Understand the impact of positive and negative information on public opinion about autonomous vehicles among young Ecuadorians

Abstract

Technological advances have accelerated the development of autonomous vehicles (AVs) in recent years. AVs offer several potential benefits, such as improving road safety, fuel efficiency, traffic flow and reducing greenhouse gases. The problem is that while AVs offer potential benefits, they also present ethical challenges and concerns, and there is a lack of research on public perceptions specifically among young Ecuadorians, who are heavy technology consumers. In this context, this study aimed to analyze the attitudes and perceptions of young Ecuadorians towards AVs by presenting them with positive and negative information about AVs. More than 500 surveys were collected using the snowball technique in the community of the Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja (UTPL), which is located in a city in the south of the country. The survey looked at their perceptions before and after they were presented with positive and negative information about AVs. The study found gender and driving frequency differences in the perception of (AVs, with women exhibiting greater reductions in their opinions and confidence levels about AVs compared to men, and overall, there was a slight decline in opinion towards AVs, accompanied by increased concerns about AVs travel. Driving frequency had an impact on perception and concerns. This type of study allows for a better understanding of the perceived benefits and concerns regarding AVs adoption in Ecuador.

Full text

Green World Journal /Vol 06/Issue 02/080/ May - August 2023 /www.greenworldjournal.com Page 1 of 18
Editorial
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Understand the impact of positive and negative
information on public opinion about autonomous
vehicles among young Ecuadorians
Josue Ortega1 Yasmany García-Ramírez 2 Carolina Parreño 1
1*Logistics and Transportation Department, Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja, San Cayetano Street, Loja 110107,
Ecuador; jdortega19@utpl.edu.ec
2 Department of Civil Engineering, Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja, ydgarcia1@utpl.edu.ec
Correspondence: jdortega19@utpl.edu.e + 593 (07) 3701444
DOI/URL: https://doi.org/10.53313/gwj62080
Abstract:
Technological advances have accelerated the development of
autonomous vehicles (AVs) in recent years. AVs offer several potential
benefits, such as improving road safety, fuel efficiency, traffic flow and
reducing greenhouse gases. The problem is that while AVs offer potential
benefits, they also present ethical challenges and concerns, and there is
a lack of research on public perceptions specifically among young
Ecuadorians, who are heavy technology consumers. In this context, this
study aimed to analyze the attitudes and perceptions of young Ecuadorians
towards AVs by presenting them with positive and negative information
about AVs. More than 500 surveys were collected using the snowball
technique in the community of the Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja
(UTPL), which is located in a city in the south of the country. The survey
looked at their perceptions before and after they were presented with
positive and negative information about AVs. The study found gender and
driving frequency differences in the perception of (AVs, with women
exhibiting greater reductions in their opinions and confidence levels about
AVs compared to men, and overall, there was a slight decline in opinion
towards AVs, accompanied by increased concerns about AVs travel.
Driving frequency had an impact on perception and concerns. This type of
study allows for a better understanding of the perceived benefits and
concerns regarding AVs adoption in Ecuador.
Keywords:
Technology adoption, Gender differences, Driving habits,
Attitude change, Young adults
1.
Introduction
The interest in studies related to AVs has grown among
researchers and the general public due to the advances that
this technology can offer in education, employment
possibilities or increased productivity by reducing the burden
of daily tasks [1,2].
AVs have several potential benefits, for example (1)
safety, (2) intersection control, (3) collision-free navigation,
(4) obstacle detection and (5) pedestrian protection [3,4].
Citations:
Ortega, J., García-Ramírez, Y., &
Parreño, C. (2023). Understand the impact
of positive and negative information on public
opinion about autonomous vehicles among
young Ecuadorians. Green World Journal,
06(02), 080.
https://doi.org/10.53313/gwj62080
Received:
25/June/2023
Accepted:
02/August/2023
Published:
03/August/2023
Prof. Carlos Mestanza-Ramón, PhD.
Editor-in-Chief / CaMeRa Editorial
Editor's Note:
CaMeRa remains neutral
regarding legal claims resulting from posted
content. The responsibility for the information
published lies entirely with the authors.
© 2023 License CaMeRa, Green World
Journal. This article is an open access
document distributed under the terms and
conditions of the license.
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

Ortega et al.
Green World Journal /Vol 06/Issue 02/080/ May - August 2023 /www.greenworldjournal.com Page 2 of 18
______
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Likewise, AVs bring several novelties to problems that currently interest the majority of the
population, such as fuel efficiency, traffic flow or the reduction of greenhouse gases [5,6].
While AVs offer several advantages, their rapid introduction can also bring certain
disadvantages that should be considered at the time of implementation [7,8]. Some of these
issues include, first of all, the Law, i.e. determining who is liable in the event of an accident or
crime (the vehicle owner, the occupant, the vehicle manufacturer or another entity) [9,10].
Secondly, as AVs are a technology based on computer and technological systems, AVs can be
vulnerable to hackers who can access different functions of the vehicle, such as the Global
Positioning System (GPS), Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU), Light Detection and Ranging (Lidar)
or monoscopic and stereoscopic cameras [11,12]. Finally, other functions may also be affected,
such as internal or external communication systems and attacks or risks to the hardware [11,13].
In general, the process of diffusion of innovations is not always easy when it comes to the
application of new technologies in people's daily lives [14,15]. Several studies indicate that
innovations are positive and should be accepted by the general public [16,17]. However, in most
cases, this does not happen because people can resist the acceptance and use of new innovations
in technologies (AVs) [18,19]. In other words, innovations in most cases face psychological
barriers (reliability, fear, anxiety, distrust or uncertainty), poor dissemination of information or lack
of clear statements about benefits [20].
Therefore, in recent years several surveys have been conducted on the acceptance of AVs
and its impact on people's daily lives. Table 1 presents a summary of the different surveys that
have been carried out to identify and detect the parameters, opinions, doubts and intentions that
the general public has regarding the use or acceptance of AVs. Each article includes the author,
the country in which the survey was conducted, the date of collection, the number of survey
participants, and the significant results obtained from each study.
Table 1.
Summary of related studies.
First author
(year)
Country
Date of data
collection
Participants
Significant results
Reference
Abraham et
al. (2016)
United States
2016
3034
Older adults are comfortable accepting
the introduction of technological
innovations. However, there are some
concerns about the desirability in
adopting AVs.
[21]
Robertson et
al. (2019)
Canada
2016
2662
Older drivers (65+) show great interest
and enthusiasm for automated
vehicles, if certain conditions are met
(safety guarantee, low costs, cheap
maintenance, insurance policies).
[22]
Payre et al.
(2014)
French
2013
441
Most participants have a positive
opinion of fully automated driving. Even
though they had never tried an
autonomous vehicle before.
[23]
Choi et al.
(2015)
Korea
OF
1
552
People are willing to adopt AVs if this
technology provides confidence and a
sense of usefulness.
[24]
Zhang et al.
(2020)
China
2018
647
People who like to experience new
sensations and those who are more
willing to have novel experiences are
more likely to accept AVs, while
neurotic people are less inclined to
accept AVs.
[25]
Liljamo et al.
(2018)
Finland
2017
2036
People with a high level of education
(master's or doctorate) and those who
live in a densely populated area tend to
have a positive attitude towards AVs.
[26]
Bansal et al.
(2016)
United States
2014
347
Estimates of willingness to pay (WTP)
for new technologies suggest that men
[27]

