Within the four research sites of SINFONICA a series of interviews were conducted. Among others the interviews shed light into participants’ awareness experiences and their attitudes toward autonomous forms of mobility. The data were collected by the group of interest in 4 geographic areas (GR, DE, UK and NL) respectively. The interviews were conducted in phases starting from the 2nd half of 2023 up until the 2nd half of 2024, with participants belonging in vulnerable or underrepresented groups.
Greece – Trikala
Figure 1: Interviews Trikala – Awareness of CCAM, Question: Are you aware of CCAM? Options: yes or no (n = 69)
Some groups (Figure 1), such as digital vulnerable people and university students, display balanced levels of awareness. This suggests a more mixed or uncertain level of familiarity with CCAM in these populations. On the other hand, cognitive disabilities is a category where “no” responses exceed “yes,” indicating lower awareness.
Overall, the Figure 1 underscores significant disparities in CCAM awareness across different demographic segments. It suggests that targeted outreach efforts and inclusive communication strategies should prioritize groups such as individuals with cognitive disabilities, while also continuing to support awareness initiatives among youth and rural communities.
Figure 2: Interviews Trikala – Usage of CCAM, Question: Have you ever used CCAM? options: yes or no (n=69)
While many groups exhibit relatively high awareness, this does not always lead to high usage (Figure 2). For instance, elderly individuals show high awareness but only modest usage, and both young people (18–25) and women with gender-related vulnerabilities display high awareness but lower usage levels. This indicates a gap between knowledge of CCAM and actual access to or willingness to use it. Similarly, university students and digitally vulnerable people show balanced awareness levels, yet their usage remains low, indicating barriers to adoption despite familiarity.
In other cases, like people with cognitive disabilities, awareness is slightly higher than usage, which may reflect usability or accessibility challenges. Rural inhabitants also display relatively good awareness, but their usage is lower.
Notably, no group demonstrates both high awareness and high usage, indicating a broader issue in translating knowledge of CCAM into meaningful engagement.
While many groups exhibit relatively high awareness, this does not always lead to high usage (Figure 2). For instance, elderly individuals show high awareness but only modest usage, and both young people (18–25) and women with gender-related vulnerabilities display high awareness but lower usage levels. This indicates a gap between knowledge of CCAM and actual access to or willingness to use it. Similarly, university students and digitally vulnerable people show balanced awareness levels, yet their usage remains low, indicating barriers to adoption despite familiarity.
In other cases, like people with cognitive disabilities, awareness is slightly higher than usage, which may reflect usability or accessibility challenges. Rural inhabitants also display relatively good awareness, but their usage is lower.
Notably, no group demonstrates both high awareness and high usage, indicating a broader issue in translating knowledge of CCAM into meaningful engagement.
Figure 3: Interviews Trikala – Feelings (selections from a predefined feeling like skepticism etc.) towards digital and autonomous forms of mobility by demographic group (n=69)
Curiosity and interest are the most frequently selected emotions across many groups, including young people, women with gender-related vulnerabilities, university students, and digitally vulnerable individuals (Figure 3). These same groups demonstrated relatively high awareness of CCAM in the first chart, but their actual usage, as shown in the second chart, remains moderate to low. This suggests that while there is openness to digital and autonomous mobility, enabling conditions like access, incentives, and confidence may be lacking, preventing this interest from translating into use.
Skepticism is prominent among elderly individuals, digitally vulnerable people, and those with cognitive disabilities—even when awareness is relatively high. Likewise, uncertainty is prevalent in groups such as migrants, cyclists, and rural inhabitants, who also showed low usage levels.
Emotions such as fear, uneasiness, and lack of confidence are more commonly expressed by people with cognitive disabilities, low income, and physical disabilities. These reactions likely add to the access barriers these groups face and help explain their consistently low levels of usage, even when they are somewhat aware of CCAM.
Strongly positive emotions like excitement, freedom, and confidence are far less common. When they do appear, they tend to be associated with younger or more digitally literate groups such as university students and young adults.
It can be seen that awareness is relatively widespread in some groups but still lacking in marginalized populations. Usage remains moderate in only a few cases and low across the board, with no group showing high uptake. Emotional responses are dominated by curiosity and interest but also significantly shaped by skepticism, fear, and uncertainty. To bridge the gap between interest and action, it is important to implement inclusive pilot programs and provide accessible information.
Germany – Hamburg
Figure 4: Interviews Hamburg – Awareness of CCAM, Question: Are you aware of CCAM? Options: yes or no (n=80)
Among the groups shown (Figure 4), cyclists stand out with the highest number of affirmative responses, indicating a strong awareness of CCAM in this population. Physical disabilities also show high awareness, with a clear majority of “yes” responses compared to very few “no” responses.
Other groups such as the elderly, digitally vulnerable people, women and individuals with gender-related vulnerabilities, and young individuals aged 18–25 display moderate levels of awareness. On the other hand, cognitive disabilities show a more balanced distribution between awareness and lack of awareness, highlighting a potential gap in information dissemination or accessibility.
