionsweise anzuzeigen.
Findet Dokumente, in denen beide Begriffe in beliebiger Reihenfolge innerhalb von maximal n Worten zueinander stehen. Empfehlung: Wählen Sie zwischen 15 und 30 als maximale Wortanzahl (z.B. NEAR(hybrid, antrieb, 20)).
Findet Dokumente, in denen der Begriff in Wortvarianten vorkommt, wobei diese VOR, HINTER oder VOR und HINTER dem Suchbegriff anschließen können (z.B., leichtbau*, *leichtbau, *leichtbau*).
Dieses Kapitel geht den Herausforderungen und Lösungen für die Konzeption vernetzter und kooperativer automatisierter Mobilitätsdienste (CCAM) nach, die den unterschiedlichen Bedürfnissen von Stakeholdern und Nutzern gerecht werden und gleichzeitig den regulatorischen Anforderungen entsprechen. Es stellt eine neue, benutzerzentrierte Designmethode vor, die im Rahmen des EU-Forschungsprojekts CONDUCTOR entwickelt wurde und formalisierte Anforderungen institutioneller Stakeholder mit dienstleistungsspezifischen Inputs integriert, die aus den Bedürfnissen der Nutzer und den Interessen anderer Stakeholder abgeleitet werden. Die Methodik beruht auf einem dualen Rahmenwerk, das eine Top-Down-Analyse politischer Ziele und regulatorischer Anforderungen mit einem Bottom-Up-Ansatz kombiniert, der sich auf spezifische Anwendungsfälle und lokale Szenarien konzentriert. Zu den Schlüsselthemen zählen die Bedeutung eines ganzheitlichen Ansatzes bei der Konzeption von CCAM, die Identifizierung und Priorisierung von Stakeholder- und Anwenderbedürfnissen und die praktische Umsetzung dieser Erkenntnisse durch Anwendungsfälle. Das Kapitel unterstreicht auch die Bedeutung der Berücksichtigung des gesellschaftlichen Nutzens und der individuellen Nutzerakzeptanz sowie der wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Dynamik von Territorien und Gemeinschaften. Die Ergebnisse der Top-down- und Bottom-up-Analysen werden mithilfe eines partizipativen Ansatzes zusammengeführt, wodurch ein gemeinsames Verständnis des gesellschaftlichen und regulatorischen Rahmens gefördert wird. Das Kapitel schließt mit der Betonung der Bedeutung der Einbeziehung der human- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschung in die Definition technischer und organisatorischer Anforderungen für das CCAM und der Förderung einer umfassenden und interdisziplinären Perspektive auf Verkehrs- und Mobilitätsfragen.
KI-Generiert
Diese Zusammenfassung des Fachinhalts wurde mit Hilfe von KI generiert.
Abstract
Building on the insights provided by the EU CCAM Partnership SRIA, this paper introduces a new double-funnel methodology for eliciting stakeholders’ and users’ needs and requirements, developed and tested within the CONDUCTOR EU research project (GA 101077049). This methodology aligns with the EU's holistic approach by integrating formal inputs from institutional stakeholders with specific, service-oriented inputs from users and other stakeholders, such as industry and service operators. The approach relies on three components. A top-down analysis maps mobility policy principles and outlines social and regulatory requirements for design, encompassing safety, environmental protection, inclusion, accessibility and social well-being. Complementary, a bottom-up perspective captures user and stakeholder needs related to specific use cases. The integration of these results maps CCAM-specific needs into the broader social and regulatory framework. Applied to three use cases in the CONDUCTOR project, this approach contributes to methodological research by testing an integrated, user-centred framework for designing and evaluating CCAM solutions.
1 Introduction
The challenge for the successful design and implementation of Connected and Cooperative Automated Mobility (CCAM) services lies in finding a way to intercept the multiple needs and interests of a wide range of stakeholders and users and bring them together in a holistic design process.