Ortega et al.
Green World Journal /Vol 06/Issue 02/080/ May - August 2023 /www.greenworldjournal.com Page 3 of 18
______
RESEARCH ARTICLE
with high incomes, who are familiar
with autonomous technology and
experience with accidents, have a
higher WTP for AVs.
Kyriakidis et
al. (2015)
Netherlands
2014
5000
It was found that although people are
concerned about software
piracy/misuse and the legal and safety
aspects, most agree that fully
automated driving would be enjoyable.
[28]
Sener et al.
(2019)
United States
2016
3097
People with physical conditions that
make it difficult to drive, young people
and owners of vehicles with highly
automated functions (adaptive cruise
control, lane keeping or automated
parking), are more likely to use AVs.
[29]
Wintersberger
et al. (2019)
Austria
OF
1
192
Although most people are well aware of
the meaning and implications of AVs,
there are still concerns about
cybersecurity, reliability, and vehicle
sharing.
[30]
Stoiber et al.
(2019)
Switzerland
2018
709
People surveyed prefer AVs sharing
rather than using a single autonomous
vehicle. In addition, if the vehicle is
associated with three important factors
such as (1) cost, (2) time and comfort,
the likelihood of adoption increases.
[31]
Krueger et al.
(2016)
Australia
2015
435
The results show that the adoption and
use of shared autonomous vehicles
(SAVs) are closely related to the cost of
travel, travel time and waiting time that
SAVs perform.
[32]
Hulse et al.
(2018)
United
Kingdom
2016
925
Survey participants mentioned that they
consider AVs to be a "low-risk" form of
transportation despite concerns
(cybersecurity, hacking, and vehicle
road safety).
[33]
1 Not available
Based on different aspects and concerns that can lead to the acceptance and use of AVs.
These studies do not consider respondents' perception when presented with positive and negative
information about AVs. Therefore, this study aims to deepen the perception of young Ecuadorians
about AVs, shedding light on their attitudes, opinions and expectations. To achieve this goal, a
comprehensive survey was developed, employing a before-and-after approach to measure
participants' perception after introducing AVs related accidents. Using the snowball technique,
518 surveys were collected in a city located in the southern region of Ecuador. Through the analysis
of the collected data, this study seeks to identify differences in perception based on the
information received by the participants, gender disparities and variations derived from driving
frequency.
By providing insight into the perceived benefits and concerns associated with the adoption
and acceptance of AVs in Ecuador, this research contributes to a better understanding of the
potential challenges and opportunities ahead. Such knowledge is critical for policymakers,
researchers and stakeholders in the transportation sector, enabling them to make informed
decisions regarding the integration of AVs into the Ecuadorian transportation system. Furthermore,
as technological advances continue to reshape societies, understanding public perceptions
towards AVs is crucial to fostering public acceptance and addressing any reservations or concerns
that may hinder its widespread adoption.

Ortega et al.
Green World Journal /Vol 06/Issue 02/080/ May - August 2023 /www.greenworldjournal.com Page 4 of 18
______
RESEARCH ARTICLE
2.
Materials and methods
The following section provides a detailed description of the methodology employed in this
study. It begins by focusing on the details of the sample, specifying the target population as young
university students from the city of Loja, Ecuador. It then describes the data collection instrument,
which was a survey developed in Survey123 from ArcGIS Online. Subsequently, the data collection
process is discussed, including the elimination of surveys with invalid information, the scoring of
responses on a Likert scale, the calculation of average values, and the evaluation of variations in
perception before and after learning about AVs. The Materiality Index (RII) was used to measure
the effect of shared information on public opinion. Changes in public perception were assessed
and demographic variables were analysed using graphs and statistical values.
2.1. Sample details
This study focused on young university students from the city of Loja, Ecuador. The sample
was collected mainly from the community of the Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja (UTPL).
The sample must have a similar local population distribution, composed of 48% men and 52%
women. According to the 2010 population census, the population of the Loja canton was 214,855
inhabitants, of which 16.1% were young people between 20 and 29 years old. Thus, the number
of young people in this age group was 36,202. With this population, a confidence level of 95%
and a margin of error of 5%, a sample size of 381 respondents is required [34].
2.2. Instrument
The data collection instrument used was a survey developed in ArcGIS Online's Survey123.
The survey, using the before-and-after approach, consisted of four sections: general respondent
information, previous perception of AVs, positive and negative information about them, and after
perception of AVs. The purpose of the survey was to assess participants' previous perception of
these types of vehicles without providing them with certain details, and then to assess whether
their perception changed after they were presented with additional information about AVs. This
instrument was validated with master's students in civil engineering with specialization in mountain
roads from the UTPL to determine if each of the questions and their answer options were easily
understandable. If necessary, the elements of the instrument were corrected. Detailed information
on each section of the survey is provided in Table 2 [35].
Table 2.
Four sections of the survey in this study.
Section 1: Defendant General Information
• Select your age (18-29 years, 30-39 years, ≥40 years)
• Gender (male, female, I'd rather not say it)
• Level of education (high school, university or college, graduate)
• Driving frequency (I don't drive, up to 1 day a week, 2 to 4 days a week, more than 4 days a
week)
• Level of knowledge about autonomous vehicles (Very little, little, neutral, much, expert)
• If you were in a fully autonomous driving vehicle, what would you spend the extra time on instead
of driving? (Work, read, watch movies or series, rest, exercise, relax and meditate, send
messages (email, chat), monitor the road even if its interaction with the autonomous vehicle is
not necessary, I would not get into a fully autonomous vehicle)
Section 2: Previous perception of autonomous vehicles
• What's your take on autonomous vehicles? (very negative, negative, neutral, positive, very
positive)
• Can autonomous cars improve the level of safety compared to human-driven vehicles? (Strongly
disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree)
• What is your level of concern about traveling in autonomous vehicles? (Not worried at all, little
worried, neutral, worried, extremely worried)