Overall, the chart (Figure 4) suggests that awareness of CCAM is uneven across different population groups. While some, like cyclists and individuals with physical disabilities, appear well-informed, others lack awareness. These discrepancies underscore the importance of targeted outreach and inclusive engagement strategies to ensure broader public understanding and participation in CCAM developments.
Figure 5: Interviews Hamburg – Usage of CCAM, Question: Have you ever used CCAM? options: yes or no (n=80)
When compared together, the two charts (Figure 4, 5) reveal important insights into the relationship between knowing about CCAM and actually using its services.
Cyclists, who showed the highest awareness in the previous chart, also demonstrate the highest usage. The number of users among cyclists nearly matches the number of non-users, indicating a relatively successful translation of awareness into practical adoption. Similarly, individuals with physical disabilities show a high level of awareness and also a moderate level of usage, although usage is still lower than awareness. This suggests that while many people in this group are informed about CCAM, there are still barriers preventing some from making use of it.
In contrast, other groups such as the elderly, young people aged 18–25, and women with gender-related vulnerabilities show a significant gap between awareness and usage. These groups are generally well-informed, as seen in the previous chart, but their usage levels are notably low. For example, both young people and women with gender-related vulnerabilities had high awareness, yet their usage counts are among the lowest, suggesting challenges in access, usability, or trust that hinder actual adoption. The most prominent observation is that high awareness does not necessarily lead to high usage.
Figure 6: Interviews Hamburg – Feelings toward highly digital and autonomous forms of mobility by demographic group, (n=80)
Curiosity emerges as one of the most common feelings across nearly all groups, especially among rural inhabitants, young people, and cyclists (Figure 6). This widespread curiosity aligns with the relatively high awareness levels observed in the earlier chart, particularly for groups like cyclists and individuals with physical disabilities. However, curiosity does not always translate into usage, as shown in the usage chart, where many of these same groups still show low engagement with CCAM services.
Skepticism is also prevalent across numerous groups, including rural inhabitants, migrants, and individuals with cognitive disabilities. This indicates that even when people are aware of CCAM and express some degree of curiosity, concerns or doubts about the technology may inhibit usage. Interest appears frequently as well, especially among young people, cyclists, and migrants.
Other emotional responses like excitement and freedom are much less commonly expressed. Only a few individuals from each group report feelings of confidence, calm, or trust, suggesting that positive emotional engagement with CCAM is still limited. Meanwhile, negative emotions such as uncertainty, uneasiness, and indifference are scattered across several groups, potentially reinforcing disengagement or hesitation toward adopting new mobility technologies.
When considered together, these three charts reveal a consistent pattern: awareness is often present, curiosity and interest are widespread, but usage remains low due to a mix of emotional, structural, and practical barriers. Feelings such as skepticism and uncertainty seem to act as intermediaries that prevent curiosity from evolving into trust and usage. The relatively low levels of excitement, confidence, and trust suggest that CCAM has yet to gain widespread emotional acceptance, which is crucial for broader adoption.
UK – West Midlands
Figure 7: Interviews West Midlands – Awareness of CCAM, Question: Are you aware of CCAM? Options: yes or no (n=66)
Across nearly all groups (Figure 7), the number of people who indicated they are not aware of CCAM exceeds those who said they are. This pattern is particularly noticeable among groups such as individuals with cognitive disabilities, women and gender-related vulnerabilities, low-income individuals and digitally vulnerable people. In each of these categories, the “no” responses clearly dominate, suggesting that awareness is generally low within these populations.
Even among groups such as young people aged 18–25 and those with physical disabilities, where some awareness is present, the number of individuals unaware of CCAM still remains significantly higher.
Figure 8: Interviews West Midlands – Usage of CCAM, Question: Have you ever used CCAM? options: yes or no (n=66)
When analyzed together with the previous chart (Figure 7) on awareness, it becomes clear that low awareness is accompanied by even lower usage across almost all groups.
The majority of respondents in each group answered “no,” indicating that they have not used CCAM (Figure 8) . Usage is minimal, with only a very small number of participants in groups such as the elderly, digitally vulnerable people, women with gender-related vulnerabilities, young people aged 18–25, and individuals from low-income backgrounds reporting any direct experience with CCAM. In each of these cases, the “yes” responses are significantly outnumbered by “no” responses.
Overall, the data indicate that not only is awareness of CCAM low in the West Midlands among vulnerable and underrepresented populations, but actual usage is even more limited.
Figure 9: Interviews West Midlands – Feelings Toward Digital and Autonomous Forms of Mobility per Demographic Group (n=66)
The most common feelings expressed are curiosity, interest, skepticism, and uncertainty (Figure 9). For example, curiosity and interest appear to be prominent among these groups, indicating a willingness to learn more or engage with the concept of autonomous mobility. However, these emotional reactions do not appear to translate into high awareness or usage, as both remain low according to the previous charts. This suggests that interest alone is not sufficient and may be held back by structural, social, or informational barriers.
