Is Australia Ready for Autonomous Vehicles? Examining the Factors Influencing AV Adoption through Expert Interviews

Wesley Lim; Sean Lee; Billy Sung; Sophie Cronin

doi:10.1177/14413582231175152

Is Australia Ready for Autonomous Vehicles? Examining the Factors Influencing AV Adoption through Expert Interviews

Lim, Wesley; Lee, Sean; Sung, Billy; Cronin, Sophie 2023-01-01 00:00:00 As Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) on public roads today becomes an increasingly realistic possibility, there is growing need to better understand the factors that will facilitate their successful introduction. This study focuses specifically on Australia and investigates various micro and macro environmental factors that may either hinder or support their adoption in the country. The study comprised 18 in-depth interviews with experts from both the public and private sectors who possess direct experience working with AVs. These experts provided valuable insights into several areas, including the legislation and regulations governing AV use, the technical and infrastructure requirements necessary for safe operation on public roads, and the importance of public sentiment in driving AV adoption and introduction. Based on the study’s findings, an integrated framework has been developed to identify and classify the key factors related to AV adoption, as well as their interrelatedness with each other. This framework seeks to guide the development of national strategies to accommodate the necessary political, legal, and social adjustments required for the successful implementation of AVs. Keywords autonomous vehicle (AV), technology and innovation adoption, barriers, and drivers Date received: 24 August 2022; accepted: 24 April 2023 AV trials are being conducted on public roads with vehicles varying Introduction from Levels 3 to 5. For instance, the United States (US) has more Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are becoming increasingly common than 80 companies testing over 1,400 self-driving vehicles across 36 every year and their introduction is expected to significantly disrupt states (Bert et al., 2016; Etherington, 2019). Alongside trials, global the motor industry, with forecasts suggesting that AVs could become cooperation efforts are also proceeding, with a United Nations divi- available in the not-too-distant future (Bert et al., 2016; Chottani sion on automated/autonomous and connected vehicles working to et al., 2018). Their introduction is expected to bring about increased propose vehicle regulations for internationally use and to promote road safety and crash prevention (Fagnant & Kockelman, 2015; harmonized regulations (UNECE, 2020). Milakis et al., 2017), improved environmental impact and emissions Although there is a growing interest in AVs, the feasibility of reductions (Fagnant & Kockelman, 2014; Greenblatt & Saxena, introducing these vehicles to the market on a global scale remains 2015; Milakis et al., 2017), increased travel accessibility for the unclear. Major investments by companies such as Tesla and Google elderly and disabled people (Pettigrew et al., 2018), reduced costs have been made, however, high-profile accidents involving AVs to commercial operators (Wadud, 2017), and reallocation of land have the potential to erode public confidence in the technology (such as parking areas) for other uses (Fagnant & Kockelman, 2015). (National Transportation Safety Board, 2018). Furthermore, differ- However, barriers to their introduction and adoption, including the ent global regions may face unique barriers to the introduction of facilitating conditions, need to be understood to foster a smooth tran- AVs, which could slow down their uptake. Research has shown that sition into this transportation revolution. AVs require more power to support critical in-vehicle technologies To understand the progress of AV development, SAE J3016 than traditional petrol cars can provide (Baxter et al., 2018). As a (2019) has developed six stages of automation to describe different result, it is highly probable that most AVs will run on battery-electric autonomous capabilities and driver input requirements in vehicles. Levels 0–2 describe traditional vehicles with little or no automated Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia features while drivers operate most driving responsibilities. Level 3 describes partially AVs, with drivers required sometimes, but not Corresponding author: continuously. Levels 4 and 5 describe fully AVs, requiring no driver Wesley Lim, School of Management and Marketing, Curtin University, Kent input. This paper follows this classification and examines the drivers St, Bentley, Perth, WA 6102, Australia. and barriers to Level 5 AV adoption in Australia. Globally, various Email: wesley.lim@curtin.edu.au 2 Australasian Marketing Journal 00(0) technology when they become commercially available. In Australia, study aims to gather insights and perspectives from industry experts while the government and legislators are showing an active interest and stakeholders on the critical factors and challenges for the suc- in AV introduction, low investments in supporting infrastructure such cessful implementation and adoption of AVs. The expert interviews as electric charging stations, could impede its widespread adoption in this paper allows for a more nuanced understanding of the unique (Theoto & Kaminski, 2019). challenges and opportunities for AV adoption in Australia. With AVs touted as the next transport revolution, it is important to fully understand the contextual and macroenvironmental factors Review of relevant literature that impact their introduction and adoption. Hawkins and Nurul Habib (2019) highlight that the adoption of AVs will have effects Policy and legislation factors on both transportation and urban systems, with ramifications on the consumption of land and energy by future cities. Such changes will Government legislations are vital in the adoption of new technologies be impacted by the government’s position and willingness to amend (Hooks et al., 2022). For AVs, issues include regulation of automated and develop new policies and legislations. For AVs to enter the mar- vehicles on public roads and during trials, insurance and liability, ket, there is need for clarity around what and how changes will be data privacy, and cybersecurity. Regulatory action may hinder or implemented. propel the progress of AVs, with good policy and legislation bal- To the best of our knowledge, existing research on AV adoption ancing the needs of innovation and regulation to maximize positive predominantly centers around the consumer or end-user. Specifically, AV outcomes (Fagnant & Kockelman, 2015). The specifics of such these studies investigate how attitudes and perceptions can impact the regulation can also influence which technologies are developed as intention to adopt or use AV technology. Common theoretical frame- developers can more easily pursue areas not in conflict with, or con- works such as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Golbabaei strained by, regulations (Fagnant & Kockelman, 2015). Therefore, et al., 2020; Nastjuk et al., 2020; Park et al., 2021; Yuen et al., governments need to be thoughtful and purposeful in their regulatory 2021; Zhang et al., 2019), Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (e.g. actions. H.-K. Chen & Yan, 2019; Dai et al., 2021; Golbabaei et al., 2020) and Before AVs can be introduced to the market, they must be tested the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and trialled on public roads. These tests, conducted under real traffic (e.g. Golbabaei et al., 2020; Kaye et al., 2020) have been utilized conditions, help developers improve and fine-tune systems and for this purpose. Moreover, other frameworks such the Innovation assess safety (Kalra & Paddock, 2016b). However, government regu- Diffusion Theory (Yuen et al., 2021), Behavioural Reasoning Theory lations dictate which trials can be conducted and how. In Australia, (Huang & Qian, 2021) have also been used to understand acceptance AV trials are ongoing, but each state and territory has its own regula- and behavioral intention toward the technology. tions and processes. As of writing, fully automated vehicles are pro- However, the successful diffusion and adoption of any new tech- hibited from public roads without permits or exemptions. Exemption nology is not solely dependent on consumer demand. For example, processes and applications differ between states, introducing barri- regulative action can accelerate the diffusion of the technology such ers to trial introduction, cross-border trials, and information sharing as in the case of Air Bags (Wiener, 2004). For AVs, additional con- (National Transport Commission, n.d.). siderations such as liability attribution (i.e. determining liability dur- Further, in non-automated driving, liability in accidents is gen- ing accidents involving AVs) and infrastructure requirements (i.e. erally attributed to a human driver. However, as vehicles become assessing the need for investments to upgrade existing infrastructure fully automated, drivers are no longer responsible for driving activ- to accommodate AVs on public roads) are necessary. Hence, it is ities, and laws will need to be revised; liability will be transferred to important to recognize the role of other stakeholders, including gov- the manufacturers instead (Alawadhi et al., 2020; Wu, 2018). With ernments, policymakers, and vehicle manufacturers (Duboz et al., partially automated vehicles, however, liability is more compli- 2022; Hamadneh et al., 2022) in facilitating the successful diffusion cated, with both vehicle and human driver potentially contributing and adoption of the technology. For example, studies such as Raj to accidents. For instance, in a crash between a Google self-driving et al. (2020) and Tan and Taeihagh (2021) have found that the wide- car and a bus in 2016, fault was assigned to both the AV and driver spread adoption of AVs is contingent on the ability of policymakers (Bowles, 2016). The vehicle predicted the oncoming bus would and governments to effectively address challenges around infrastruc- yield but the human driver did not respond in time to avoid the ture development and liability attribution. Furthermore, both studies collision. For a successful AV implementation, governments and also highlight that the various issues affecting AV adoption relevant legislators will need to address these circumstances and clarify the to the different stakeholders should be perceived as a component of issue of liability. a bigger eco-system of AV adoption which mutually influences each The nature of insurance will also need to adjust with motor insur- other. Hence, this study proposes a framework for the investigation ance anticipated to undergo a paradigm shift as fully AVs enter the of the diffusion and adoption of AVs. Specifically, the framework market. A 2014 actuarial analysis by KPMG in the US predicted that seeks to capture the different factors that impact on AV adoption and the personal automotive insurance sector could shrink by as much their interrelationships. as 40% over 25 years due to a reduction in accident numbers of up To our knowledge, there is limited research that examines how to 80%; insurance premiums would therefore drop by 21%–41% by these different factors work together to drive AV introduction and 2040 (KPMG, 2019). To adapt, insurers would need to shift focus adoption in Australia (Sun et al., 2017). Furthermore, most research from personal to commercial ownership and liability (Karp et al., focuses on one specific factor rather than examining the different fac- 2017; Wu, 2018). The number of manufacturers and corporations tors collectively. For example, Manivasakan et al. (2021) focuses on requiring insurance for vehicle fleets will be fewer than today’s infrastructure requirements relating to autonomous vehicle integra- number of private owners and drivers, earning them more bargaining tion, while others mostly focus on end-users’ attitudes and behavio- power with insurers (Karp et al., 2017; Wu, 2018). To ensure success ral intentions toward AVs in Australia (e.g. Cunningham et al., 2019; in the insurance sector, formulation of these future liability schemes Kaye et al., 2020; Pettigrew et al., 2018). To gain a better under- will need to be done before these vehicles are implemented (Bellet standing of the interplay of the factors in the Australian context, this et al., 2019). Lim et al. 3 When AVs get introduced, they will generate and collect large be support and investment in technology, particularly from govern- amounts of potentially sensitive information. This will bring ments. For instance, KPMG’s 2019 AV readiness index ranked Israel opportunities and risks which will need to be balanced by regula- first among 25 countries in technology and innovation, recognizing tion. Governments can use data to improve the traffic system and the country’s 500–600 automotive start-ups and technology develop- plan for future infrastructure needs (Fagnant & Kockelman, 2015; ment. Once technology has been developed and tested, commercial Kohler & Colbert-Taylor, 2015). For insurance companies, crash viability of the final AV product will influence adoption speed and data will likely become invaluable to the claim evaluation process success. While technology progressively becomes cheaper, initial (Dhar, 2016; Rannenberg, 2016; Wu, 2018). Companies could AVs will be more expensive than traditional vehicles, and minimiz- also use data to reach potential customers (Glancy, n.d.; Kohler & ing these costs will be important to increasing AV saturation on the Colbert-Taylor, 2015). However, good regulation will be needed to roads (Fagnant & Kockelman, 2015). protect consumers’ privacy and prevent data misuse. For instance, Alongside developments in driving automation, fuel source data could be used for surveillance, both by individuals and govern- innovations are being explored. The anticipated health benefits of ments (Schoonmaker, 2016). Data might also be used to calculate AVs can only be increased by using electricity for power (NRMA, insurance premiums and credit scores, which are error-prone, and 2017). A transition to EVs is supported by global trends moving likely to exacerbate inequalities (Rannenberg, 2016). Without proper to hybrid and electric and bans on petrol and diesel being contem- protections, the potential for targeted marketing becoming excessive plated and planned for (Dugdale, 2018, 2019; World Economic or intrusive is also a risk (Glancy, n.d.; Kohler & Colbert-Taylor, Forum, 2015). The development of connected AVs is likely to 2015). As such, governments are taking different approaches to pri- accelerate and depend on improved EV functioning (e.g. range and vacy with many opting to apply existing laws to this new technology charging infrastructure) (T. D. Chen & Kockelman, 2016; Webb, or developing new guidelines altogether (Lim & Taeihagh, 2018). 