Ortega et al.
Green World Journal /Vol 06/Issue 02/080/ May - August 2023 /www.greenworldjournal.com Page 5 of 18
______
RESEARCH ARTICLE
• What is your level of interest in buying an autonomous vehicle? (Not at all interested, not very
interested, neutral, somewhat interested, very interested)
• Autonomous vehicles allow:
1. Improve road safety (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree)
2. Reduce traffic accidents and traffic congestion (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree,
strongly agree)
3. Improve the mobility of the elderly, disabled, etc. (Strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree,
strongly agree)
4. Increase efficiency and fuel economy (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree)
5. Productivity and time savings by not "wasting time" driving (Strongly disagree, disagree, neutral,
agree, strongly agree)
6. Improve traffic management as vehicles communicate with each other and with infrastructure
(strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree)
7. Optimization of parking, as passengers stay and the vehicle continues (Strongly disagree,
disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree)
• Autonomous vehicles concern me about:
• Road safety (Not at all worried, little worried, neutral, worried, extremely concerned)
• Technological limitations of cameras, sensors, algorithms (Not worried at all, little worried,
neutral, worried, extremely worried)
• High implementation costs (not worried, little worried, neutral, worried, extremely worried)
• Legal and regulatory challenges (Not worried at all, not worried, neutral, worried, extremely
worried)
• Commuting work, for example, taxi drivers will no longer be needed (Not worried at all, little
worried, neutral, worried, extremely worried)
• Security and privacy risk as vehicles collect and process information from their owners' employers
(Not worried at all, not worried, neutral, worried, extremely concerned)
• Ethical considerations, such as dilemmas between deciding the safety of pedestrians or vehicle
occupants in the event of an accident (Not worried at all, not worried, neutral, worried, extremely
worried)
Section 3: Positive and negative information on autonomous vehicles
• Autonomous Parking - Prius Hybrid – 2003. Toyota launched the Prius Hybrid in 2003, which
included autonomous parking technology. Parallel parking assist sensors worked incredibly well
for the time. Other manufacturers, such as Lexus and BMW, followed suit and released modified
versions of this technology in 2003 and 2009, respectively.
• Autopilot - Tesla – 2015. Tesla introduced the Autopilot feature in 2015, which used cameras,
radar, sonar technology and incorporated traffic data. Other features included monitoring stop
signs, traffic signals, other vehicles, pedestrians, road lanes, etc.
• Fatal accident - Tesla, USA, July 2016. This marked the first fatal autonomous vehicle (AV)
accident. The car's sensor system could not distinguish a wheeled truck when the car tried to
drive under it at full speed.
• Fatal accident - Tesla, China, January 2016. Tesla initially reported that the damage made it
impossible to determine whether the Autopilot system was on or not. However, in 2018, Tesla
confirmed that the Autopilot system was indeed engaged. The car was in the left lane before
turning and colliding with a truck.
• Non-fatal injuries - Tesla, Russia, July 2019. The passengers suffered minor injuries, but the car
exploded after the accident. The driver had activated the driver assistance function (not Autopilot),
and his hands were on the wheel when the car veered into a truck in the left lane. The driver stated
that he did not see the truck that collided with them.
• Autonomous Private Taxi – Waymo – Google – 2023. Waymo One is the world's first autonomous
travel service, launched in 2023. It offers on-demand private shuttle service, shuttling travelers
daily from the Phoenix and San Francisco metropolitan areas. It helps them get to their
destinations, whether it's a grocery store, their workplace, or a date night.
Section 4: After the perception of autonomous vehicles
• Same questions and options as section 2

Ortega et al.
Green World Journal /Vol 06/Issue 02/080/ May - August 2023 /www.greenworldjournal.com Page 6 of 18
______
RESEARCH ARTICLE
2.3. Data collection
Data collection was conducted between June and July 2023. UTPL civil engineering students
collected the surveys. They were the first to respond to the survey and then received instructions
on how to use Survey123 and understand the questions and answer options. Students were tasked
with collecting data from at least five additional students, such as the snowball technique. As a
measure of information quality control, the app recorded the date, time, location and photographs
of respondents.
2.4. Data processing
First, we analyzed the database and removed all surveys with invalid information or
inconsistent responses. Responses were rated on a Likert scale, with 1 assigned to the most
unfavorable answer option (e.g., "Not at all concerned," "Strongly disagree") and 5 assigned to
the most favorable answer option (e.g., "Very positive," "Very interested"). This score allowed the
calculation of mean values and the evaluation of variations in responses before and after analyzing
six AVs events. To measure the effect on public opinion, he calculated the average values or the
relative importance index (RII) for each factor tested. The RII is determined using equation 1:
RIIn=
Σi=1
5iXi
n
Where: RIIn is the relative importance index for a specific question n; i is the rating given to
each factor (in this case, 1 to 5); Xi is the number of respondents who give a grade i for that
specific question n; and n is the number of respondents.
Changes in public perception before or after showing positive and negative information about
autonomous vehicles were assessed using equation 1. The differences between the demographic
and driving frequency variables were analyzed using graphs and statistical values.
3.
Results
The results section presents the findings and analyses derived from the collected data. It
begins with an exploration of respondent demographics, providing an overview of the
characteristics of the participants involved in the study. After this, the section delves into the overall
results, highlighting key observations and trends that emerged from the survey responses. In
addition, the section examines possible gender differences in perception and attitudes towards
AVs. Finally, the section investigates any disparities that may exist based on driving frequency,
shedding light on how often people drive and how it relates to their perceptions of AVs.
3.1. Demographic data of respondents
For this study, 518 responses were collected (see https://arcg.is/eO1ur), exceeding the
required sample size of 381 for the chosen level of confidence and error. This sample size reduced
the error to 4.28%. The demographic variables of the participants are presented in Table 3. The
distribution between men and women was about 50%. The dominant age group was 18 to 29
years, which corresponds with the typical age range to start college studies (around 18 years) and
complete a degree within 3 to 5 years. Similarly, a significant proportion of students had a high
school or university/college level, which is also consistent with their age. As for driving frequency,
most participants do not drive because most of them are students who cannot afford their own
vehicles.