CCAM solutions aim to innovate local mobility by addressing specific user needs and existing features of each scenario. However, transport and mobility policies operate across various territorial levels, not inherently localised. While mobility services are fundamental for societal integration and workforce participation, they also constitute a substantial portion of household expenses. Mobility plays a critical role in social inclusion, particularly for disadvantaged groups, impacting overall human well-being. Additionally, transport policies significantly influence economic needs related to mobility, considering the economic and social dynamics of territories and communities, along with the broader impact of these solutions at national and supranational levels.
Anzeige
Many of the ongoing multiannual research frameworks funded by the European Union (EU) stress the importance of a holistic approach to innovative mobility solutions. One of the main open issues approaching innovative sectors is precisely the correct and fair alignment of technological innovation and individual and social expectations about these pioneering solutions.
This paper introduces a novel user-centred design methodology for identifying stakeholder and user needs and requirements. Developed and tested within the EU research project CONDUCTOR (GA no. 101077049), the method integrates formalized requirements from institutional stakeholders with service-specific inputs derived from user needs and the interests of other stakeholders. Combining a broad perspective with specific context considerations, this approach leverages insights from diverse scenarios to systematically enhance understanding and application.
2 Methodology
2.1 Why CCAM Needs a Holistic Approach to User-Centred Design
The successful deployment of CCAM services hinges on their ability to generate societal benefits and gain individual user acceptance. Considering both user and societal aspects is crucial for ensuring that CCAM offerings are acceptable, appreciated, and aligned with social, economic, and environmental needs and objectives.
Understanding the specific needs, impacts, and costs of CCAM solutions may currently demand more effort than usual. CCAM is intricately linked with diverse policy ambitions extending beyond mobility, prompting the integration of social and human-based approaches in transport innovation. However, society still lacks clear knowledge of the potential benefits of CCAM-enabled mobility, making it challenging to comprehend its advantages, limitations, and rebound effects. Additionally, while public policy sets broad goals, researchers and developers must address specific use cases (UCs) based on distinct contextual needs and requirements.
Anzeige
Research projects thus are spurred to dare something more than the mere technological research on CCAM, promoting a holistic understanding of innovation and testing in practice the acceptability of the solutions that the EU aims to promote on a larger scale. Funded research is aimed at assessing the feasibility of policy ambitions in practice, and collecting evidence about the consistency and adaptability of general principles and requirements in practice.
CONDUCTOR provided an opportunity to develop an innovative methodology aimed at reconciling the perspectives of institutional stakeholders, such as regulators and public authorities, with the diverse needs of users and other stakeholders, including industry and service providers. This comprehensive methodology also resonates with factors influencing the acceptance of CCAM services by users and other stakeholders involved in the deployment and management of these solutions, according to multiple and related to both sociodemographic aspects and lifestyles and mobility needs [1‐6].
The workflow behind this methodology can be represented by a dual-funnel framework [Fig. 1]. The top-down analysis gathers formalised and overarching inputs from regulatory bodies and public authorities, while the bottom-up approach facilitates the collection of use case-specific inputs derived from user needs and stakeholder interests.
The use of this methodology from the early stages of CCAM design has two expected benefits. This combined reading aims to facilitate the design process of the UCs, including the analysis of the social requirements that could better ensure the acceptability of the CCAM in the medium and long term. This approach also aims to test if and how the practical experience provided by the UC owners and their stakeholders can improve the specification of the social requirements.
2.2 CONDUCTOR, in a Nutshell
CONDUCTOR aims to design, integrate and demonstrate advanced high-level traffic and fleet management within the CCAM ecosystem, using innovative dynamic balancing and priority-based vehicle management to develop next-generation simulation models and tools enabled by machine learning (ML) and data fusion. The CONDUCTOR innovations, integrated in a common open platform, will be validated in three UCs, anchored in five local pilots, to test the interoperability of traffic management systems and the integration of different modes of transport for people and goods.
The following sections present the logical steps that led to the development of the methodology, how it was applied to the project and how it can be reused in other different contexts.
3 Top-Down Approach: Framing CCAM Policy Objectives and Requirements
3.1 Objectives and Process
The top-down analysis aims to place the UCs in the context of a wider picture, considering CCAM solutions not only according to local needs but also according to wider societal objectives as outlined in the reference policy framework.
