1 of 25

From Unacquainted to Optimistic: How Transportation Barriers Shape�Older Adults' Familiarity with New Mobility Options and Perceptions of Autonomous Vehicles

Suman Mitra, Ph.D., Associate Professor

Arna Nishita Nithila, Ph.D. Student

ZeRo Lab

January 10^th, 2026

2026 Research on Older Adult Mobility (ROAM) Meeting

Journal Article: Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 113 (2025) 73–93

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2025.04.024

2 of 25

BACKGROUND

OBJECTIVE

METHOD

RESULTS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

LIMITATION

1 in 6 people aged 65 and over

16.8% of the population

Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 2020

3 of 25

BACKGROUND

“Transportation barriers refer to those circumstances that restrict an individual’s access to essential services/ social activities (CDC, 2024; Oluyede et al., 2022).”

Individual-level barriers

(Personal abilities/resources limit transportation access.)

Environmental factors

(Lack / Unsafe Physical infrastructure that restricts access)

OBJECTIVE

METHOD

RESULTS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

LIMITATION

Interpersonal-level barriers

(Lack of Social support that limits access to rides.)

Community-level barriers

(Lack of community transportation resources)

4 of 25

BACKGROUND

Population growth projections for older adults in urban and rural areas (Source: Urban Institutes )

Urban

Rural

OBJECTIVE

METHOD

RESULTS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

LIMITATION

5 of 25

BACKGROUND

OBJECTIVE

METHOD

RESULTS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

LIMITATION

Ride-Hailing�App-based, on-demand rides with digital payment (e.g., Uber, Lyft)

Car-Sharing�Short-term access to shared vehicles for specific trips

Shared Micromobility Services�Short-term rental of scooters or bicycles, typically app-based

Autonomous Vehicles (AVs)�Fully self-driving vehicles (SAE Level 5); no human control required

6 of 25

OBJECTIVE

BACKGROUND

METHOD

RESULTS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

LIMITATION

What Past Literature Focused On…

Qualitative studies on transportation barriers
Usage pattern of ride-hailing, car-sharing, and share micro-mobility services
Perceptions of AVs

What Gaps Remain…

Limited quantitative studies
Little focus on how barriers influence perceptions and familiarity
Limited attention to heterogeneity and rural contexts

7 of 25

OBJECTIVE

BACKGROUND

Objective 1

To explore older adults' familiarity with new mobility solutions and their perceptions toward autonomous vehicles.

Objective 2

To analyze how transportation barriers influence their familiarity and perceptions.

METHOD

RESULTS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

LIMITATION

8 of 25

METHOD

Study Area

OBJECTIVE

10^th in the nation based

on the share of older adults

Arkansas

20%

people live in rural areas

43% people live in rural areas

BACKGROUND

RESULTS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

LIMITATION

9 of 25

BACKGROUND

Defining older adults

Target group

Older adults aged 60 or above

OBJECTIVE

METHOD

RESULTS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

LIMITATION

10 of 25

METHOD

Data collection

Timeline

Paper and online survey

6,000 paper surveys

Data Clean

Final database: 773 observations

October 2021 to June 2022

OBJECTIVE

BACKGROUND

RESULTS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

LIMITATION

Paper and Online survey

(Paper survey sent:

6,000)

Total response received:

1,017

(834 Paper-based,

183 Online )

Data cleaning

Final database 775 observations

Paper surveys: 82%

Online surveys: 18%

Response rate: 17%

11 of 25

METHOD

Data collection

Familiarity with new transportation options

Ride-hailing service

Car-sharing service

Shared e-scooter or bike-sharing

'I have never heard of it,’
'I have heard of it but am not familiar with it,' and
'I am familiar with it.'

Perceptions of Autonomous vehicles (AVs)

Opinion on AVs

Concerns about AVs

Willingness to own or lease AVs

OBJECTIVE

BACKGROUND

RESULTS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

LIMITATION

12 of 25

METHOD

Data collection

Transportation barriers

OBJECTIVE

BACKGROUND

RESULTS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

LIMITATION

Individual-Level

Mobility impairment (ABC Scale)
Driving cessation/restrictions
No smartphone access
No car access (car-deficit household)
Lack of affordability

Interpersonal-Level

No informal rides

Community-Level

No public transit
No local taxis or vans

Built-Environment

No sidewalks/trails

13 of 25

METHOD

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

OBJECTIVE

BACKGROUND

RESULTS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

LIMITATION

Familiarity with ride-hailing services

Familiarity with car-sharing services

Familiarity with bike-sharing or e-scooter sharing services

Attitude towards autonomous vehicles

Concerns about autonomous vehicles

Willingness to use autonomous vehicles

Latent Class Cluster Analysis

Indicators

Objective 1: To explore older adults' familiarity with new mobility solutions and their perceptions toward autonomous vehicles.

14 of 25

METHOD

Objective 2: To analyze how factors associated with barriers affect their knowledge and perceptions.