Ortega et al.
Green World Journal /Vol 06/Issue 02/080/ May - August 2023 /www.greenworldjournal.com Page 7 of 18
______
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Table 3.
Summary of respondent demographics.
Demography
Percentage (%)
Gender
Male
Female
I'd rather not say
53.86
45.75
0.39
Adge
18-29 years
30-39 years
≥40 years
97.10
2.89
0.77
Education
High school
University or college
Postgraduate
37.84
59.46
2.70
Driving frequency
I don't drive
Up to 1 day per week
Between 2 and 4 days a
week
More than 4 days a week
41.89
19.31
17.76
21.04
To assess the level of knowledge among the participants, the relative importance index of
their answers was calculated. Respondents rated their knowledge 2.51 out of 5, with 1 indicating
very little knowledge and 5 indicating expert-level knowledge. This suggests that their knowledge
falls into the category of low knowledge on the subject. This could be attributed to the fact that
Ecuador is not currently involved in the development of this technology.
3.2. Overall results
Table 4 shows the general changes in public opinion among young people before and after
positive and negative information about AVs. Opinion on AVs decreased slightly, as did opinion
on road safety. However, there was an increase in the level of concern regarding AVs travel, as
well as an increase in interest in purchasing such a vehicle.
Table 4.
The general perception changes in public perception when evaluating the
responses before and after presenting positive and negative information about
autonomous vehicles (AVs).
1 Before or after displaying positive and negative information about autonomous vehicles.
Question
Before1
After1
Percentage
change in
mean
What's your take on autonomous vehicles?
3.35
3.31
-1.19
Can autonomous cars improve the level of
safety compared to human-driven vehicles?
3.33
3.23
-3.00
What is your level of concern about traveling
in autonomous vehicles?
2.92
3.01
+3.08
What is your level of interest in buying an
autonomous vehicle?
2.84
2.92
+2.82

Ortega et al.
Green World Journal /Vol 06/Issue 02/080/ May - August 2023 /www.greenworldjournal.com Page 8 of 18
______
RESEARCH ARTICLE
On the other hand, Figure 1 illustrates the perception of benefits measured before and after
presenting positive and negative information about AVs. To analyze this figure, the answers to the
questions were coded as follows: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 =
strongly agree. The figure represents variation, indicating changes in public perception for the
same set of questions. Most benefits changed after showing positive or negative aspects of AVs,
except for increased productivity and time savings. The highest reduction values were observed in
terms of accidents and congestion, followed by improvements in mobility.
Figure 1.
General changes in public perception regarding the various benefits of
autonomous vehicles (AVs) (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree,
5 = strongly agree).
Regarding the perception of concerns related to various aspects of AVs, Figure 2 presents
the results of the indices before and after presenting positive and negative information about AVs.
The scale is as follows: 1 = not at all worried, 2 = little worried, 3 = neutral, 4 = worried, 5 =
extremely worried. In addition, Figure 2 illustrates the variation, indicating changes in public
perception for the same set of questions. Concerns about road safety and technological
constraints and, to a lesser extent, job displacement and ethical considerations increased.
Similarly, there was a decrease in concern about high AV costs, legal issues, and security and
privacy risks.
Figure 2.
General changes in public perception regarding the various concerns of
autonomous vehicles (AVs) (1 = not worried at all, 2 = little worried, 3 = neutral, 4 =
worried, 5 = extremely concerned).

Ortega et al.
Green World Journal /Vol 06/Issue 02/080/ May - August 2023 /www.greenworldjournal.com Page 9 of 18
______
RESEARCH ARTICLE
The result of the question, 'If you were in a fully autonomous driving vehicle, what would you
spend the extra time on instead of driving?' is shown in Figure 3. In general, most respondents
think they will continue to pay attention to the road, even if it is not necessary to maneuver the
vehicle. They also mentioned activities such as working and resting. The least chosen activity was
relaxing and meditating.
Figure 3.
Overall percentage of respondents' responses regarding their actions in a fully
autonomous vehicle (AVs).
Table 5 shows gender differences in public opinion among young people before and after
presenting them with positive and negative information about AVs. Only 2 respondents preferred
not to disclose their gender, so the analysis was conducted between men and women. Even
though both sexes (male, female) showed similar trends in their before and after responses,
women showed greater reductions in their opinions and confidence levels compared to men.
Similarly, women expressed a greater increase in concerns compared to men. Finally, men
expressed a stronger desire to acquire AVs compared to women, who, although their desire also
increased, was only slightly.
Table 5.
Gender perception changes in public perception by evaluating responses before
and after presenting positive and negative information about autonomous vehicles (AVs).
Question
Men
Women
Before1
After1
%
change
Before1
After1
%
change
What's your take on autonomous
vehicles?
3.35
3.33
-0.92
3.39
3.29
-2.89
Can autonomous cars improve the
level of safety compared to
human-driven vehicles?
3.29
3.26
-0.94
3.42
3.19
-6.69
What is your level of concern
about traveling in autonomous
vehicles?
2.96
3.02
+1.96
2.86
3.00
+4.74
What is your level of interest in
buying an autonomous vehicle?
2.76
2.89
+4.47
2.97
2.98
+0.31
* Before or after displaying positive and negative information about autonomous vehicles
(AVs).