The analysis scheme can be tailored to the needs of each project, adapting the criteria and scope of the analysis to the specificities of the reference framework. In particular, the mapping of relevant policy principles and applicable regulatory requirements may include different policy levels (local, national and supranational). In addition, the analysis should cover different policy areas, including all aspects that may have a significant impact on the assessment of the solutions under consideration.
In general, the top-down analysis process for CCAM unfolds in three successive phases. It begins with a careful examination of public policies generally relevant to mobility, which serves as a basis for identifying the broad policy issues and key societal objectives related to mobility and transport, and for contextualising CCAM innovations within a broader scenario. The second sub-step explores the rationale behind these policy objectives in their respective contexts, identifying the specific regulatory principles that guide ongoing CCAM research. Finally, the third sub-step culminates in the identification of regulatory requirements that should inform the design and development of these innovative solutions.
3.2 Scope of the Analysis
The first step is to define the scope and level of the analysis, in light of the characteristic of the project and solutions considered. In this regard, CONDUCTOR aims at exploiting local based experience to develop a scalable solutions and policy outputs valid beyond the national dimension of the UCs considered. Therefore, the attention was focused on the public policy framework for CCAM that now drives EU action in this area.
The EU, as a sui generis regional system, offers interesting insights. Its programs aim to link national and local needs with common supranational objectives, systematically addressing specific needs in a way that can be scaled to other contexts. Transport is a shared competence of the EU and mobility involves many other policy areas related to CCAM. Since detailed analysis of the contextual regulatory requirements at an early stage of solution design could lead to an uncertain and fragmented scenario, the project opted for a high-level analysis to obtain appropriate and ready-to-use regulatory requirements for pilots development.
In light of the above, the top-down analysis began with an overview of the policy and regulatory framework for CCAM from a broad perspective, analysing not only from a mobility and transport perspective, but also from a wider viewpoint.
The topic was considered in light of the Sustainable Development Goals of the UN Agenda 2030 [7], as well as the EU Priorities Plan towards 2030 [8]. The attention converged on the EU policy principles and requirements for CCAM, encompassing the policy programs directly and indirectly dedicated to this issue. It starts outlining the specific recommendations offered by the CINEA and DG-MOVE for more sustainable urban mobility [9]. The study also took into account the guidance provided by the EU Green Deal [10], Digital Decade [11], and EESC [12]. Since mobility directly and indirectly affects policy areas, like climate, environment, economic growth and social inclusion and cohesion, the inquiry considers the corollary policy inputs coming from the DGs for Climate Action [13, 14], Environment [15], Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SME [16] and Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion [17].
3.3 Outlining CCAM Regulatory Requirements
The analysis of the policy framework in CONDUCTOR identified five key principles: Safety, Environment, Well-being, Accessibility, and Inclusion. The study outlined the scope of these principles and provided a preliminary mapping of relevant requirements. These requirements were then elaborated to generate practical design suggestions for the UCs’ proposed CCAM solutions.
From a safety perspective, the analysis focused on technical requirements ensuring societal expectations for CCAM safety, covering trustworthiness, transparency, awareness, and fairness. Trustworthiness involves the safe activation/deactivation of automated driving, considering user needs. Transparency ensures fair interactions between users, vehicles, and CCAM and traditional solutions. Awareness proposals aim to provide information on automated driving operations and limitations. Fairness conditions explore promoting CCAM compatible with the safe circulation of non-automated vehicles, considering the needs of vulnerable users, and emergency services, and addressing dangerous behaviour by both CCAM and non-CCAM users.
Considering the environmental impact of mobility, a key concern on the EU agenda, especially with the EU Green Deal, relevant requirements focus on emission reduction, infrastructure and vehicle capacity optimisation, and fleet operations and management impacts. Notably, positive impacts of CCAM include limiting emissions, supporting sustainable mobility, reducing congestion and pollution, optimising traffic flows, and encouraging diverse transport modes to minimise unnecessary journeys. The analysis emphasises that CCAM solutions should adopt combined approaches, such as load optimisation, consolidation, asset sharing, and improved management of logistics centres, warehouses, and transport infrastructure.