2019). Furthermore, AVs are likely to be powered by battery-elec- Australia (National Transport Commission, n.d.), for instance, has tric technology due to the high-power demands of AVs which petrol been working on guidelines with a privacy-by-design approach, solv- cars are not able to support without exceeding current emissions ing privacy issues by placing limits on personal data generation. standards (Baxter et al., 2018). For these reasons, many experts are As technology advances and incorporates more communication anticipating that EVs will saturate the market with the introduction with external networks, the risk of cybersecurity and interference of AVs (NRMA, 2017). from third parties increases (Lim & Taeihagh, 2018). Hacking and To better understand and facilitate the adoption of AVs within viruses have devastating potential. Attacks could be for theft, where the domain of technology and innovation, it is crucial to focus on personal data is stolen, or to target vehicle functions, such as jamming key areas, such as the importance of charging infrastructure due to or altering internal systems (Lim & Taeihagh, 2018). Connections to AVs’ reliance on battery-electric technology and how its uptake will networks could also be disrupted, with important information from depend on the ease of access to charging stations, making this a criti- digital infrastructure unable to reach AVs (Lim & Taeihagh, 2018). cal factor to consider. Additionally, government support, investment, The potential threat to safety is high; as it was demonstrated that and funding are also significant factors that can significantly impact remotely hacking into a 2014 Jeep Cherokee and switching its engine AV adoption rates. off while on the road was possible (Miller, 2019). Hacking has the In Australia, the anticipated cost savings from crash prevention potential to erode public trust, particularly when dealing with safety alone is forecasted to be $16 billion (AUD) per annum (Pettigrew, (Lim & Taeihagh, 2018). As AVs develop, they will become con- 2017). However, while the government is aware of the benefits and is nected with the broader traffic network, making safety risks of hacks receptive to fully AVs on public roads (Parliament of Australia, 2017; even larger (Lim & Taeihagh, 2018). Ongoing safety evaluation and Pettigrew & Cronin, 2019) there remain unique conditions and bar- assurance of AVs and their networks will be paramount for their riers that need further consideration. Australia’s regulatory system successful introduction and adoption. for AVs and AV trials has not yet been harmonized across states Based on the preceding discussion, it is evident that there is a and territories, despite guidelines having been developed (National need for further research to understand the complexities involved in Transport Commission, n.d.; KPMG, 2020). developing a regulatory framework governing AVs that can account for cross-border scenarios and ensure its safe adoption in Australia. Infrastructure factors This is particularly important given that each state and territory have Beyond the technological advances in automated driving tasks, infra- its own regulations and processes, and a lack of standardization could structure upgrades will be essential for AV introduction. For a fully present a barrier for vehicle manufacturers seeking to introduce AVs connected AV system, roads, signage, and digital communications into the market. will require consideration (Liu, Tight et al., 2019). Transitional infra- structure requirements will also need planning, with mixed fleets of Technology and innovation factors both conventional and automated vehicles sharing roadways in the As interest in AVs increases, so does work on improving and innovat- initial stages (Liu, Zhang et al., 2019). ing transportation technology. For many, the future transport system Road surfaces will need to have clear line markings and road signs, will comprise connected, autonomous, electric vehicles. These Level with visible markings being necessary to support AV lane-keeping 5 AVs will run on electricity and connect to digital networks that share and navigation (Johnson, 2017). This requirement alone means that information to optimize the entire fleet (NRMA, 2017). However, many roads will need major upgrades, including in Australia where to achieve this, reliable, safe, and commercially viable technologies many regional and rural roads are not delineated (Peiris et al., 2020). need to be developed and supported; technologies helping vehicles Road signage will need to be replaced and harmonized with formats sense their environment, navigate, and communicate with other vehi- that AVs are programed to recognize across all regions (Liu, Tight cles and digital networks. However, before the introduction to pub- et al., 2019; Lyon et al., 2017). Plans for maintaining sign visibility lic roads, their reliability and safety need to be examined and tested will be important, with obstructions from objects such as roadside (Kalra & Paddock, 2016a). Important to the speed of this process will vegetation potentially interfering with AV functionality. Street 4 Australasian Marketing Journal 00(0) lighting may also need re-examination, to ensure day and night sign Haboucha et al., 2017; Nordhoff et al., 2018; Sener et al., 2019; visibility (Liu, Tight et al., 2019). Zmud et al., 2016), and believing AVs to be safe (Zmud et al., Infrastructure to support connections for AVs will need to be fast, 2016). People who currently have vehicles with automated features reliable, and safe. Connected AVs will be fitted with technology (Kyriakidis et al., 2015; Zmud et al., 2016) have been in car acci- allowing them to communicate with other vehicles, infrastructure, dents (Bansal et al., 2016), commute long distances (Montoro et al., and broader digital networks (Liu, Tight et al., 2019). For full func- 2019; Nordhoff et al., 2018; Shabanpour et al., 2018), and have tionality, input sensors will be needed in-road and above-road to higher intentions to use AV. monitor conditions and optimize travel (Liu, Tight et al., 2019; Lyon Studies exploring interventions to improve attitudes have found et al., 2017). Further, the use of digital maps with real-time informa- promising avenues to promote change. Increasing people’s aware- tion can provide network support (Liu, Tight et al., 2019). Ensuring ness and knowledge of AVs by conveying information about the continual, reliable access will require modification to some existing potential benefits has shown to increase willingness to ride in them infrastructure, such as underground car parks, where Wi-Fi signals (Anania et al., 2018). Providing people with the opportunity to have may fail to reach (Liu, Tight et al., 2019). hands-on experience with AV technology, such as being a passenger, Initial introduction of AVs will see a mixed fleet scenario where has also shown to increase positive attitudes and acceptance (Feys conventional, partially automated, and fully autonomous vehicles et al., 2021). However, research warns that negative information, share roadways. During this period, road users will be traveling in such as potential risks, could reduce riding intentions (Anania et al., vehicles with differing automation profiles and maintaining safety will 2018). The way that AVs are adopted is also likely to be influenced be important as conventional drivers may not understand the behav- by public perception. iors of automated vehicles, while drivers of partially automated vehi- Many of the anticipated benefits of AV introduction have an cles will potentially have to control their vehicles (Martínez-Díaz & underlying assumption that a shared-ownership or ride-sharing Soriguera, 2018). During this transition, retaining and implementing model will be predominant, compared to privately-owned (Fagnant appropriate safety infrastructure will allow safe use of roadways by all & Kockelman, 2014; Stoiber et al., 2019). A shared model scenario vehicle types. For instance, exploration of the feasibility of segregating could also be where AVs become part of the public transport sys- conventional and Avs for a time, retaining emergency stopping areas, tem in the form of robotaxis—already a reality in China (Dai et al., and ensuring all-important road information is visible to those not 2021). In a shared model, AVs will operate more efficiently as acces- connected to network infrastructure will be important (Johnson, 2017; sibility will be broader, with the financial burden of purchasing AVs Liu, Tight et al., 2019). Once a sufficient saturation of Level 4 and 5 not required. Where a privately-owned AV might spend time station- Avs is reached, a full transition to AV driving can be made, and new ary or driving to unoccupied parking locations, shared vehicles can purpose-built infrastructure is adopted (Liu, Tight et al., 2019). be redirected to other users. Likewise, a pooled shared-ownership The country’s expansive road network also presents an issue with model can further enhance benefits by reducing overall vehicle most roads requiring major upgrades before AVs can drive on them miles traveled and preventing increased road congestion (Fagnant & (Peiris et al., 2020). The most in need of upgrades will be rural and Kockelman, 2015). regional roads, which account for 80% of roads and two-thirds of Research by Li et al. (2022) suggests that these robotaxis (shared road fatalities (Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional ownership) could serve as a useful transitional option for consumers. Development, Communications and the Arts, 2021; Peiris et al., Specifically, by providing consumers an opportunity to experience 2020). The impacts of planning for AVs in a country that lacks an the benefits of AVs through robotaxis, this has the potential to help automotive industry and is not currently incentivizing EVs will also alleviate and existing concerns or hesitations they (the consumer) need attention, with Australia likely to import overseas technologies may have about purchasing their own AVs for private use. Once (Theoto & Kaminski, 2019). more, this underscores the significance of consumer education in influencing AV adoption in the future. In Australia, further research into understanding the role of public Public perceptions and awareness factors sentiment will be important, as current research has suggested that Without public acceptance and a desire for AVs, the number of AVs awareness of AVs is low, and a large portion of people do not intend on the road will remain low, and the benefits of a connected AV sys- to use them (Pettigrew et al., 2019). One of the primary reasons tem will not be realized (Golbabaei et al., 2020). Fostering broad is that the Australian public’s exposure to autonomous vehicles is uptake of AVs will involve participation from several stakeholders, limited to shuttle buses (National Transport Commission, n.d.). In including government, industry, and the public themselves (KPMG, contrast, countries such as China have already conducted large-scale 2019). Within the general population, early adopters of innovative testing of the technology through robotaxis (Li et al., 2022). and disruptive technologies are important in influencing broader uptake. They increase