Ortega et al.
Green World Journal /Vol 06/Issue 02/080/ May - August 2023 /www.greenworldjournal.com Page 10 of 18
______
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Figure 4 illustrates the perception of benefits measured before and after presenting positive
and negative AVs information for the genders analyzed. There is a reduction in the perception of
both genders regarding traffic accidents, congestion and improved mobility. However, the
reduction in perception is greater among women than men when it comes to reducing traffic
accidents and congestion. In other benefits, genders have opposite perceptions after receiving
information about AVs. This trend is interesting, especially when you consider the introduction of
AVs into the market. Despite the results of this study, the details need to be explored further in
further studies. Regarding extreme values, women experience a greater reduction (-4.76%) in their
initial perception that AVs improves road safety and reduces road accidents and congestion (-
4.37%). On the other hand, men show an average increase in perception index (+3.52%) in relation
to the fact that AVs increase productivity and save time.
Figure 4.
Gender perception shifts in public perception regarding the various benefits of
autonomous vehicles (AVs) (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree,
5 = strongly agree).
Regarding the perception of concerns related to various aspects of AVs, Figure 5 presents
the results of the indices before and after presenting positive and negative information on
autonomous vehicles for the genders analyzed. Concerns that showed the same trend across all
genders (men and women) were road safety, high implementation costs, and legal and regulatory
challenges. However, other concerns showed opposite trends. As for the greater variations,
women, in general, experienced greater increases or decreases in perception compared to men.
For example, women increased their perception of road safety (+10.15%), technological
constraints (+6.06%), ethical considerations (+4.59%) and high implementation costs (-3.81%).
On the other hand, men reduced their perception of security and privacy risks (-3.85%), while the
remaining variations were lower than these values.
Figure 5.
Gender perception shifts in public perception regarding the various concerns of
autonomous vehicles (AVs) (1 = not worried at all, 2 = little worried, 3 = neutral, 4 =
worried, 5 = extremely worried).

Ortega et al.
Green World Journal /Vol 06/Issue 02/080/ May - August 2023 /www.greenworldjournal.com Page 11 of 18
______
RESEARCH ARTICLE
The result of the question, 'If you were in a fully autonomous driving vehicle, what would you
spend the extra time on instead of driving?' is shown in Figure 6. First, both genders (male and
female) provided more responses related to observing walking, work, and rest. There are also
variations in the answers to this question between genders. Men indicated a greater tendency to
concentrate on the road compared to women. The same trend applies to work, where men
mentioned it more often than women. Conversely, women expressed a greater inclination toward
rest and exercise compared to men. Women indicated that they would not be completely
dependent on AVs more than men. These differences can be observed when genera are analyzed
separately, as opposed to studies where all data is analyzed unfiltered.
Figure 6.
Percentage of responses from respondents (male and female) regarding their
actions in a fully autonomous vehicle (AVs).
3.4. Differences between driving frequency
Table 6 shows the gender differences in public opinion among young people before and after
presenting them with positive and negative information about AVs. Driving frequency influences
the perception of responses. For example, people who don't drive experience a reduction in their
opinion about road safety, while their concern index and interest in buying AVs increase. Those
who drive at least once a week exhibit a similar trend, except for their opinion on AVs, which is
opposite to those who don't drive. These drivers are people who possess a driver's license, but
may not have as much freedom to drive. Occasional drivers (2-4 days per week) decrease their
opinion of AVs and their interest in buying one, but their perception of road safety and level of
concern increase. Finally, regular drivers (>4 days per week) show no significant variations in
opinion, road safety or concern. The biggest increase is seen in their interest in buying AVs. Those
who drive more often have and should have a different opinion compared to those who don't drive
or do so less often.
Table 6.
Driver perception changes in public perception by evaluating responses before
and after presenting positive and negative information about autonomous vehicles (AVs).
Question
≤ 1 day
2-4 days
> 4 days
No unity
Bef.1
For
pop.
1
%
Bef.1
For
pop.
1
%
Bef.1
For
pop.
1
%
Bef.1
For
pop.
1
%
What's your take on
autonomous
vehicles?
3.32
3.40
+2.41
3.33
3.23
-
3.00
3.36
3.36
0.0
3.36
3.28
-
2.38
Can autonomous
cars improve the
level of safety
3.37
3.15
-
6.53
3.27
3.34
+2.14
3.24
3.25
+0.31
3.39
3.20
-
5.60

Ortega et al.
Green World Journal /Vol 06/Issue 02/080/ May - August 2023 /www.greenworldjournal.com Page 12 of 18
______
RESEARCH ARTICLE
compared to
human-driven
vehicles?
What is your level of
concern about
traveling in
autonomous
vehicles?
2.88
3.00
+4.17
2.93
3.12
+6.48
3.06
3.04
-
0.65
2.86
2.95
+3.15
What is your level of
interest in buying an
autonomous vehicle?
2.83
2.94
+3.89
2.93
2.90
-
1.02
2.72
2.91
+6.99
2.86
2.93
+2.45
* Before or after displaying positive and negative information about autonomous vehicles (AVs).
Figure 7 illustrates the perception of benefits measured before and after presenting positive
and negative AVs information for the analysis of both sexes (male and female). Driving frequency
influences the perception of responses. For example, people who don't drive experience a
reduction in their opinion of improving road safety, while their rate of concern and interest in buying
an AVs increases. Those who drive at least once a week exhibit a similar trend, except for their
opinion on AVs, which is opposite to those who don't drive. These drivers are people who possess
a driver's license, but may not have as much freedom to drive. Occasional drivers (2-4 days per
week) decrease their opinion of AVs and their interest in buying one, but their perception of road
safety and level of concern increase. Finally, regular drivers (>4 days per week) show no significant
variations in opinion, road safety or concern. The biggest increase is seen in their interest in buying
AVs. Those who drive more often have and should have a different opinion compared to those
who don't drive or do so less often.
Figure 7.
Driver perception changes in public perception regarding the various benefits
of autonomous vehicles (AVs) (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree,
5 = strongly agree).
Regarding the perception of concerns related to various aspects of AVs, Figure 8 presents
the results of the indices before and after presenting positive and negative information about AVs
for the driving frequency analyzed. In this case, all respondents increased their perception of
concerns about road safety and technological limitations. The remaining concerns showed high
variability. Regarding the maximum values, occasional drivers (2-4 days) and non-drivers
experienced positive variations of 6.29% and 8.63%, respectively, in terms of road safety. These
high ratings were also recorded for ethical considerations among the same groups. Non-drivers
also scored highly with +4.01% in terms of technological limitations. On the other hand, drivers