Addressing the social relevance of transport and mobility, according to the European Pillar of Social Rights [18] and the New EU Urban Mobility Framework [19], the research also includes requirements for inclusivity, exploring requirements related to travel purposes, individual conditions (i.e., gender, age, income, literacy) and territorial coverage. The analysis emphasised the need for affordable, inclusive mobility to foster social cohesion and local economic development. CCAM could contribute to the spread of shared and on-demand mobility within public transport, considering the need for efficient, inclusive connectivity and sustainable mobility across rural, peri-urban, and urban areas.
Drawing by the EU Accessibility Act [20], the analysis highlighted requirements for service and vehicle/infrastructure accessibility. Considering services, accessibility needs primarily focus on the requirement for CCAM solutions to include a comprehensive strategy for easy multimodal journey planning. Specific recommendations cover ticket planning and purchase, smart ticketing information, and additional service details. Regarding vehicles and infrastructure, the attention focuses on effective access, surrounding infrastructure, assistance for people with disabilities, availability of sensory channels, and the introduction of elements and functions facilitating access, perception, operation, understanding, and control for individuals with disabilities.
Finally, the analysis took into account the collective expectations of society in relation to innovation in transport and mobility. The requirements related to the well-being of people and communities addressed the challenges of more sustainable urban hubs with a higher quality of life and better connectivity, affordability and accessibility of mobility services for urban and surrounding rural areas. Achieving the major shift in urban mobility will require rapid and significant action and investment at EU, national, regional and especially local levels. The requirements therefore cover all possible issues related to the objectives of just transitions and social and economic sustainability, identifying as essential the requirements to promote participation and a preliminary assessment of the economic and social impacts.
3.4 Regulatory Requirements for CCAM Design Purposes
The requirements were summarised in a report and a visual template [Fig. 2], which were provided to the UC owners. Dedicated workshops were then used to conduct a multidisciplinary analysis of CCAM user-centred design and regulatory issues. These workshops prioritised contextual aspects within this framework and identified detailed sub-requirements and acceptability conditions for designing their solutions.
4 Bottom-up Approach: CCAM Stakeholders and Users’ Needs and Requirements
4.1 Objectives and Process
The bottom-up analysis provides a complementary perspective to the top-down approach by focusing on the specific requirements for CCAM solutions based on local scenarios. This involves identifying the stakeholders and users who will interact with the new mobility systems, as well as setting out the main needs and requirements of each category of actors, case by case. The approach is divided into three sub-steps: Frist, analysing local CCAM cases to understand their specific characteristics. Second, mapping the intricate network of stakeholders and user categories through a comprehensive matrix. Third, collecting and prioritising stakeholders’ and users’ needs and requirements via a dedicated survey to understand their needs and prioritise them based on significance and feasibility.
4.2 The Rationale and the Use Cases in CONDUCTOR
The bottom-up examination of stakeholders’ and users’ needs begins with evaluating how different actors interact with the proposed CCAM solutions. This phase aims to gather insights for implementing these solutions, using UCs to identify and analyse their functional requirements. UCs are a proven tool for identifying and analysing the functional requirements of a system under development or evaluation [21‐24]. In fact, they help assess the quality of user-system interactions and facilitate stakeholder discussions, supporting subsequent modelling and development stages.
In this context, CONDUCTOR aims to design, integrate, and demonstrate advanced traffic and fleet management. For that, in order to understand the contextual and operational factors, the first step involved gaining an overview of the context in which UCs would be used. A participatory approach was promoted using concept maps to represent different scenarios, leading to the identification of three UCs:
UC1 involves integrated traffic management with intermodality, focusing on CCAM solutions for balancing demand and supply, optimising overall network performance, and aiding recovery from incidents within a transport network.
UC2 refers to demand-response transport, exploring CCAM applications for planning and implementing cooperative routing strategies and customised travel services under Mobility as a Service (MaaS).
UC3 refers to urban logistics, proposing solutions for last-mile delivery by integrating urban goods distribution with existing on-demand passenger transport services.
These findings provided a foundation for a survey to collect user and stakeholder needs, facilitating discussions on the specificities of each solution and an understanding of their benefits and limitations.