technology visibility and can provide positive Methodology user reviews (Pettigrew et al., 2019). Research has identified several demographic, psychological, and A qualitative approach was chosen to understand the key drivers and mobility factors that are associated with more positive views and barriers to the adoption and implementation of AVs. Additionally, the adoption intentions toward AVs (Golbabaei et al., 2020). AV early study aimed to determine the relevance of previously identified driv- adopters are likely to be male (Bansal et al., 2016; Hudson et al., ers and barriers from past research for Australia. This was achieved 2019; Piao et al., 2016), younger (Haboucha et al., 2017; Hudson through semi-structured expert interviews focused on the four areas et al., 2019; Liu, Guo et al., 2019), highly educated (Haboucha et al., of interest, derived from the literature review: Policy and Legislation, 2017; Hudson et al., 2019; Montoro et al., 2019), affluent (Bansal Infrastructure, Technology, and Public Acceptance. & Kockelman, 2017; Bansal et al., 2016; Kyriakidis et al., 2015), and live in densely populated urban areas (Bansal et al., 2016; Participants and sampling Cunningham et al., 2019; Hudson et al., 2019). Psychological fac- tors include being more knowledgeable about AVs (Kyriakidis A total of 18 experts from private and public organizations deemed et al., 2015; Penmetsa et al., 2019), tech-savvy (Bansal et al., 2016; to have vast industry experience in AV adoption were interviewed. Lim et al. 5 Table 1. Thematic Analysis Results Summary. Key area Core themes Sub-themes Policy and Legislation Establishment of a clear and consistent Liability attribution; Support and regulation of AV testing; AV regulatory framework governing AVs manufacturing design standards Infrastructure Consensus on the development of necessary Infrastructure requirements to accommodate AVs; Investment infrastructure to accommodate AVs and funding concerns; Nationally consistent infrastructure Technology and Innovation Development of reliable and commercially Technology readiness; Fuel technology; Commercial viability viable AV technology Public Perception and Awareness Broad public acceptance of AVs Risk and safety concerns; Mobility and vehicle ownership trends; Affordability; Education Cooperation between key stakeholders Playing the “waiting game” Judgment sampling and experts were recruited based on: (1) each Sub-theme: Risk and liability attribution. Risk & Liability attri- having a minimum of 3 years of work or research experience in at bution was identified as one of the key barriers to AV introduction and least one of the four areas; and (2) having had been involved with adoption in Australia. The findings support that, for a fully automated work on Australia’s overall “readiness” for AVs. Key characteris- vehicle, the driver relinquishes controls to the vehicle’s operation and tics of the experts are provided in Appendix 1. While there is no therefore transfers any liability to the manufacturer. However, attrib- prescribed sample size requirement for qualitative research (Boddy, uting liability becomes complicated with partial automation, where 2016), a widely accepted criterion for discontinuing data collection the driving role is shared. In these cases, identifying the party at fault and/or analysis is data saturation, which began occurring around 18 becomes much complicated. This complexity is highlighted by the interviews. Further, with the study being exploratory, the sample size response of R3: “How do you determine at which point, if the car was deemed appropriate. mentions that it needs help, it is your fault for not responding? It gets really messy because nobody wants to be held liable.” Aside from human error and the possibility of software mal- Research instrument and data collection procedure function, respondents raised the issue of “cybersecurity.” For AVs Face-to-face and over-the-phone interviews were conducted. The to function effectively, they combine cameras, sensors, and onboard face-to-face interviews took place in Western Australia (where computers to communicate with their surroundings to sense potential the research team is based in). Each interview lasted 30–60 min. The dangers. This would require AVs to be connected to a network where interviews were audio-recorded with permission obtained by the large data transfers between a vehicle and its environment can take interviewees and transcribed verbatim for the qualitative analysis. place, putting the vehicle at risk of attacks from malicious hackers. The semi-structured interview guide was developed through a R3 indicated that “there is the threat of cybersecurity if the vehicle is workshop consisting of experts from the research team and three hacked. Who will fault be attributed to?” industry professionals that worked in the automotive industry with As such, agreeing on a standardized legal framework to manage prior experience with AVs. The workshop was aimed at ensuring the these complex liability issues is important toward the large-scale questions were appropriate, relevant to research objectives, and com- introduction of AVs. For instance, R8 said: “A clear liability frame- prehensible. The first three interviews were treated as pilot tests and work needs to be established. For example, when Uber had an acci- minor improvements to question structure and order were made. The dent in the US, they settled out of court for $10 million in the matter final set of questions are in Appendix 2. of days. What that means is that a precedent hasn’t really been set. Vehicle manufacturers are essentially continuing to press forward to Method of analysis test their vehicles, and what they are risking is a massive liability suit if something goes wrong.” Reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was used to identify themes from the data collected. The coding and theme devel- Sub-theme: Support and regulation of AV testing. Findings also opment process, involving six researchers, followed the six-phase pro- highlighted the need for convincing evidence proving that AVs can cess: data familiarization; coding; generating initial themes; reviewing perform safely and effectively under real-world conditions. How- themes; defining and naming each theme; and writing up. Steps 1–3 ever, respondents have echoed concerns about how Australia’s poli- were conducted individually while steps 4–6 were performed collabo- cies and legislations hinder the testing of AVs compared to other ratively in a workshop to reduce individual researcher bias. countries, where legislative requirements to test AVs on public roads are less restrictive. For instance, R13 said: “Today you can’t be on the road in an autonomous vehicle without breaking the law.” This is Results and analysis echoed by R16: “We tried to do some autonomous vehicle trials in Five core themes and 11 sub-themes emerged from the analysis (Table 1), [Western Australia] and it was just so difficult to do an open road representing important drivers and barriers that need addressing for test. The restrictions on this were so severe we decided to drop that AVs to be introduced and adopted successfully in Australia. part of the program. . . It’s really tough in Australia, and you don’t see that in the US and Europe.” Theme 1: Establishment of a regulatory framework Sub-theme: Establishment of AV manufacturing design standards. governing AVs Some respondents highlighted that a unified design standard for The results supported past research which indicated that regulatory AVs would represent an important step toward successful adoption action may either hinder or propel the progress of AVs (Fagnant & in Australia. Without a national standard in place, manufacturers Kockelman, 2015). will struggle to obtain the necessary certification to export AVs into 6 Australasian Marketing Journal 00(0) Australia. R1 suggests that: “A critical signpost is when the Com- Sub-theme: Investment and funding responsibility concerns. monwealth has in place design rules that recognize an appropriate Nevertheless, our findings show that some level of investment into software system. When these design rules are in place, and when they improving existing infrastructure is still necessary to accommodate call for manufacturers to certify their vehicles, that would be the AVs. However, what these changes or upgrades are and the extent of turning point in Australia.” Specifically, Australia will need to har- transformation is still unclear. Due to this uncertainty, the Australian monize national vehicle standards for AVs with international regula- government has been hesitant in making infrastructure investment tions. R2 supports this by indicating: “Because these things are going decisions. R15 suggested that “From the government’s perspective, to be universal, there is a move to align with the world standard in it’s important not to invest too early because there are uncertainties terms of design rules. The European system will be the standard that in the technology that will be used.” Australia will follow and that would then enable the vehicle manu- Some respondents also highlighted the issue of funding to support facturer to be fairly confident that they are facing the same regula- changes/upgrades. R3 indicated: “Budgeting is a big issue. Where tory system no matter which country they are going into; Australia does the money come from to accommodate this technology?” This should not get ahead of international development. We don’t want to issue of funding responsibility is further complicated by the fact that put in place [rules] that may not be appropriate and go our own not all roads are government owned. R4 indicated: “In Sydney, there route.” This harmonization is also important for AV manufacturers is nothing has been done to accommodate AV. They are now identify- from a financial perspective, as R4 suggested: “We need to look at the ing what needs to be done. It will be [a] massive change because a best practices that are being implemented around the world and try lot of roads are not controlled by [the] government, it is controlled to harmonize with the other countries. . .if the country is different by private government partnership. Proper road upgrades will be from the rest of the world, it will cost more money to get certified; it very difficult.” doesn’t justify the introduction of AVs.” Sub-theme: Need for nationally consistent infrastructure. There needs to be a consistent and standardized approach to infrastructure decisions across Australia’s states and territories. R4 highlighted that Theme 2: Consensus on necessary infrastructure to “The implementation of AVs in Australia will be in a very long time accommodate AVs because our road infrastructure is different from state to state. We Existing AV research has indicated that upgrades to existing infra- need to achieve harmonization in terms of infrastructure.” Encourag- structure are necessary before AVs can be introduced on roads (Liu, ingly, there is some evidence that efforts are underway in creating Tight et al., 2019). However, the interviews revealed mixed views, consistency in the infrastructure nationally. R18 said: “There’s cur- with some respondents stating that AV technology is likely to advance rently a line–marking project in Australia looking at making the road to a point where it can adapt to existing infrastructure. markings consistent nationally.” Sub-theme: Understanding infrastructure requirements to accom- Theme 3: Development of reliable and commercially modate AVs. An AV relies on its ability to communicate and per- ceive what is happening in its surrounding to function effectively. viable AV technology For example, AVs use camera systems to detect, read, and interpret For AVs to be deemed market-ready, manufacturers need to prove traffic signs and line markings to safely navigate. Specifically, that their technology is reliable and can handle complex road scenar- some respondents have highlighted the importance of quality road ios without requiring human intervention (Kalra & Paddock, 2016b). infrastructure. For instance, R7 said: “AVs like to have clear line markings, consistent signage, and good quality roads.” However, Sub-theme: AV technology readiness. The current state of AV tech- the extent of road infrastructure changes required to accommodate nology indicates that AVs are not yet market ready. The technology AVs is still unclear. This is highlighted by contrasting views has not reached a point at which vehicles can handle all possible between respondents over the ability of AVs to adapt to existing road scenarios safely and efficiently. For instance, R11 indicated: infrastructure. For instance, R9 indicated that: “It seems like the “There needs to be a self-driving algorithm that can handle streets vehicle manufacturers are saying AVs will be able to drive on exist- where traffic is complex. However, the technology is not quite there ing road infrastructure.” However, R16 said: “Three to four years yet when you’re talking about city driving.” R7 concurred: “From ago, the view was that AVs would be infrastructure-free, but the what I