Ortega et al.
Green World Journal /Vol 06/Issue 02/080/ May - August 2023 /www.greenworldjournal.com Page 13 of 18
______
RESEARCH ARTICLE
who drove only for one day and frequent drivers (> 4 days) experienced reductions in their
perception by -5.04% and -4.93% respectively. In terms of safety and privacy risks, as well as
ethical considerations, frequent drivers showed a decrease in their level of concern after being
exposed to positive and negative information about autonomous vehicles. The remaining concerns
showed no significant differences between groups. However, it is interesting to note that those
who drive do not express concerns about job displacement, while those who do not drive do. A
future study could focus on young relatives of taxi or bus drivers, to further contribute to this area
of research.
Figure 8.
Driver perception changes in public perception regarding the various concerns
of autonomous vehicles (AVs) (1 = not worried at all, 2 = little worried, 3 = neutral, 4 =
worried, 5 = extremely worried).
The result of the question, 'If you were in a fully autonomous driving vehicle, what would you
spend the extra time on instead of driving?' is shown in Figure 9. The most common responses
among drivers who drive for up to a day include resting, looking at the road, and working.
Occasional drivers (2-4 days) prioritize work, looking at the road, and reading during their driving
time. Frequent drivers (> 4 days) concentrate on observing the road, working and resting. Finally,
people who don't drive spend their time working, watching the road, and resting. It's important to
note that even in fully autonomous vehicles, people would still monitor the vehicle's actions while
driving.
Figure 9.
Percentage of respondents' responses (driving frequency) regarding their
actions in a fully autonomous vehicle (AVs).

Ortega et al.
Green World Journal /Vol 06/Issue 02/080/ May - August 2023 /www.greenworldjournal.com Page 14 of 18
______
RESEARCH ARTICLE
4.
Discussion
This section focuses on understanding respondents' public opinion once they were shown
positive and negative information. To this end, a survey questionnaire was developed and 518
complete responses were collected among young Ecuadorians. Generally, a change in perception
occurs when people are presented with negative information, such as accidents involving AVs,
while positive information, such as autonomous parking, causes the opposite effect. This can be
observed in detail by measuring the relative importance index with respect to the perception of
benefits and concerns.
In terms of perceived benefits, respondents went from positive to negative, except for
increased productivity and time savings, which were perceived positively. In terms of perceptions
of concerns, road safety, technological limitations, job displacement and ethical considerations
showed a positive increase despite awareness of the negative aspects of AVs. These results can
be compared with other studies in which negative perception increased as a result of the
introduction of AVs accidents [36,37].
This variation can best be observed by segregating respondents by gender (men and women).
Thus, it was identified that in terms of perception of benefits, women have a lower perception of
benefits, particularly with regard to the reduction of traffic accidents and congestion and the
improvement of mobility. On the other hand, men show a greater perception of benefits for other
aspects. A similar trend is evident for perceived concerns, where both men and women show an
increasing negative trend only due to high costs and legal and regulatory challenges. For all other
concerns, women showed a greater negative increase compared to men. Previous studies have
also reported gender differences, noting that men have higher positive attitudes toward AVs than
women, despite their knowledge of accidents involving AVs [36, 37, 38].
For perception according to driving frequency, respondents exhibited different perceptions of
benefits and concerns before and after being informed about AVs. The results suggest that people
who drive more frequently, both before and after, have higher levels of interest in buying AVs
compared to those who don't drive or drive less often. In terms of perception about potential
problems, drivers did not demonstrate significant concerns before and after receiving information
about AVs. However, non-drivers presented higher levels of concern compared to drivers. Driving
frequency is a factor that should be considered because, similar to the trend of women showing
less interest in AVs, the same is seen with non-drivers who also have a negative perception of AVs
[41,42].
Finally, the results revealed that, overall, respondents indicated that they would still keep their
eyes on the road even though AVs do not require a driver to operate them. This trend holds true
when analyzing the results for men, women, drivers and non-drivers.
This study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings.
First, the sample size was limited to one city in the southern region of Ecuador, which could restrict
generalizability of the results to the entire country. In addition, focusing exclusively on young
individuals who consume and enjoy technology may not capture the perspectives of other age
groups with different concerns and attitudes. The survey design, while carefully crafted, could
introduce bias into participants' responses due to the framework of the questions and the details
of the autonomous vehicles presented. External factors, such as cultural and socio-economic
data, which can influence perceptions, were not fully taken into account. In addition, the study's
findings are based on data collected at a specific point in time, which might overlook the dynamic
nature of public perceptions as technology continues to evolve. Finally, reliance on self-reported
data introduces the possibility of recall bias, social desirability bias, and misinterpretation. These
limitations emphasize the need for more research to build and validate the insights gained from
this study. Working on these limitations could offer a fascinating continuation of this research.
Despite these limitations, this article offers several notable benefits. First, it fills a significant
research gap by investigating the public perception of autonomous vehicles (AVs) specifically in
Ecuador, a context where such studies are scarce. By focusing on young Ecuadorians, the article
provides insight into a demographic that plays a crucial role in shaping future trends and
technology adoption. The before-and-after approach used in the study adds a valuable dimension
by examining how participants' perceptions changed after they were presented with positive and