4.3 Stakeholders and Users Identification
The second step of the bottom-up approach involves identifying the users and stakeholders linked to each UC, guided by the taxonomies from the CCAM Partnership and SRIA [25]. Thus, leading the matrix to include six categories: (1) industry, (2) public authorities & and road operators, (3) mobility & and logistics services, (4) representative bodies, (5) research institutions and (6) users.
Regulators were excluded, as their requirements were expected to be covered by the top-down approach. The matrix was created to catalogue all relevant actors, with input from all project partners to ensure accuracy. This matrix provided a comprehensive overview of stakeholders’ needs and requirements for each UC.
In CONDUCTOR, 58 stakeholders were identified [Fig. 3], reflecting the complexity of the CCAM network. The most represented groups were mobility & logistics services (N = 19) and public authorities & road operators (N = 17). The survey within each UC highlighted that the size and consistency of each category varied depending on governance and network structure, deepening the understanding of each actor's role in the solutions implemented.
The third step involved gathering stakeholders’ and users’ needs and requirements through an ad-hoc designed survey focused on CCAM expectations. The survey was based on prior research in personalized digital transport systems, using their frameworks as a reference while making necessary adjustments to align with CONDUCTOR’s objectives. The survey was refined to capture detailed information on regulatory needs, stakeholders, end users, benefits, and challenges associated with each UC. It was thoroughly tested, reviewed and administered to the identified stakeholders and users, ensuring their input was accurately documented. The findings from this process were carefully integrated into the design and development of the project, ensuring alignment with the needs and requirements of all stakeholders and users.
The survey key topics included:
Perceived goal and purposes of the proposed service;
Needs and impact to develop location-specific solutions;
Requirements for scalable, adaptable, and interoperable solutions;
Skills and capabilities to identify knowledge and skill gaps to operate/use the solutions and eventual training and educational programs;
Trust, privacy, and security concerns and expectations of citizens and stakeholders regarding the use of CCAM solutions;
Individual and social benefits & risks of the proposed solutions;
Attitudes toward socially and culturally acceptable solutions;
Regulatory framework and necessary positive actions to ensure that solutions are implemented in a responsible and sustainable way; and
Sociodemographic factors.
The results revealed that safety (m = 5.78), lower emissions (m = 5.39), and accessibility (m = 5.35) were the most important needs, with safety emphasised through accident reduction (n = 14) and increased safety awareness (N = 3). Emission reduction focused on cutting greenhouse gases (N = 13) and shortening travel distances (N = 6). Accessibility improvements were suggested for passengers with disabilities (N = 3), practical solutions (N = 3), and more frequent routes (N = 3). Competitiveness was the least prioritised need (m = 4.13).
This systematic approach provided a scalable understanding of diverse needs and integrated these insights into the broader project framework, enhancing result interpretation and fostering discussions with other related projects.
5 A Holistic Approach to CCAM User-Centred Design. Results and Discussion
5.1 Objectives and Process
The results of the top-down and bottom-up analysis were finally merged using a participatory approach. The proposed methodology promoted a collaborative analysis, bringing together insights from the policy analysis and survey with inputs from workshops attended by project partners.
This approach aims to foster a shared understanding of on-desk research results and facilitate collaboration with UC owners and partners in policy development. By merging top-down and bottom-up analyses, it enables the mapping of CCAM service needs within the broader societal and regulatory framework derived from the top-down approach, guided by feedback from stakeholders.
For each UC, a set of user cards has been produced showing the stakeholders and users identified, their purposes for the proposed solutions, and the advantages and disadvantages in terms of social and regulatory requirements [Fig. 4]. This presentation of the results makes it possible to address the specificities of each UC within a systematic framework, able to keep together the relevant regulatory requirements and the priority needs and requirements of each category of users and stakeholders.
The consolidated findings were employed to enhance the design process for UCs, integrating socially based requirements to ensure the acceptability of CCAM in the medium and long term. Furthermore, this approach seeks to evaluate how real-world experiences shared by UC owners and their stakeholders can contribute to refining the specification of identified social requirements.