have seen from AVs, they are still unable to deal with unex- reality is that we are not likely to get there, so we will need to pected situations such as unscheduled roadworks or a tree that has change all the infrastructure that we currently have in place.” fallen onto the road. Human intervention is still required in these Moreover, the type of vehicle communications technology instances.” the vehicle uses impacts its ability to communicate effectively. The only way for technology to improve is through more AV Specifically, the type of communication infrastructure required trials across a range of driving conditions. While many of these would depend on the type of vehicle communications technology, trials are happening overseas, Australia appears to be lagging. R4 or V2X technology, that would be installed. The two main options said “We need to get some real-life AV trials happening. We are cur- are DSRC and C-V2X. However, consensus was lacking among rently running trials in Korea, California, and Europe. The problem respondents. R16 indicated that: “In the US, it is going to be man- with Australia is that we have done a very poor job in preparing dated that every vehicle will be equipped with a V2X system by 2021 ourselves for electric and AVs.” More specifically, while there is or 2022. The current dominant technology used for the V2X system evidence of AV trials happening in Australia, they have been con- is DSRC, which is backed by Toyota and GM. However, there is cur- ducted in restricted, controlled settings and environments. AVs rently a push to switch to 5G (C-V2X) over DSRC. R11 concurred must be exposed to real traffic and driving conditions to facilitate with this lack of consensus: “We have put in place DSRC communi- further technological fine-tuning. R1 indicated that: “More data and cation both to help in terms of positioning and augmentation as well evidence is still needed around AVs operating in high traffic areas. as in terms of communicating traffic light phases. But we are looking Specifically, AV trials are constrained to restricted areas that are at 5G (C-V2X) as well.” tightly controlled.” Lim et al. 7 Sub-theme: Fuel-technology requirements. The preceding sections private consumption.”” While R13 highlighted that: “The use for AVs have presented compelling evidence indicating that autonomous for public transport [may be a social trend which would accelerate vehicles (AVs) are most likely to be powered by battery-electric tech- the intro of AV]. An AV bus for example.” However, whichever path- nology (NRMA, 2017). This is primarily due to the high-power way is eventually taken will also likely depend on the associated demands of AVs (Baxter et al., 2018), which necessitates a reliable costs of using or owning an AV. R10 indicated that “There are a and sustainable power source. Furthermore, many EU countries have bunch of trends suggesting that people are willing to use on-demand committed to phasing out the production and import of new petrol services and tailored services if there can be a cost-competitive and diesel vehicles over the next two decades, reinforcing battery- proposition.” electric and other zero-emission alternatives as the preferred fuel Sub-theme: Affordability. While positive public perception of AVs source for AV manufacturers (Dugdale, 2018, 2019; World Economic is important, its affordability will ultimately determine its uptake Forum, 2015). (Bansal & Kockelman, 2017; Rahimi et al., 2020). Currently, it is This is also corroborated by the respondents. R15 suggested that: still relatively expensive, and while economies of scale will gradu- “There is a high chance that automated vehicles will be EVs. What ally occur, there is a chance that wide-scale adoption may be limited you see quite quickly, before high levels of automation, is an increas- to a select affluent few. R4 indicated that: “We are working to make ing electric vehicle fleet around the world.” R16 expressed a similar AVs affordable for the public. Our goal is to make the technology sentiment: “In the future, all AVs are going to be electric and con- affordable and widely accepted.” Furthermore, R12 highlighted: “I nected. They are the two fundamental components that regulators in think if we’re not careful, AVs will become something only the rich the US and Europe are tackling now.” can afford and use or the tech-savvy will use because they’re com- fortable or people who are in that early adoption phase of the curve Sub-theme: Commercial viability of AVs. Another common theme will be willing to embrace.” from the interviews is the commercial viability of AVs where man- ufacturing costs are currently a significant barrier; particularly for Sub-theme: Educating consumers. Research has shown that famili- associated in-vehicle technologies. R8 indicated that: “Most AVs arity and knowledge have a positive influence on consumer accept- currently use LiDAR, which makes manufacturing AVs very costly. ance of AVs (Berliner et al., 2019). Hence, the importance of Cheap sensor solutions need to be found to make AVs commercially educating consumers about the technology is critical. R4 said: “In viable.” order to take the AV technology to the next level, the right education is needed, remembering we already have different levels of autonomy Theme 4: Achievement of broad public acceptance in current cars, but not many people have been exposed to it.” Unfor- of AVs tunately, the respondents indicate that very little has been done in consumer education within Australia. R16 indicated that: “Currently For AVs to be adopted, broad acceptance among the public is needed. in Australia, public exposure to AVs has been limited to autonomous For this to happen, the value propositions for AVs alongside the risks shuttle buses. It’s a good soft introduction; however, it doesn’t inform involved need to be communicated and addressed. Specifically, the public about things such as the necessary changes required to respondents have highlighted several factors that would influence support AVs. That’s one of the reasons why we don’t have a strong public acceptance. take-up of smart infrastructure and electric vehicles, which are Sub-theme: Risk and safety concerns. Research has found that AVs important components to driving AV adoption in Australia.” This is perceived as being unsafe is one of the biggest barriers to adoption also expressed by R4: “The government is currently doing a poor job (Autonomous Vehicle Survey Report, 2019). This safety concern at preparing and educating the public about AVs.” While some begins with those inside the AV and extends to others as well. This is respondents have identified the government as the one that should be corroborated across the interviews, whereby R12 said: “Safety is one driving information dissemination and building awareness for AVs, of the critical things the public wants to be assured of. Not only for others have suggested that consumer advocacy groups such as motor- their own safety, but also the safety of other people.” Furthermore, ing clubs may be better positioned to nurture positive perceptions. some respondents also emphasized how the tolerance of error for an R6 indicated that: “Automobile clubs are in the prime seat to educate AV compared to a non-AV is much lower. R7 highlighted that: “The the public about AVs. They are more likely to be perceived to have the tolerance for error in the public’s eyes will be extremely low. . .the public’s best interests at heart. . .” key difference is they are not in control in an AV compared to a non- AV. This is one of the biggest challenges.” Aside from the physical Theme 5: Cooperation between key stakeholders risks that AVs pose, respondents also highlighted other societal con- cerns such as job losses for those in transportation. R14 suggested Another major barrier and driver of AVs in Australia is the coop- that: “The introduction of AVs will have a significant impact on eration between key stakeholders. Due to the potential impact that employment. What needs to be addressed will be around the jobs that the introduction of AVs can have, respondents have highlighted that will go away and the jobs that will be created.” This concern was coordinated effort between key stakeholders such as the government, shared by R9: “It will have an impact on jobs, so there may need to AV manufacturers, and consumer advocacy groups is needed. R11 be a skill shift.” indicated that: “For AVs to be successfully adopted, both industry and governments need to work together. It shouldn’t be just trans- Sub-theme: Mobility and vehicle ownership trends. How AVs will port authorities that drive this; it is also our economic agencies, the be adopted is likely to depend on how mobility and vehicle owner- police, public transport operators, insurance companies, and so on. ship preferences evolve (Pettigrew et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020). The wider public also needs to be involved in the discussions.” Specifically, the two main pathways for adoption are: AVs introduced as an on-demand mobility service (e.g. taxis, ride-share); or mass- Sub-theme: Playing the “waiting game”. From the interviews, how- marketed for private consumption. Most respondents anticipate the ever, there is a general sense that AV manufacturers and governments first pathway, as R8 indicated: “AVs are more likely to be offered by are playing a “waiting game.” For example, AV manufacturers are on-demand mobility services as opposed to being available for waiting on the government to establish policies and guidelines before 8 Australasian Marketing Journal 00(0) Figure 1. Thematic conceptualization of factors influencing AV adoption. they can commit to introducing AVs. Whereas governments are wait- responsible for the development and deployment of AVs and making ing for AV manufacturers to clarify the technological readiness and them available for end-users. Moreover, most of the existing litera- specific infrastructure changes required for AVs to function safely ture focuses on each stakeholder group independently, rather than and effectively. R16 mentioned that “Vehicle manufacturers are only exploring their interrelationships and interdependencies. Our study moving at the speed of legislation” and R4 also indicated that “From addresses the gap in the literature by utilizing a qualitative approach our company’s perspective, we have the technology right now, but we and a highly specialized sample of key opinion leaders to provide a just can’t deploy it anywhere. The regulation, agreed standards, and more holistic and inclusive framework for the introduction and adop- infrastructure are not ready to accommodate AVs.” This sentiment is tion of AV in Australia. Our results offer important insights for the also shared by R9: “Infrastructure and technology are a little bit like challenges and opportunities facing these stakeholders, highlight- the chicken-and-egg dilemma. At this stage, it’s hard to determine ing the need for a collaborative approach that involves all relevant whether it’s the changes/upgrades in infrastructure or the improve- parties in establishing a regulatory framework, building necessary ments in AV technology that needs to occur first before AVs can be infrastructure, developing reliable and commercially viable AV tech- successfully implemented on public roads.” nology, achieving broad public acceptance, and promoting coopera- Figure 1 represents a thematic framework that summarizes the tion among key stakeholders. Furthermore, our findings demonstrate key themes and sub-themes according to our subject experts. The seven key conclusions that have significant implications both theo- graphic depicts the interrelatedness between the different themes retically and practically. synthesized from the qualitative data from the interviews. Table 2 provides a summary of the interrelatedness between specific themes Conclusion 1: Significant role of government role in and sub-themes discussed earlier. It aims to illustrate the connections regulating and facilitating AV adoption between the different concepts and how they impact each other in the This study highlights that governments will be essential in facili- context of AV technology adoption. tating the development and pace of adoption of AVs. This can only occur through the establishment of a clear and consistent regulatory Discussion and implications framework governing AVs that encompass design guidelines, testing Most existing studies on AV adoption have focused on the end- policies, and infrastructure investments. Furthermore, liability attri- user’s attitudes and perceptions as well as their influence on user bution becomes more complex during the partial automation (Levels acceptance and adoption preferences. However, the existing litera- 3 and 4) stages, therefore a clear review of policies and legislation ture remains limited in terms of considering the perspectives of key around the attribution of liability is necessary. This notion is sup- stakeholders, including government, policy makers, technology pro- ported by Pöllänen et al. (2020), who found that respondents attrib- viders, and vehicle