OBJECTIVE

BACKGROUND

RESULTS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

LIMITATION

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Individual-level barriers

Mobility Impairments; Driving Cessation; Lack of car access; Lack of smartphone

Interpersonal-level barriers

Lack of informal rides

Community-level barriers

Lack of access to public transport; Lack of access to local taxis and vans

Environmental-level barriers

Lack of sidewalks

Transportation barriers

Socio-demographics

And place of residence

Structural Equation Modeling Framework

15 of 25

RESULTS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Objective 1

To explore older adults' familiarity with new mobility solutions and their perceptions toward autonomous vehicles.

METHOD

OBJECTIVE

BACKGROUND

LIMITATION

16 of 25

RESULTS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Class 1: Unacquainted older adults with negative perceptions

Class 2: Acquainted older adults with negative perceptions

Class 3: Acquainted older adults with positive perceptions

METHOD

OBJECTIVE

BACKGROUND

LIMITATION

17 of 25

RESULTS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Class 1: Unacquainted older adults with negative perceptions

Almost no familiarity with new mobility options
Strong AV concerns & negative views
Very low interest in AV use or ownership

METHOD

OBJECTIVE

BACKGROUND

LIMITATION

Class 2: Acquainted older adults with negative perceptions

High awareness but little usage experience of new mobility options
Negative AV attitudes & high concern
Minimal AV adoption interest

Class 3: Acquainted older adults with positive perceptions

Highest familiarity and usage experience of new mobility options
Positive AV attitudes, lower AV concern
Strong interest in AV adoption

Our finsummarizes three distinct profiles of older adults based on their familiarity with emerging mobility options and their perceptions of autonomous vehicles.

The largest group, about 44 percent, consists of older adults who are largely unacquainted with new mobility services and hold strongly negative perceptions. Most have little to no familiarity with ride-hailing or shared mobility, express high concern about autonomous vehicles, and show very low interest in adoption.

The second group, comprising 34 percent, is aware of these services but remains skeptical. Despite higher awareness, negative attitudes toward autonomous vehicles persist, and interest in adoption remains minimal.

The smallest group, about 23 percent, is both more familiar and more receptive. This group shows the highest experience with ride-hailing, more positive attitudes toward autonomous vehicles, lower levels of concern, and the strongest interest in future use.

18 of 25

RESULTS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Objective 2

To explore how transportation barriers influence their familiarity and perceptions.

METHOD

OBJECTIVE

BACKGROUND

LIMITATION

19 of 25

RESULTS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

METHOD

OBJECTIVE

BACKGROUND

LIMITATION

Limit experimentation with new options

Reduce openness to new modes

Reflect low digital proficiency and skepticism

Mobility impairment

Driving cessation

Lack of smartphone access

Individual-Level Barriers

Influence on Familiarity & Perception

Policy Implications:
Training support for non-drivers and older adults with mobility impairment; Non-app access; Driving cessation plans

Class 1: Unacquainted older adults with negative perceptions

20 of 25

RESULTS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

METHOD

OBJECTIVE

BACKGROUND

LIMITATION

Drives search for alternative modes

Increases familiarity through necessity

Lack of informal rides

Limited access to local taxis and vans

Interpersonal- & Community-Level Barriers

Influence on Familiarity & Perception

Policy Implications:
Outreach targeting trust and affordability perceptions Community-based mobility information programs

Class 2: Acquainted older adults with negative perceptions

Negative AV perceptions may persist due to safety and usability concerns

21 of 25

RESULTS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

METHOD

OBJECTIVE

BACKGROUND

LIMITATION

Higher familiarity and positive perceptions

Lower familiarity with shared micromobility

Lack of access to car, public transit, and local vans access

Lack of sidewalks

Community & Environmental Barriers

Influence on Familiarity & Perception

Policy Implications:
Support AV deployment in areas with limited options Integrate micromobility with safe, accessible infrastructure

Class 3: Acquainted older adults with positive perceptions

22 of 25

LIMITATION

Limitations and Future Work

Self-selection bias
Several barriers not included (e.g., safety concerns, negative perceptions of technology)
More studies are needed from other rural areas

METHOD

OBJECTIVE

BACKGROUND

RESULTS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

23 of 25

RESULTS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

METHOD

OBJECTIVE

BACKGROUND

LIMITATION

Key takeaways

Heterogeneity in older adults’ familiarity and perceptions

Transportation barriers influenced older adults’ familiarity and perceptions

Context of a rural state matters

24 of 25

THANK YOU

Email: skmitra@uark.edu

Acknowledgement: This study is supported by the Chancellor Seed Grant of the University of Arkansas.

25 of 25

References

U.S. Census Bureau (2020). https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/05/2020-census-united-states-older-population grew.html#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20about%201%20in,million%20(16.8%25)%20in%202020.

Freund, K., Bayne, A., Beck, L., Siegfried, A., Warren, J., Nadel, T., Natarajan, A., 2020. Characteristics of ride share services for older adults in the United States. J Safety Res 72, 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2019.12.008

Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/future-rural-housing#:~:text=By%202040%2C%2025%20percent%20of,less%20pronounced%20in%20rural%20areas.