5.2 Results and Discussion
The data collected during the workshop facilitated a realistic reading of the results of the top-down and bottom-up analysis. The user journey maps allow for a better contextualisation of user and stakeholder needs and requirements, including categories of actors that had not emerged clearly before. The mapping of these needs to the respective social and regulatory priorities promoted a reasoned assessment of the general principles and requirements, highlighting the key compliance issues for a better acceptance of CCAM in CONDUCTOR.
The use of the CONDUCTOR methodology first of all highlights the real categories of actors mainly considered in the implementation of CCAM within the project, highlighting the critical role of mobility and logistics services, public authorities and road operators. It is particularly interesting to note how the contextual analysis of the different clusters allows the position of indirect beneficiaries to emerge more clearly. This is a special category of subjects that includes all those who are not directly involved in the implementation of CCAM but who are affected in some way by the implementation of these innovations. This cluster could take into account the interests of local residents as well as the mobility experience of all users not directly involved in CCAM solutions.
Secondly, the analysis of the data allows a reasonable assessment of the regulatory requirements in light of the specific needs of the stakeholders considered. In particular, we were able to take a broader view of the relevance of the various needs and requirements collected for each stakeholder, combining the results relating to a single actor with those relating to the respective categories. In addition, the involvement of the project partners allowed us to take into account additional elements that had not previously emerged clearly, such as the needs and requirements of indirect beneficiaries and local communities.
In line with more intuitive expectations, the more representative categories include direct beneficiaries and public stakeholders. The two clusters obviously give a genuine voice to the most recognisable policy objectives of the CCAM: improving the safety and accessibility of urban mobility and mitigating the negative impacts on the climate and the environment. On the other hand, the requirements and needs of private stakeholders and indirect beneficiaries cannot be overlooked. If we look at the main concerns of these two categories, we see that social well-being and environmental impact are the top priorities, in line with the results obtained for the other two groups of actors.
Against this background, private and public stakeholders - as well as direct beneficiaries - highlight the benefits of CCAM solutions in terms of improved user experience. In particular, they highlight the expected benefits in terms of travel time reduction, congestion, fuel consumption, maintenance operations and (where relevant) social responsibility of Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAVs).
The lessons learnt from the user journeys, involving public stakeholders as well as direct and indirect beneficiaries, highlighted the overriding importance of having a comprehensive and networked understanding of the specific solutions being implemented. The possible frictions experienced by users and stakeholders in the transition phase could in fact have a negative impact on the consolidation of these innovations and discourage upstream investments.
Finally, a combined reading of the results obtained allowed a better understanding of the weight of the different requirements for the purposes of CONDUCTOR. If they have the same weight and value from a qualitative point of view, the scenarios specifically considered in the pilots highlighted the priority of some of them for a better acceptance of CCAM in the short and medium term.
This reading of societal needs and requirements for ‘smart mobility’ solutions has led to the following considerations. Firstly, the acceptability of these solutions depends on their contribution to improving environmental sustainability. This is especially true if we consider the immediate benefits in terms of reduced emissions and consumption, which should be a key driver in the design and implementation of CCAM. Secondly, there are needs related to the complementary fulfilment of accessibility and social well-being requirements. The impacts of CCAM should be addressed in advance, modulating and mitigating negative impacts from the early stages of projects. The data shows that the specific concerns related to accessibility of services, vehicles and infrastructure and minimising negative impacts on residents and local communities are the core needs in this regard. These should therefore be the priorities for social acceptance of these innovations in the medium to long term. Finally, safety – understood as a holistic and gradual awareness of the direct and indirect effects of CCAM on urban mobility in general – should be the cornerstone of any CCAM solution. In fact, this principle embeds, to a greater or lesser extent, the expectations of all the actors involved and promotes an accessible and inclusive approach to the development of these solutions, without leaving anyone behind.
6 Conclusions
In the CCAM domain, the innovation process affects not only the direct beneficiaries (e.g., passengers, drivers, operators, mobility and logistics services), but also the wider communities and territories. These two dimensions are interdependent and complementary. Consequently, a proactive and holistic approach from the early stages of design can significantly improve the development, deployment and sustainable integration of these solutions over time. Drawing on lessons learned from the CONDUCTOR project, the methodology here presented aims to address the needs and requirements of users and stakeholders from a comprehensive perspective, reconciling overarching policy requirements with context-specific nuances.