manufacturers. These stakeholders are ultimately uted more blame for crashes involving fully AVs to manufacturers Lim et al. 9 Table 2. Summary of Key Interrelatedness Between Different Themes and Sub-themes. Relationship Description Support & Regulation of AV Testing ⇔ AV The true test of whether the technology will be ready depends on its ability to operate safely and effectively on Technology Readiness public roads. Therefore, it is critical that there are regulations in place to support AV testing on public roads. Understanding Infrastructure Requirements Whether or not infrastructure upgrades are needed depends on the evolution of the technology. There are two to Accommodate AVs ⇔ AV Technology main opposing views on this matter. The first view suggests that AV technology will be able to adapt to and function Readiness effectively with the existing road and communication infrastructure. The second view suggests that upgrades and improvements to the existing road and communication infrastructure will be necessary to accommodate AVs. Understanding Infrastructure Requirements In addition to road and communication upgrades, the choice of fuel technology adopted by AVs will also to Accommodate Avs ⇔ Fuel-technology influence infrastructure requirements. For instance, if AVs are powered by battery-electric technology, Requirements availability of charging stations will be likely to influence AV adoption from a practicality standpoint. Commercial Viability of AVs ⇔ Mobility Depending on how mobility and vehicle ownership evolve, there is a possible scenario where AVs become a and Vehicle Ownership Trends mode of public transport, owned, and operated by the public sector. For instance, Robo-taxis are currently being trialled around the world in countries like China and the United States, which could potentially pave the way for publicly owned AVs. This would mean that instead of owning a vehicle, individuals would be able to access AVs as a service, much like public transportation. This could be a more profitable and realistic scenario from a commercial viability perspective for AV manufacturers, as it would enable them to supply AVs to a larger market and generate revenue through service-based business models Commercial Viability of AVs ⇔ The commercial viability of privately-owned AVs will depend on the ability of vehicle manufacturers to Affordability make them affordable for mass production. For AVs to be widely adopted, vehicle manufacturers must scale production and reduce production costs to a level that is affordable to the end-user. Risk and Liability Attribution ⇔ Risk and To achieve broad public acceptance, it is crucial to establish unambiguous legislation concerning risk and liability Safety Concerns attribution, as this would help to alleviate any perceived safety and risk concerns surrounding autonomous vehicles The success of AV adoption will ultimately depend on the coordinated efforts of key stakeholders, such as the Cooperation between Key Stakeholders ⇔ government and policy makers, AV manufacturers, and Public Advocacy Groups. Governments and policy makers Establishment of a Regulatory Framework must work collaboratively with AV manufacturers to ensure the safe introduction of AVs onto public roads, Governing AVs, Consensus on Necessary with appropriate regulations in place to protect the well-being of all road users. Furthermore, government and Infrastructure to Accommodate AVs, consumer advocacy groups should work together to ensure that the public is well-informed about the technology Development of Reliable and Commercially before it is formally introduced to the market. By working together, these stakeholders can ensure that AV Viable AV Technology and Achievement of adoption is successful and that the benefits of the technology are realized in a safe and effective manner. Broad Public Acceptance of AVs and the government as opposed to the driver compared to non-auton- interact with the surrounding environment. As a result, AVs must omous and semi-AVs. be connected to a network to enable large data transfers, making This extends existing literature on innovation adoption and tech- them vulnerable to cyber-attacks from malicious hackers (Sheehan nology diffusion models (Yuen et al., 2021), which have traditionally et al., 2019). The views expressed by respondents on privacy con- focused on consumers and end-users. Specifically, our study demon- cerns regarding data usage, sharing, and storage echo the findings of strates that the adoption of complex innovations such as AVs requires Jannusch et al. (2021), who emphasized the need to regulate personal a much broader perspective that accounts for the roles and perspec- data usage to protect human life. tives of key stakeholders such as the government and policy makers, From a theoretical perspective, existing literature has examined as well as the consideration of macro-environmental factors such as the acceptance of AVs using various frameworks, including TAM, economic, political, and social conditions. This is particularly impor- TPB, and UTAUT (e.g. Golbabaei et al., 2020). However, these theo- tant given that the adoption and diffusion of AVs is likely to have ries predominantly focus on the perceived benefits of the technology significant implications for society. Practically, this means that AV and do not adequately address individual factors such as trustworthi- manufacturers need to take into account the regulatory requirements ness and privacy concerns (Lancelot Miltgen et al., 2013). Therefore, and guidelines set forth by the government while designing and test- our study highlights the need for more research to integrate knowl- ing their AVs. Moreover, they need to collaborate with government edge from technology adoption theories with trust and privacy agencies and policy makers to address the complex liability issues research fields (e.g. Hegner et al., 2019; Kaur & Rampersad, 2018) that arise during the partial automation stages. On the other hand, to provide a more holistic understanding of AV acceptance. government agencies and policy makers need to create a regula- Australia’s limited exposure to AVs and the complexity of safety tory framework that promotes the development and adoption of AVs and liability issues pose significant challenges (Lyon et al., 2017). while ensuring the safety of road users. Such a framework should As other countries are already conducting actual testing on public include guidelines for AV design, testing policies, and infrastructure roads, it is even more critical for Australia to develop policies based investments. on real-world testing specific to the country. For instance, in the US, regulation to permit the introduction of AVs on public roads require evidence gathered from operational testing in real traffic situations Conclusion 2: Addressing safety, liability, and data (Lee & Hess, 2020). To ensure effective policies, it is essential to privacy issues through policy harmonization harmonize them with international best practices while also con- Our findings emphasize the importance of addressing two criti- sidering local conditions. Therefore, gleaning from international cal concerns, data privacy and security, that AV manufacturers and best practices can be a useful starting point for Australia to develop policy makers need to work together to resolve before introducing appropriate AV policies. However, due to the complexity of safety the technology to the market. The operation of AVs depends on an and liability issues, it is crucial to conduct actual testing in real-world intricate network of sensors, cameras, and onboard computers that conditions within the country. 10 Australasian Marketing Journal 00(0) petrol cars with autonomous systems would result in considerably Conclusion 3: Regulating AV testing and establishing higher fuel consumption, exceeding current emission standards. unified design standards in Australia Therefore, a country’s preparedness in terms of EV infrastructure Additionally, the regulation of testing AVs needs to be adaptive as and technology is likely to have a significant impact on its ability technology evolves so as not to hinder or unintentionally restrict its to adopt AVs successfully. This implies that the Australian govern- development (Kalra & Paddock, 2016b). In Australia, the National ment and industry partners needs to prioritize the development of Transport Commission has been working toward a national frame- infrastructure to support EV deployment to facilitate AV adoption. work to regulate AV testing and allow for more flexibility in where Discouragingly, EVs in Australia only represent 0.78% new car and how AV trials can take place (National Transport Commission, sales in 2020 compared to the global average of 4.2%, which is n.d.). However, the general sentiment from the interviews is that the reflected in Australia ranking last for “government leadership and current policies and regulations are insufficient because (1) most AV the maturity of its EV market” and second last for “availability of trials take place in restricted and controlled settings, and (2) cur- charging infrastructure” in the Arcadis Annual Global EV Catalyst rent Australian policies and legislation only accommodate limited Index (Read, 2021). At the time of writing, there are only three hydro- deployment of vehicles for testing. gen-car refueling stations in Australia. This would mean a significant Further, the Australian government requires all road vehicles, whe- expenditure to installing alternative fueling stations to support the ther manufactured in Australia or imported, comply with the relevant successful introduction of AVs in Australia. Swift action is needed ADRs (Australian Design Rules) which are national standards for from the government and policymakers to encourage the adoption of vehicle safety, anti-theft, and emissions (Department of Infrastructure, EVs through the introduction of government incentives and rebates Transport, Regional Development and Communications, n.d.). A uni- for EV purchases and increased investment charging infrastructure. fied design standard for AVs was cited in the interviews as an impor- tant step toward their successful adoption in Australia. Specifically, Conclusion 5: Communication and education respondents highlighted that Australia should work in tandem with key to improving public acceptance overseas governments so that there are no conflicting design stand- ards for manufacturers when importing AVs. Hence, it is important Consumer education is integral to the acceptance of innovative tech- for AV manufacturers, the government and policy makers to work nology (N. Liu et al., 2020). Recent reports show that both industry collaboratively to ensure that policies and regulations keep up with experts and regulators view consumer concerns as one of the big- technological advancements. This includes actively engaging in the gest threats to AV growth (Autonomous Vehicle Survey Report, development of adaptive regulations that allow for flexibility and 2019). As emphasized by one of the respondents, “Safety is one of evolution as the technology advances. By doing so, this creates a the critical things the public wants to be assured of.” Respondents conducive environment for the successful adoption and deployment of highlighted that this aspect of safety is not limited to those operat- AVs in Australia while minimizing regulatory and compliance risks. ing the AV but extends to others as well. With current public sen- timent being somewhat negative, largely fueled by several highly publicized fatal accidents (Wakabayashi, 2018), the ability of AV Conclusion 4: Navigating the uncertainty of AV manufacturers to demonstrate that AVs will reduce road crashes and infrastructure requirements and funding in Australia fatal accidents through the elimination of driver error is paramount The findings show that there is uncertainty around infrastructure (Thorpe & Motwani, 2017). Moreover, respondents also highlighted requirements necessary to accommodate AVs on public roads. Speci- that consumers are more likely to have a lower tolerance of error for fically, the interviews indicate mixed views on whether infrastructure AVs compared to non-AVs; Bennett et al. (2020) found that as the upgrades/changes are necessary. Some respondents believe that AVs level of automation increases, the blame on the vehicle manufacturer will be infrastructure-free (i.e. adapting to existing infrastructure), increased. whereas others assert that AVs will be infrastructure dependant (i.e. Unfortunately, respondents have highlighted that little effort has infrastructure upgrade/changes needed). Respondents highlighted been made to educate the public about AV technology in Australia. the government’s decisions about infrastructure investments are Currently, exposure to Avs within Australia is limited to autono- dependent on how AV technology evolves. Furthermore, differences in mous shuttle buses, as noted by the Automated Vehicle Program at state regulations and infrastructure funding add complexities around the National Transport Commission (n.d.). Given this limited