At the same time, feelings like fear, uneasiness, and uncertainty are also noticeable, especially among individuals with cognitive disabilities, physical disabilities, and low-income backgrounds. These groups have the lowest awareness and usage levels and also report emotional responses that reflect hesitation or discomfort toward the technology. This reinforces the idea that emotional factors play a significant role in shaping people’s openness to trying or trusting digital mobility solutions.
More positive responses, such as confidence, calm, excitement, and trust, appear infrequently and are scattered across a small number of groups. Their low occurrence suggests that autonomous mobility is not yet broadly viewed as empowering or reliable, especially among vulnerable populations. Instead, mixed and cautious sentiments dominate, with most people displaying either curiosity with uncertainty or outright skepticism.
Awareness of CCAM is generally low, usage is even lower, and feelings toward the technology are a mix of interest and doubt, with only a few expressing strong positive emotions. These findings highlights the need for CCAM initiatives to go beyond providing information and instead focus on building trust, reducing perceived risks, and involving communities in co-designing solutions that address their specific concerns.
Netherlands – Noord Brabant
Figure 10: Interviews Noord Brabant – Awareness of CCAM, Question: Are you aware of CCAM? Options: yes or no (n=56)
The data (Figure 10) indicates generally high awareness across most groups represented. Elderly participants, individuals with cognitive disabilities, women and those with gender-related vulnerabilities, young people aged 18–25, migrants, single-parent families, and rural inhabitants all show strong levels of awareness. Notably, young people and rural inhabitants exhibit the highest levels of awareness, with nearly all respondents in these categories indicating familiarity with CCAM.
In the case of digitally vulnerable people, the levels of awareness are more balanced, with “yes” responses only slightly exceeding “no” responses. This suggests that while the group is generally informed, a notable portion still lacks familiarity with the concept.
Overall, the chart suggests a promising degree of awareness of CCAM among several key demographic segments, particularly among younger people, rural inhabitants, and elderly individuals.
Figure 11: Interviews Noord Brabant – Usage of CCAM, Question: Have you ever used CCAM? options: yes or no (n=56)
In the previous chart, most groups showed high levels of awareness. However, in this chart (Figure 11), usage across all these groups is considerably lower. While some respondents from each group report having used CCAM, the number of “yes” responses is consistently far below the number of “no” responses. For example, even among rural inhabitants and young people, who had among the highest awareness levels, usage remains minimal. This suggests that while individuals may be familiar with CCAM, this awareness is not translating into widespread adoption or direct experience.
Digital vulnerable people, women and gender-related groups, migrants, and single-parent families all reflect the same trend: relatively high awareness in the earlier chart but low actual usage here. The elderly also show a substantial drop-off between knowing about CCAM and having used it.
In summary, while awareness of CCAM appears to be relatively widespread among several demographic groups, this chart reveals that usage remains very limited. The disconnect between knowledge and use suggests that other factors are acting as barriers.
Figure 12: Interviews Noord Brabant – Feelings Toward Digital and Autonomous Forms of Mobility per Demographic Group (n=56)
One of the most commonly expressed emotions across multiple groups is curiosity, which appears frequently among university students, young people, and women with gender-related vulnerabilities (Figure 12). Interest is also widely represented, suggesting that many individuals are open to or intrigued by digital and autonomous mobility. However, despite these expressions of curiosity and interest, the earlier usage chart showed that actual engagement with CCAM remains very low.
Skepticism and uncertainty are also prominent feelings reported by various groups, including migrants, digitally vulnerable people, and individuals with cognitive disabilities. These sentiments reflect hesitation or doubt, which likely contribute to the gap between awareness and usage observed in the previous charts. Fear is another notable emotion, expressed by individuals across multiple vulnerable groups, reinforcing the idea that trust and safety remain key concerns for many when it comes to adopting new mobility technologies.
Positive feelings like excitement, trust, and freedom are present but less common and generally limited to a few demographic groups. Confidence and calm are the least reported emotions, suggesting that most people still feel unsure or uneasy about highly digital mobility systems. This emotional landscape supports the idea that simply raising awareness is not enough; emotional reassurance and a sense of control or reliability are also essential.
While many people express curiosity and interest in CCAM, these feelings are accompanied by significant levels of skepticism, fear, and uncertainty. The emotional profile of respondents helps explain why awareness does not consistently lead to usage. Addressing these emotional responses through trust-building, community engagement, inclusive design, and user education will be critical for increasing the adoption of digital and autonomous mobility solutions among all demographic groups.
Conclusions
The series of bar charts reveals a pattern across demographic groups which indicates that while awareness of CCAM is relatively high in many populations, actual usage remains low. Emotional responses help explain this gap, as curiosity and interest are common but are often accompanied by skepticism, uncertainty, and fear, particularly among vulnerable groups such as individuals with cognitive or physical disabilities. Positive emotions like trust and excitement are rare, suggesting that although people are open to the idea of digital and autonomous mobility, significant emotional barriers continue to slow down adoption. These findings highlight the need for targeted engagement strategies that not only inform but also build confidence and trust.
Author: Konstantinos Fokeas (ICCS)