Ortega et al.
Green World Journal /Vol 06/Issue 02/080/ May - August 2023 /www.greenworldjournal.com Page 15 of 18
______
RESEARCH ARTICLE
negative characteristics of AVs development. In addition, identifying differences in gender-based
perception and driving frequency contributes to a deeper understanding of possible variations in
attitudes. The findings of this study can inform policymakers, researchers and stakeholders in
Ecuador's transport sector, aiding in the formulation of strategies and decisions related to the
integration of autonomous vehicles. In addition, by shedding light on public perceptions and
concerns, the article contributes to fostering public acceptance and addressing reservations,
ultimately facilitating the successful adoption of autonomous vehicles in Ecuador.
5.
Conclusions
This study aimed to analyze the public opinion of young Ecuadorians towards AVs by
presenting them with positive and negative information about the development of AVs. The study
highlighted the potential benefits and concerns associated with AVs and identified differences in
perception based on information participants received, gender disparities, and driving frequency.
By exploring public attitudes towards AVs in Ecuador, this research contributes to a better
understanding of the perceived advantages and concerns around its adoption and may even delay
its implementation. The findings can inform policymakers and stakeholders in the transportation
sector, helping them make informed decisions regarding the integration of AVs into the Ecuadorian
transportation system. Therefore, it is important for companies developing these new technologies
(AVs) to consider the concerns associated with the use of AVs. Future research should continue
to address the limitations of this study and further explore the dynamics of public perception
towards AVs in various contexts, especially with other age groups and in other parts of the country.
Supplementary materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://arcg.is/eO1ur.
Author's contributions: Conceptualization, J.O and Y.G.; data curation and formal analysis, Y.G.; research, J.O,
Y.G and C.P.; Methodology, J.O and Y.G.; Supervision, J.O., Visualization, Y.G and C.P; Writing – original draft
J.O and Y.G; Writing – proofreading and editing, J.O, Y.G and C.P.
Funding: This research did not receive external funding.
Informed consent statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data availability statement: This study analyzed publicly available datasets. This data can be found here:
https://arcg.is/eO1ur.
Acknowledgements: The authors are grateful for the support of the Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja of the
Republic of Ecuador.
Conflicts of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
1. Seet, M.; Harvy, J.; Bose, R.; Dragomir, A.; Bezerianos, A.; Thakor, N. Differential Impact
of Autonomous Vehicle Malfunctions on Human Trust.
IEEE Transactions on Intelligent
Transportation Systems
2022
,
23
, 548–557, doi:10.1109/TITS.2020.3013278.
2. Ortega, J.; Lengyel, H.; Ortega, J. Design and Analysis of the Trajectory of an Overtaking
Maneuver Performed by Autonomous Vehicles Operating with Advanced Driver-Assistance
Systems (ADAS) and Driving on a Highway.
Electronics (Switzerland)
2023
,
12
,
doi:10.3390/electronics12010051.
3. Fagnant, D.J.; Kockelman, K. Preparing a Nation for Autonomous Vehicles: Opportunities,
Barriers and Policy Recommendations.
Transp Res Part A Policy Pract
2015
,
77
, 167–181,
doi:10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.003.

Ortega et al.
Green World Journal /Vol 06/Issue 02/080/ May - August 2023 /www.greenworldjournal.com Page 16 of 18
______
RESEARCH ARTICLE
4. Alam, Md.S.; Georgakis, P. The State of the Art of Cooperative and Connected
Autonomous Vehicles from the Future Mobility Management Perspective: A Systematic
Review.
Future Transportation
2022
,
2
, 589–604, doi:10.3390/futuretransp2030032.
5. Kan, S.; Lyu, W.; Zhao, S. Evaluation of the Environmental Effect of Automated Vehicles
Based on IVIULWG Operator Development.
Sustainability (Switzerland)
2022
,
14
,
doi:10.3390/su14159669.
6. Park, J.E.; Byun, W.; Kim, Y.; Ahn, H.; Shin, D.K. The Impact of Automated Vehicles on
Traffic Flow and Road Capacity on Urban Road Networks.
J Adv Transp
2021
,
2021
,
doi:10.1155/2021/8404951.
7. Sohrabi, S.; Khreis, H.; Lord, D. Impacts of Autonomous Vehicles on Public Health: A
Conceptual Model and Policy Recommendations.
Sustain Cities Soc
2020
,
63
,
doi:10.1016/j.scs.2020.102457.
8. Ortega, J.; Moslem, S.; Esztergar-Kiss, D. An Integrated Approach of the AHP and
Spherical Fuzzy Sets for Analyzing a Park-and-Ride Facility Location Problem Example by
Heterogeneous Experts.
IEEE Access
2023
,
11
, 55316–55325,
doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3281865.
9. Ilkova, V.; Ilka, A. Legal Aspects of Autonomous Vehicles — An Overview. In Proceedings
of the 2017 21st International Conference on Process Control (PC); IEEE, June 2017; pp.
428–433.
10. Alawadhi, M.; Almazrouie, J.; Kamil, M.; Khalil, K.A. Review and Analysis of the Importance
of Autonomous Vehicles Liability: A Systematic Literature Review.
International Journal of
System Assurance Engineering and Management
2020
,
11
, 1227–1249,
doi:10.1007/s13198-020-00978-9.
11. Parkinson, S.; Ward, P.; Wilson, K.; Miller, J. Cyber Threats Facing Autonomous and
Connected Vehicles: Future Challenges.
IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation
Systems
2017
,
18
, 2898–2915, doi:10.1109/TITS.2017.2665968.
12. Kumar, A.D.; Chebrolu, K.N.R.; R, V.; KP, S. A Brief Survey on Autonomous Vehicle
Possible Attacks, Exploits and Vulnerabilities.
2018
.
13. Khan, J. Vehicle Network Security Testing. In Proceedings of the 2017 Third International
Conference on Sensing, Signal Processing and Security (ICSSS); IEEE, May 2017; pp. 119–
123.
14. Yuen, K.F.; Wong, Y.D.; Ma, F.; Wang, X. The Determinants of Public Acceptance of
Autonomous Vehicles: An Innovation Diffusion Perspective.
J Clean Prod
2020
,
270
,
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121904.
15. Kumar, M.; Bharadwaj, A. Psychology of Innovation: Innovating Human Psychology? In
Technological and Institutional Innovations for Marginalized Smallholders in Agricultural
Development
; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2016; pp. 65–80.
16. Ahangar, M.N.; Ahmed, Q.Z.; Khan, F.A.; Hafeez, M. A Survey of Autonomous Vehicles:
Enabling Communication Technologies and Challenges.
Sensors (Switzerland)
2021
,
21
,
1–33, doi:10.3390/s21030706.
17. Ortega, J.; Moslem, S.; Tóth, J.; Ortega, M. A Two-Phase Decision Making Based on the
Grey Analytic Hierarchy Process for Evaluating the Issue of Park-and-Ride Facility Location.
Journal of Urban Mobility
2023
,
3
, 100050, doi:10.1016/j.urbmob.2023.100050.
18. Story, V.; O’Malley, L.; Hart, S. Roles, Role Performance, and Radical Innovation
Competences.
Industrial Marketing Management
2011
,
40
, 952–966,
doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.06.025.
19. Ortega, J.; Rizopoulos, D.; Tóth, J.; Péter, T. Land Use as a Criterion for the Selection of
the Trip Starting Locations of Park and Ride Mode Travelers.
Periodica Polytechnica
Transportation Engineering
2022
,
50
, 88–100, doi:10.3311/PPtr.16383.
20. Kumar, M.; Bharadwaj, A. Psychology of Innovation: Innovating Human Psychology? In
Technological and Institutional Innovations for Marginalized Smallholders in Agricultural
Development
; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2016; pp. 65–80.
21. Abraham, H.; Lee, C.; Brady, S.; Fitzgerald, C.; Mehler, B.; Reimer, B.; Coughlin, J.F.
Autonomous Vehicles, Trust, and Driving Alternatives: A Survey of Consumer Preferences.
Massachusetts Inst. Technol, AgeLab, Cambridge
2016
, 1–16.