expo- who (i.e. federal, state, or local government) will fund upgrades/ sure and educational outreach efforts within the country (Austroads, changes and how the associated costs will be distributed among n.d.), it is imperative to implement increased public education and different stakeholders. The speed of innovation and technological awareness campaigns to create greater exposure and alleviate per- advancement will also determine when AVs will emerge on public ceived risks. Additionally, integrating research on privacy and trust roads in Australia. However, existing research (Batsch et al., 2022) is essential to better understand the acceptance of this complex and this study suggest that AV technology is still unable to handle technology, as highlighted by Hegner et al. (2019) and Kaur and complex scenarios safely and reliably in public road conditions. To Rampersad (2018). To ensure positive consumer responses, two achieve this, AV trials are required in improving their reliability and key stakeholders—governments and consumer advocacy groups functionality. Unfortunately, AV trials in Australia are currently hin- must work collaboratively to communicate the benefits of AVs to dered by existing policies and regulations. Managerially, it is neces- the public. sary for the Australian government to advocate for adaptive policies and regulations that allow for AV trials in real-world conditions. Conclusion 6: Private versus public ownership The findings align with previous research (NRMA, 2017), with models of AVs respondents favoring zero-emission alternatives (such as battery- electric) as the most likely power source for AVs. Baxter et al. (2018) Past research suggests that public perception will influence how AVs also found that AVs require more power to support critical in-vehicle are adopted. For the anticipated benefits to be realized (e.g. reduced technologies, which traditional petrol fuel cannot provide. Equipping emissions, mobility increases for elderly and disabled populations, Lim et al. 11 and a more efficient transport system), there is an underlying be useful to develop hypotheses and test the identified factors more assumption that a shared-ownership or ride-sharing model of AVs objectively. Second, while due diligence was taken in developing the will be predominant, compared to a privately-owned model (Fagnant interview guide, additional dimensions associated with AV adoption & Kockelman, 2014; Stoiber et al., 2019). This view is corrobo- may have been omitted. Figure 1 provides future studies a useful rated in the interviews suggesting that AVs would serve as an “on- framework to help guide question development for future studies. demand mobility service” as opposed to private consumption, partly Finally, we acknowledge that although our paper aims to focus influenced by growing concerns about environmental sustainability, on Level 5 automation, there may be technological challenges that parking, and congestion alongside the high costs of purchasing and prevent this level of automation from being achieved. Therefore, maintaining a vehicle. The data also indicates that consumers con- future studies should consider investigating the influence and impact sider alternative ways of commuting and are gradually becoming less of each of the factors identified in Figure 1 within the context of interested in private car ownership. However, in Australia, the case Levels 3 and 4 individually. This could provide valuable insights into for AVs being available for private consumption is still viable, as the challenges and opportunities presented by partial automation and car ownership is still perceived as important. For example, a study provide a solid foundation for the potential achievement of Level 5 by Moody et al. (2021) found that consumers value the freedom automation. Such insights can further contribute to the development and flexibility to travel whenever the need arises, and the perceived of a comprehensive framework that considers the various aspects of status associated with owning a vehicle. AV technology and its adoption. Theoretically and managerially, these current findings are novel and significant. Existing research has primarily focus on consumers’ Declaration of conflicting interests adoption intention of AV for private ownership. However, the current The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect research highlight that AV adoption is a complex and multifaceted, to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. and the technology can be adopted in different models such as a pub- lic ownership and even services such as on-demand mobility. The findings therefore prompt researchers and practitioners within the AV Funding or vehicle industry to consider possible scenarios and product and/ The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for or service as well as consumers acceptance of these different facets the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We would that can arises from AV technology. Furthermore, our findings high- like to acknowledge RAC Insurance for funding and supporting this light the crucial role of public acceptance not only in driving but also research. in consuming private or public services afforded by AV. Practically, AV manufacturers and policymakers should also consider the need to ORCID iDs tackle concerns of co-sharing AV such as hygiene and safety. At the same time, they should also explore how shared-ownership models Wesley Lim https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7630-1825 can promote environmental sustainability, increase mobility options Billy Sung https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0028-6574 for elderly and disabled populations, and create a more effective transportation system. References Alawadhi, M., Almazrouie, J., Kamil, M., & Khalil, K. A. (2020). Review and Conclusion 7: Cultivating a culture of openness analysis of the importance of autonomous vehicles liability: A systematic and collaboration between key stakeholders literature review. International Journal of Systems Assurance Engineering and Management, 11(6), 1227–1249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198- Finally, our findings emphasize the significance of adopting a holis- 020-00978-9 Anania, E. C., Rice, S., Walters, N. W., Pierce, M., Winter, S. R., & Milner, tic and interdisciplinary approach to examine the adoption of AVs. M. N. (2018). The effects of positive and negative information on con- Key stakeholders such as governments and policymakers, AV manu- sumers’ willingness to ride in a driverless vehicle. Transport Policy, 72, facturers, and consumer advocacy groups together all play a role in 218–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.04.002 determining the successful adoption of AVs in Australia. Specifically, Autonomous Vehicle Survey Report. (2019). https://www.perkinscoie.com/ it necessary that these key stakeholders work together to address key en/autonomous-vehicle-systems-systems/2019-autonomous-vehicle- systems-survey-results.html issues relating to policy and legislation, infrastructure, technology Austroads. (n.d.). Australian and New Zealand Trials. Retrieved January 13, and innovation, and public acceptance. For example, before the gov- 2022, from https://austroads.com.au/drivers-and-vehicles/future-vehicles ernment can commit to infrastructure upgrades/changes, there needs -and-technology/trials to be clarity on the technology evolution. Furthermore, AV manufac- Bansal, P., & Kockelman, K. M. (2017). Forecasting Americans’ long- term adoption of connected and autonomous vehicle technologies. turers must work closely with policy makers and consumer advocacy Transportation Research Part A Policy and Practice, 95, 49–63. https:// groups to develop technologies that meet regulatory and consumer doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.10.013 needs, while also ensuring that public acceptance is considered. Bansal, P., Kockelman, K. M., & Singh, A. (2016). Assessing public opin- To foster this collaboration, a culture of openness and knowledge- ions of and interest in new vehicle technologies: An Austin perspective. sharing needs to be encouraged and promoted through ongoing open Transportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies, 67, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.01.019 forums, industry roundtables, and bilateral discussions. Batsch, F., Kanarachos, S., Cheah, M., Ponticelli, R., & Blundell, M. (2022). A taxonomy of validation strategies to ensure the safe operation of highly Limitations and future directions automated vehicles. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 26(1), 14–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/15472450.2020.1738231 The research has its limitations. First, this study used qualitative data Baxter, J. A., Merced, D. A., Costinett, D. J., Tolbert, L. M., & Ozpineci, B. (2018). Review of electrical architectures and power requirements for from in-depth interviews conducted with expert and key opinion lead- automated vehicles. Paper presented at the 2018 IEEE Transportation ers in the AV field, however, the limited sample size (18 experts) and and Electrification Conference and Expo, ITEC 2018 (pp. 102–107). context (Australia) limits the generalizability of the findings. Future IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITEC.2018.8449961 studies should consider a larger sample size and involve experts from Bellet, T., Cunneen, M., Mullins, M., Murphy, F., Pütz, F., Spickermann, F., wider geographical context. Furthermore, quantitative studies may Braendle, C., & Baumann, M. F. (2019). From semi to fully autonomous 12 Australasian Marketing Journal 00(0) vehicles: New emerging risks and ethico-legal challenges for human- Fagnant, D. J., & Kockelman, K. (2015). Preparing a nation for autono- machine interactions. Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology mous vehicles: Opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. and Behaviour, 63, 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.04.004 Transportation Research Part A Policy and Practice, 77, 167–181. Bennett, J. M., Challinor, K. L., Modesto, O., & Prabhakharan, P. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.003 Attribution of blame of crash causation across varying levels of vehi- Fagnant, D. J., & Kockelman, K. M. (2014). The travel and environmental cle automation. Safety Science, 132, 104968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. implications of shared autonomous vehicles, using agent-based model ssci.2020.104968 scenarios. Transportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies, 40, Berliner, R. M., Hardman, S., & Tal, G. (2019). Uncovering early adopter’s 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2013.12.001 perceptions and purchase intentions of automated vehicles: Insights from Feys, M., Rombaut, E., Vanhaverbeke, L., Polydoropoulou, A., Thomopoulos, early adopters of electric vehicles in California. Transportation Research N., & Rappazzo, V. (2021). Does a test ride influence attitude towards Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 60, 712–722. https://doi.org/ autonomous vehicles? A field experiment with pretest and posttest 10.1016/j.trf.2018.11.010 measurement. Sustainability, 13(10), 5387. https://doi.org/10.3390/ Bert, J., Collie, B., Xu, G., & Gerrits, M. (2016). What’s ahead for car shar- su13105387 ing? https://www.bcg.com/publications/2016/automotive-whats-ahead- Glancy, D. J. (n.d). Santa Clara law review privacy in autonomous vehicles. car-sharing-new-mobility-its-impact-vehicle-sales Santa Clara Law Review, 52(4), 12–14. Retrieved January 22, 2022, Boddy, C. R. (2016). Sample size for qualitative research. Qualitative from http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview Market Research An International Journal, 19(4), 426–432. https://doi. Golbabaei, F., Yigitcanlar, T., Paz, A., & Bunker, J. (2020). Individual org/10.1108/qmr-06-2016-0053 predictors of autonomous vehicle public acceptance and intention to Bowles, N. (2016, March 1). Google self-driving car collides with bus in use: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Open Innovation California, accident report says. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian. Technology Market and Complexity, 6(4), 106. https://doi.org/10.3390/ com/technology/2016/feb/29/google-self-driving-car-accident-california joitmc6040106 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Greenblatt, J. B., & Saxena, S. (2015). Autonomous taxis could greatly reduce Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.11 greenhouse-gas emissions of US light-duty vehicles. Nature Climate 91/1478088706qp063oa Change, 5(9), 860–863. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2685 Chen, H.-K., & Yan, D.