Based on this premise, the methodology considers the principles and requirements identified through top-down assessments and the results of bottom-up analyses of user and stakeholder needs within a unified research framework. This approach ensures due consideration of the specificities and innovations introduced by these integrated solutions and fills the methodological gaps identified in the state-of-the-art literature. This methodology aims not only to reconcile different working methods but also to promote a common understanding of the societal issues and challenges associated with CCAM. It maps and addresses context-specific needs and requirements onto the broader principles and standards outlined by public policies at higher levels of governance. The experience of CONDUCTOR highlights the importance of incorporating human and social science desk research into the definition of technical and organisational requirements for CCAM, using collaborative and participatory methods. CCAM poses challenges that are rooted in traditional transport and mobility issues and require a more comprehensive and interdisciplinary perspective.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Charness, N., Yoon, J.S., Souders, D., Stothart, C., Yehnert, C.: Predictors of attitudes toward autonomous vehicles: the roles of age, gender, prior knowledge, and personality. Front. Psychol. 9, 2589 (2018)CrossRef
2.
Golbabaei, F., Yigitcanlar, T., Paz, A., Bunker, J.: Individual predictors of autonomous vehicle public acceptance and intention to use: a systematic review of the literature. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 6(4), 106 (2020)CrossRef
3.
Narayanan, S., Chaniotakis, M., Antoniou, C.: Shared autonomous vehicle services: a comprehensive review. Transport. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 111, 255–293 (2020)CrossRef
4.
Suet Theng, L., Susilawati, S.: Shared autonomous vehicles implementation for the first and last-mile services. Transport. Res. Interdisc. Perspect. 11, 100440 (2021)
5.
Othman, K.: Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review. AI Ethics 1, 355–387 (2021)CrossRef
6.
Rezaei, A., Caulfield, B.: Examining public acceptance of autonomous mobility. Travel Behav. Soc. 21(1), 235–246 (2020)CrossRef
7.
United Nations General Assembly: Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015: Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1)
8.
European Commission, DG-CONNECT: Towards a sustainable Europe by 2030 – Reflection paper, Publications Office (2019)
9.
European Commission, DG-MOVE: Final Report for Open Road Testing and Pre-Deployment of Cooperative, Connected and Automated and Autonomous Mobility Platform (CCAM Platform), July 2021, Brussels
10.
Decision (EU) 2022/591 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 April 2022 on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2030
11.
Decision (EU) 2022/2481 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 establishing the Digital Decade Policy Programme 2030
12.
EESC Opinion: The Importance of public transport for Europe’s Green Recovery. 20 January 2022 (TEN/774-EESC-2022)
13.
Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’)
14.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank: A Clean Planet for all A European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy (COM/2018/773 final)
15.
Regulation (EU) 2023/955 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 establishing a Social Climate Fund and amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1060
16.
European Commission: Commission Staff Working Document: For a Resilient, Innovative, Sustainable and Digital Mobility Ecosystem—Scenarios for a Transition Pathway (SWD(2022) 16 final)
17.
European Commission, DG-EMPL, Hassan, E., Neumann, T., Siöland, L. et al.: Access to essential services – Evidence from EU Member States – Final synthesis report, Publications Office of the European Union, 2023
18.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan (COM/2021/102 final)
19.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: The New EU Urban Mobility Framework (COM/2021/811 final)
20.
Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the accessibility requirements for products and services (Text with EEA relevance)
21.
Tiwari, S., Gupta, A.: A systematic literature review of use case specifications research. Inf. Softw. Technol. 67, 128–158 (2015)CrossRef
22.
Cockburn, A.: Writing Effective Use Cases. Addison-Wesley Professional. Boston (2000)
23.
Kettenis, J.: Getting Started with Use Case Modeling: White Paper. Oracle Corporation, Austin (2007)
24.
Phalp, K., Vincent, J., Cox, K.: Assessing the quality of use case descriptions. Softw. Qual. J. 15, 69–97 (2007)CrossRef
25.
CCAM Partnership: Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda 2021–2027 (2021)