Ortega et al.
Green World Journal /Vol 06/Issue 02/080/ May - August 2023 /www.greenworldjournal.com Page 17 of 18
______
RESEARCH ARTICLE
22. Robertson, R.D.; Woods-Fry, H.; Vanlaar, W.G.M.; Mainegra Hing, M. Automated Vehicles
and Older Drivers in Canada.
J Safety Res
2019
,
70
, 193–199,
doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2019.07.003.
23. Payre, W.; Cestac, J.; Delhomme, P. Intention to Use a Fully Automated Car: Attitudes and
a Priori Acceptability.
Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav
2014
,
27
, 252–263,
doi:10.1016/j.trf.2014.04.009.
24. Choi, J.K.; Ji, Y.G. Investigating the Importance of Trust on Adopting an Autonomous
Vehicle.
Int J Hum Comput Interact
2015
,
31
, 692–702,
doi:10.1080/10447318.2015.1070549.
25. Zhang, T.; Tao, D.; Qu, X.; Zhang, X.; Zeng, J.; Zhu, H.; Zhu, H. Automated Vehicle
Acceptance in China: Social Influence and Initial Trust Are Key Determinants.
Transp Res
Part C Emerg Technol
2020
,
112
, 220–233, doi:10.1016/j.trc.2020.01.027.
26. Liljamo, T.; Liimatainen, H.; Pöllänen, M. Attitudes and Concerns on Automated Vehicles.
Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav
2018
,
59
, 24–44, doi:10.1016/j.trf.2018.08.010.
27. Bansal, P.; Kockelman, K.M.; Singh, A. Assessing Public Opinions of and Interest in New
Vehicle Technologies: An Austin Perspective.
Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol
2016
,
67
,
1–14, doi:10.1016/j.trc.2016.01.019.
28. Kyriakidis, M.; Happee, R.; De Winter, J.C.F. Public Opinion on Automated Driving: Results
of an International Questionnaire among 5000 Respondents.
Transp Res Part F Traffic
Psychol Behav
2015
,
32
, 127–140, doi:10.1016/j.trf.2015.04.014.
29. Sener, I.N.; Zmud, J.; Williams, T. Measures of Baseline Intent to Use Automated Vehicles:
A Case Study of Texas Cities.
Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav
2019
,
62
, 66–77,
doi:10.1016/j.trf.2018.12.014.
30. Wintersberger, S.; Azmat, M.; Kummer, S. Are We Ready to Ride Autonomous Vehicles? A
Pilot Study on Austrian Consumers’ Perspective.
Logistics
2019
,
3
,
doi:10.3390/logistics3040020.
31. Stoiber, T.; Schubert, I.; Hoerler, R.; Burger, P. Will Consumers Prefer Shared and Pooled-
Use Autonomous Vehicles? A Stated Choice Experiment with Swiss Households.
Transp
Res D Transp Environ
2019
,
71
, 265–282, doi:10.1016/j.trd.2018.12.019.
32. Krueger, R.; Rashidi, T.H.; Rose, J.M. Preferences for Shared Autonomous Vehicles.
Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol
2016
,
69
, 343–355, doi:10.1016/j.trc.2016.06.015.
33. Hulse, L.M.; Xie, H.; Galea, E.R. Perceptions of Autonomous Vehicles: Relationships with
Road Users, Risk, Gender and Age.
Saf Sci
2018
,
102
, 1–13,
doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2017.10.001.
34. INEC Censo de Población y Vivienda En El Ecuador. Fascículo Provincial Loja Available
online: https://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec/wp-content/descargas/Manulateral/.
35. ArcGIS Survey123 for ArcGIS | Crear Encuestas y Formularios Inteligentes Para La Captura
de Datos Available online: https://www.esri.com/es-
es/arcgis/products/survey123/overview (accessed on 15 June 2020).
36. Hohenberger, C.; Spörrle, M.; Welpe, I.M. How and Why Do Men and Women Differ in Their
Willingness to Use Automated Cars? The Influence of Emotions across Different Age
Groups.
Transp Res Part A Policy Pract
2016
,
94
, 374–385,
doi:10.1016/j.tra.2016.09.022.
37. König, M.; Neumayr, L. Users’ Resistance towards Radical Innovations: The Case of the
Self-Driving Car.
Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav
2017
,
44
, 42–52,
doi:10.1016/j.trf.2016.10.013.
38. Penmetsa, P.; Sheinidashtegol, P.; Musaev, A.; Adanu, E.K.; Hudnall, M. Effects of the
Autonomous Vehicle Crashes on Public Perception of the Technology.
IATSS Research
2021
,
45
, 485–492, doi:10.1016/j.iatssr.2021.04.003.
39. Othman, K. Impact of Accidents Involving Autonomous Vehicles on the Perceived Benefits
and Concerns.; June 2023.
40. Othman, K. Public Attitude towards Autonomous Vehicles before and after Crashes: A
Detailed Analysis Based on the Demographic Characteristics.
Cogent Eng
2023
,
10
,
doi:10.1080/23311916.2022.2156063.

Ortega et al.
Green World Journal /Vol 06/Issue 02/080/ May - August 2023 /www.greenworldjournal.com Page 18 of 18
______
RESEARCH ARTICLE
41. Qu, W.; Xu, J.; Ge, Y.; Sun, X.; Zhang, K. Development and Validation of a Questionnaire
to Assess Public Receptivity toward Autonomous Vehicles and Its Relation with the Traffic
Safety Climate in China.
Accid Anal Prev
2019
,
128
, 78–86,
doi:10.1016/j.aap.2019.04.006.
42. Zhou, F.; Zheng, Z.; Whitehead, J.; Washington, S.; Perrons, R.K.; Page, L. Preference
Heterogeneity in Mode Choice for Car-Sharing and Shared Automated Vehicles.
Transp Res
Part A Policy Pract
2020
,
132
, 633–650, doi:10.1016/j.tra.2019.12.004.
© 2023 by the authors. Submitted for possible publication in open access
under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC
BY) license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/