-W. (2019). Interrelationships between influential Haboucha, C. J., Ishaq, R., & Shiftan, Y. (2017). User preferences regard- factors and behavioral intention with regard to autonomous vehicles. ing autonomous vehicles. Transportation Research Part C Emerging International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 13(7), 511–527. Technologies, 78, 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2017.01.010 https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2018.1488021 Hamadneh, J., Duleba, S., & Esztergár-Kiss, D. (2022). Stakeholder view- Chen, T. D., & Kockelman, K. M. (2016). Management of a shared autonomous points analysis of the autonomous vehicle industry by using multi- electric vehicle fleet: Implications of pricing schemes. Transportation actors multi-criteria analysis. Transport Policy, 126, 65–84. https://doi. Research Record, 2572, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.3141/2572-05 org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.07.005 Chottani, A., Hastings, G., Murnane, J., & Neuhaus, F. (2018). Autonomous Hawkins, J., & Nurul Habib, K. (2019). Integrated models of land use and trucks disrupt US logistics. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/travel- transportation for the autonomous vehicle revolution. Transport Reviews, logistics-and-infrastructure/our-insights/distraction-or-disruption-auton- 39(1), 66–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2018.1449033 omous-trucks-gain-ground-in-us-logistics Hegner, S. M., Beldad, A. D., & Brunswick, G. J. (2019). In automatic we Cunningham, M. L., Regan, M. A., Horberry, T., Weeratunga, K., & Dixit, trust: Investigating the impact of trust, control, personality characteristics, V. (2019). Public opinion about automated vehicles in Australia: Results and extrinsic and intrinsic motivations on the acceptance of autonomous from a large-scale national survey. Transportation Research Part A vehicles. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 35(19), Policy and Practice, 129, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.08.002 1769–1780. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1572353 Dai, J., Li, R., & Liu, Z. (2021). Does initial experience affect consumers’ Hooks, D., Davis, Z., Agrawal, V., & Li, Z. (2022). Exploring factors intention to use autonomous vehicles? Evidence from a field experiment influencing technology adoption rate at the macro level: A predictive in Beijing. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 149, 105778. https://doi. model. Technology in Society, 68, 101826. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105778 TECHSOC.2021.101826 Dai, J., Li, R., Liu, Z., & Lin, S. (2021). Impacts of the introduction of auton- Huang, Y., & Qian, L. (2021). Understanding the potential adoption of auton- omous taxi on travel behaviors of the experienced user: Evidence from a omous vehicles in China: The perspective of behavioral reasoning theory. one-year paid taxi service in Guangzhou, China. Transportation Research Psychology and Marketing, 38(4), 669–690. https://doi.org/10.1002/ Part C Emerging Technologies, 130, 103311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. mar.21465 trc.2021.103311 Hudson, J., Orviska, M., & Hunady, J. (2019). People’s attitudes to autono- Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communi- mous vehicles. Transportation Research Part A Policy and Practice, 121, cations and the Arts. (2021). Road trauma Australia - Annual summaries. 164–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.08.018 https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/road_deaths_australia_ Jannusch, T., David-Spickermann, F., Shannon, D., Ressel, J., Völler, M., annual_summaries Murphy, F., Furxhi, I., Cunneen, M., & Mullins, M. (2021). Surveillance Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and and privacy – Beyond the panopticon. An exploration of 720-degree obser- Communications. (n.d). Australian design rules. Retrieved February 8, vation in level 3 and 4 vehicle automation. Technology and Society, 66, 2022, from https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure-transport- 101667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101667 vehicles/vehicles/vehicle-design-regulation/australian-design-rules Johnson, C. (2017). Readiness of the road network for connected and autono- Dhar, V. (2016). Equity, safety, and privacy in the autonomous vehicle era. mous vehicles. RAC Foundation. Computer, 49(11), 80–83. https://doi.org/10.1109/mc.2016.326 Kalra, N., & Paddock, S. M. (2016a). How many miles of driving would it Duboz, A., Mourtzouchou, A., Grosso, M., Kolarova, V., Cordera, R., Nägele, take to demonstrate autonomous vehicle reliability? RAND Corporation. S., Alonso Raposo, M., Krause, J., Garus, A., Eisenmann, C., Dell’Olio, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/j.ctt1btc0xw L., Alonso, B., & Ciuffo, B. (2022). Exploring the acceptance of con- Kalra, N., & Paddock, S. M. (2016b). Driving to safety: How many miles nected and automated vehicles: Focus group discussions with experts of driving would it take to demonstrate autonomous vehicle reliabil- and non-experts in transport. Transportation Research Part F Traffic ity? Transportation Research Part A Policy and Practice, 94, 182–193. Psychology and Behaviour, 89, 200–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.09.010 trf.2022.06.013 Karp, L., Kim, R., Liu, C., & Liu, B. (2017). Insuring Autonomous Vehicles an Dugdale, M. (2018, August 1). European countries banning fossil fuel cars $81 Billion Opportunity Between Now and 2025. https://www.accenture. and switching to electric. Road Traffic Technology. https://www.road- com/_acnmedia/pdf-60/accenture-insurance-autonomous-vehicles-pov.pdf traffic-technology.com/features/european-countries-banning-fossil-fuel- Kaur, K., & Rampersad, G. (2018). Trust in driverless cars: Investigating key cars/ factors influencing the adoption of driverless cars. Journal of Engineer- Dugdale, M. (2019, June 7). Asian countries banning fossil fuel vehicles and ing and Technology Management, 48, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. plans for electric cars. Road Traffic Technology. https://www.roadtraffic- jengtecman.2018.04.006 technology.com/features/asian-countries-banning-fossil-fuel-cars/ Kaye, S.-A., Lewis, I., Forward, S., & Delhomme, P. (2020). A priori Etherington, D. (2019). Over 1,400 self-driving vehicles are now in test- acceptance of highly automated cars in Australia, France, and Sweden: ing by 80+ companies across the US. TechCrunch. https://techcrunch. A theoretically-informed investigation guided by the TPB and UTAUT. com/2019/06/11/over-1400-self-driving-vehicles-are-now-in-testing-by- Accident Analysis and Prevention, 137, 105441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 80-companies-across-the-u-s/ aap.2020.105441 Lim et al. 13 Kohler, W. J., & Colbert-Taylor, A. (2015). Current law and potential legal Forecasting and Social Change, 161, 120319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. issues pertaining to automated, autonomous and connected vehicles techfore.2020.120319 recommended citation. Technology Law Journal, 31(1), 99–138. http:// National Transportation Safety Board. (2018). Preliminary Report Highway digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol31/iss1/3 HWY18MH010. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/NTS KPMG. (2019). 2019 Autonomous Vehicles Readiness Index. https://assets. Buber.pdf kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2019/02/2019-autonomous-vehicles- National Transport Commission. (n.d). Automated vehicle program. readiness-index.pdf Retrieved February 10, 2022, from https://www.ntc.gov.au/transport- KPMG. (2020). 2020 Autonomous Vehicles Readiness Index. https://assets. reform/automated-vehicle-program kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2020/07/2020-autonomous-vehicles- Nordhoff, S., de Winter, J., Kyriakidis, M., van Arem, B., & Happee, R. readiness-index.pdf (2018). Acceptance of driverless vehicles: Results from a large cross- Kyriakidis, M., Happee, R., & de Winter, J. C. F. (2015). Public opinion on national questionnaire study. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2018, automated driving: Results of an international questionnaire among 5000 5382192. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5382192 respondents. Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and NRMA. (2017). The future of car ownership. NRMA. https://www.mynrma. Behaviour, 32, 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.04.014 com.au/-/media/documents/reports/the-future-of-car-ownership.pdf?la=e Lancelot Miltgen, C., Popovič, A., & Oliveira, T. (2013). Determinants of n&hash=9AF4B0574E4FFD3F1A371551D89D182F end-user acceptance of biometrics: Integrating the “Big 3” of technology Park, J., Hong, E., & Le, H. T. (2021). Adopting autonomous vehicles: acceptance with privacy context. Decision Support Systems, 56, 103–114. The moderating effects of demographic variables. Journal of Retailing https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.05.010 and Consumer Services, 63, 102687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretcon- Lee, D., & Hess, D. J. (2020). Regulations for on-road testing of connected ser.2021.102687 and automated vehicles: Assessing the potential for global safety har- Parliament of Australia. (2017). Social issues relating to land-based automated monization. Transportation Research Part A Policy and Practice, 136, vehicles in Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/ 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.03.026 Committees/House/Former_Committees/Industry_Innovation_Science_ Li, D., Huang, Y., & Qian, L. (2022). Potential adoption of robotaxi service: and_Resources/Driverless_vehicles/Government_Response The roles of perceived benefits to multiple stakeholders and environmen- Peiris, S., Berecki-Gisolf, J., Chen, B., & Fildes, B. (2020). Road trauma tal awareness. Transport Policy, 126, 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. in regional and remote Australia and New Zealand in preparedness for tranpol.2022.07.004 ADAS Technologies and autonomous vehicles. Sustainability, 12(11), Lim, H., & Taeihagh, A. (2018). Autonomous vehicles for smart and sustain- 4347. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114347 able cities: An in-depth exploration of privacy and cybersecurity implica- Penmetsa, P., Adanu, E. K., Wood, D., Wang, T., & Jones, S. L. (2019). tions. Energies, 11(5), 1062. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11051062 Perceptions and expectations of autonomous vehicles – A snapshot of Liu, N., Nikitas, A., & Parkinson, S. (2020). Exploring expert perceptions vulnerable road user opinion. Technological Forecasting and Social about the cyber security and privacy of connected and autonomous vehi- Change, 143, 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.02.010 cles: A thematic analysis approach. Transportation Research Part F Pettigrew, S. (2017). Why public health should embrace the autonomous car. Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 75, 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 41(1), 5–7. https:// trf.2020.09.019 doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12588 Liu, P., Guo, Q., Ren, F., Wang, L., & Xu, Z. (2019). Willingness to pay Pettigrew, S., & Cronin, S. L. (2019). Stakeholder views on the social issues for self-driving vehicles: Influences of demographic and psychological relating to the introduction of autonomous vehicles. Transport Policy, 81, factors. Transportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies, 100, 64–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.06.004 306–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.01.022 Pettigrew, S., Dana, L. M., & Norman, R. (2019). Clusters of potential auton- Liu, P., Zhang, Y., & He, Z. (2019). The effect of population age on the omous vehicles users according to propensity to use individual versus acceptable safety of self-driving vehicles. Reliability Engineering & shared vehicles. Transport Policy, 76, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. System Safety, 185(C), 341–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019. tranpol.2019.01.010 01.003 Pettigrew, S., Talati, Z., & Norman, R. (2018). The health benefits of autono- Liu, Y., Tight, M., Sun, Q., & Kang, R. (2019). A systematic review: Road mous vehicles: public awareness and receptivity in Australia. Australian infrastructure requirement for connected and Autonomous Vehicles and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 42(5), 480–483. https://doi. (CAVs). Journal of Physics Conference Series, 1187(4), 1–13. https:// org/10.1111/1753-6405.12805 doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1187/4/042073 Piao, J., McDonald, M., Hounsell, N., Graindorge, M., Graindorge, T., & Lyon, B., Hudson, N., Twycross, M., Finn, D., Porter, S., & Maklary, Z. Malhene, N. (2016). Public views towards implementation of automated (2017). Automated Vehicles - Do we know which road to take? www. vehicles in urban areas. Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 2168– advisian.com 2177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.232 Manivasakan, H., Kalra, R., O’Hern, S., Fang, Y., Xi, Y., & Zheng, N. Pöllänen, E., Read, G. J. M., Lane, B. R., Thompson, J., & Salmon, P. M. (2021). Infrastructure requirement for autonomous vehicle integration (2020). Who is to blame for crashes involving autonomous vehicles? for future urban and suburban roads – Current practice and a case study Exploring blame attribution across the road transport system. Ergonomics, of Melbourne, Australia. Transportation Research Part A Policy and 63(5), 525–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2020.1744064 Practice, 152, 36–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.07.012 Rahimi, A., Azimi, G., Asgari, H., & Jin, X. (2020). Adoption and will- Martínez-Díaz, M., & Soriguera, F. (2018). Autonomous vehicles: theo- ingness to pay for autonomous vehicles: Attitudes and latent classes. retical and practical challenges. Transportation Research Procedia, 33, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 89, 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2018.10.103 102611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102611 Milakis, D., van Arem, B., & van Wee, B. (2017). Policy and society related Raj, A., Kumar, J. A., & Bansal, P. (2020). A multicriteria decision mak- implications of automated driving: A review of literature and directions ing approach to study barriers to the adoption of autonomous vehicles. for future research. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 21(4), Transportation Research Part A Policy and Practice, 133, 122–137. 324–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/15472450.2017.1291351 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.01.013 Miller, C. (2019). Lessons learned from hacking a car. IEEE Design and Test, Rannenberg, K. (2016). Opportunities and risks associated with collecting 36(6), 7–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/mdat.2018.2863106 and making usable additional data. In M. Maurer, J. Gerdes, B. Lenz, & H. Montoro, L., Useche, S. A., Alonso, F., Lijarcio, I., Bosó-Seguí, P., & Winner (Eds.), Autonomous driving: Technical, legal and social aspects Martí-Belda, A. (2019). Perceived safety and attributed value as predic- (pp. 497–517). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48847-8_24 tors of the intention to use autonomous vehicles: A national study with Read, M. (2021, November 12). Australia ranked last for electric car use Spanish drivers. Safety Science, 120, 865–876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. and government leadership. The Financial Review. https://www.afr.com/ ssci.2019.07.041 policy/energy-and-climate/australia-ranked-last-for-electric-car-use-and- Moody, J., Farr, E., Papagelis, M., & Keith, D. R. (2021). The value of government-leadership-20211111-p5984q car ownership and use in the United States. Nature Sustainability, 4(9), SAE J3016. (2019). Levels of driving automation. https://www.sae.org/ 769–774. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00731-5 news/2019/01/sae-updates-j3016-automated-driving-graphic Nastjuk, I., Herrenkind, B., Marrone, M., Brendel, A. B., & Kolbe, L. M. Schoonmaker, J. (2016). Proactive privacy for a driverless age. Information (2020). What drives the acceptance of autonomous driving? An investiga- & Communications Technology Law, 25(2), 96–128. https://doi.org/10.1 tion of acceptance factors from an end-user’s perspective. Technological 080/13600834.2016.1184456 14 Australasian Marketing Journal 00(0) Sener, I. N., Zmud, J., & Williams, T. (2019). Measures of baseline intent Wadud, Z. (2017). Fully automated vehicles: A cost of ownership analysis to use automated vehicles: A case study of Texas cities. Transportation to inform early adoption. Transportation Research Part A Policy and Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 62, 66–77. https:// Practice, 101, 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.05.005 doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.12.014 Wakabayashi, D. (2018, March 19). Self-driving uber car kills pedestrian in Shabanpour, R., Golshani, N., Shamshiripour, A., & Mohammadian, A. (2018). Arizona, where robots roam. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes. Eliciting preferences for adoption of fully automated vehicles using best- com/2018/03/19/technology/uber-driverless-fatality.html worst analysis. Transportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies, Wang, S., Jiang, Z., Noland, R. B., & Mondschein, A. S. (2020). Attitudes 93, 463–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRC.2018.06.01410.1016/j.trc.2 towards privately-owned and shared autonomous vehicles. Transportation 018.06.014 Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 72, 297–306. https:// Sheehan, B., Murphy, F., Mullins, M., & Ryan, C. (2019). Connected and doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.05.014 autonomous vehicles: A cyber-risk classification framework. Transpor- Webb, J. (2019). The future of transport: Literature review and overview. tation Research Part A Policy and Practice, 124, 523–536. https://doi. Economic Analysis and Policy, 61, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap. org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.06.033 2019.01.002 Stoiber, T., Schubert, I., Hoerler, R., & Burger, P. (2019). Will consumers pre- Wiener, J. B. (2004). The regulation of technology, and the technology of fer shared and pooled-use autonomous vehicles? A stated choice experi- regulation. Technology and Society, 26(2-3), 483–500. https://doi.org/10. ment with Swiss households. Transportation Research Part D: Transport 1016/j.techsoc.2004.01.033 and Environment, 71, 265–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.12.019 World Economic Forum. (2015). Press briefing: Self-driving vehicles in an Sun, Y., Olaru, D., Smith, B., Greaves, S., & Collins, A. (2017). Road to urban context. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Press%20release. autonomous vehicles in Australia: An exploratory literature review. Road pdf & Transport Research, 26(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit. Wu, E. (2018, September 10). What is the uncertain future of self-driving 233588632509382 car insurance? https://www.capgemini.com/au-en/2018/09/autonomous- Tan, S. Y., & Taeihagh, A. (2021). Adaptive governance of autonomous vehicle-insurance-challenges-and-solutions/ vehicles: Accelerating the adoption of disruptive technologies in Yuen, K. F., Cai, L., Qi, G., & Wang, X. (2021). Factors influencing Singapore. Government Information Quarterly, 38(2), 101546. https:// autonomous vehicle adoption: An application of the technology accept- doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101546 ance model and innovation diffusion theory. Technology Analysis and Theoto, T. N., & Kaminski, P. C. (2019). A country-specific evaluation on the Strategic Management, 33(5), 505–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/095373 feasibility of autonomous vehicles. Product Management & Development, 25.2020.1826423 17(2), 123–133. https://doi.org/10.4322/pmd.2019.013 Zhang, T., Tao, D., Qu, X., Zhang, X., Lin, R., & Zhang, W. (2019). The Thorpe, J., & Motwani, E. (2017). Nudging people into autonomous vehicles. roles of initial trust and perceived risk in public’s acceptance of auto- https://www.pwc.com.au/publications/pdf/nudging-people-into-autono- mated vehicles. Transportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies, mous-vehicles.pdf 98, 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.11.018 UNECE. (2020). Working party on automated/autonomous and connected Zmud, J., Sener, I. N., & Wagner, J. (2016). Self-driving vehicles: Determi- vehicles. https://unece.org/transport/vehicle-regulations/working-party- nants of adoption and conditions of usage. Transportation Research automatedautonomous-and-connected-vehicles-introduction Record, 2565(1), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.3141/2565-07 Appendix Appendix 1. ID Industry Role/area of expertise Key area(s) commented on R1 Government Australian Road Rules Policy and Legislation, Technology R2 Academic Transport and economic research, Transport legislation Policy and Legislation, Technology R3 Government Environmental, social, and economic community sustainability Policy and Legislation, Technology, Public acceptance R4 Industry Part of strategic insights team to prepare market (consumers) for Policy and Legislation, Technology, Public acceptance AV introduction R5 Academic Automotive and Engineering and AV research Technology R6 Industry Involvement with Public policy development to support mobility Policy and Legislation, Public acceptance for Western Australians R7 Government Policy development relating to road safety Policy and Legislation, Public acceptance R8* Academic Automotive research Policy and Legislation R9 Government Infrastructure policy development, Policy relating to AV reform Policy and Legislation, Infrastructure, Public acceptance R10 Government Policy consultant involved with legislation development relating to Policy and Legislation, Infrastructure, Public acceptance AV trails in Australia, R11** Government Coordinate and manage the introduction of AVs into the country Policy and Legislation, Infrastructure, Technology, (e.g., through AV trials and deployment) Public acceptance R12 Government Future and Urban mobility, Innovation, and Transport modelling Policy and Legislation, Public acceptance R13 Industry Consultant with strategy experience relating to new technology Policy and Legislation, Infrastructure, Technology, impact on insurance industry Public acceptance R14 Industry Strategy to improve public acceptance of new technologies Public acceptance R15 Government Infrastructure policy consultant provides local governments with Infrastructure, Technology, Public acceptance advice relating to infrastructure issues R16 Industry Automation and robotics expert in the resource sector Policy and Legislation, Infrastructure, Public acceptance R17 Industry Autonomous technology research related to manufacturing, Policy and Legislation, Technology mining, and agriculture R18 Government Futurists dealing with the impact of new vehicle technologies Policy and Legislation, Infrastructure, Technology *Overseas expert from the US, **Overseas expert from Southeast Asia. Lim et al. 15 Appendix 2. Section 1: Background of interviewee This section consisted of general questions about the expert’s background. Specifically, they were asked about the industry they worked in, their role in the organization, and how it relates to AVs. • What company (industry) do you work for? • What is your current position in the company? • Briefly describe your role in the company and how it relates to AVs (if appropriate) Section 2: Role that (the specific area) has on AV adoption This section consisted of questions specific to the four key areas of: Policy and Legislation, Infrastructure, Technology and Innovation, and Public Perception and Awareness. • What role do you think (insert one of the 4 areas) plays in the introduction of AV vehicles? • What are your perspectives on the current state of (insert one of the 4 areas e.g., Policy and Legislation) in (insert interviewee’s country/state e.g., Western Australia) in supporting the implementation of AVs on public roads? • What steps do you think (insert interviewee’s country/state e.g., Western Australia) taken to ensure that it is AV-ready? • What do you think is currently lacking in (insert one of the 4 areas e.g., Policy and Legislation) in relation to the adoption of AVs in your (insert interviewee’s country/state e.g., Western Australia)? • What other barriers and challenges do you think still need to be overcome before AVs can be successfully introduced in your (insert interviewee’s country/state e.g., Western Australia)? • Who do you think are the key individuals/groups/organizations that are necessary to drive (or lead) this initiative (agenda) of change? Section 3: Future market impact of AVs This section consisted of questions to gain the interviewee’s perspective on the impacts that AV adoption will have on society. • What do you think will be the major impacts on society from the adoption of AVs? (e.g., (Probes: Lifestyle changes, the economy, vehicle ownership, urban design, insurance models, etc.) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Australasian Marketing Journal SAGE http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/sage/is-australia-ready-for-autonomous-vehicles-examining-the-factors-r5O9NTm0IQ

Loading next page...

References (72)

Ramin Shabanpour, Nima Golshani, Ali Shamshiripour, A. Mohammadian (2018)
Eliciting preferences for adoption of fully automated vehicles using best-worst analysis
Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies
Dun Li, Youli Huang, Lixian Qian (2022)
Potential adoption of robotaxi service: The roles of perceived benefits to multiple stakeholders and environmental awareness
Transport Policy
Mohamed Alawadhi, Jumah Almazrouie, Mohammed Kamil, Khalil Khalil (2020)
Review and analysis of the importance of autonomous vehicles liability: a systematic literature review
International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management
Joshua Schoonmaker (2016)
Proactive privacy for a driverless age
Information & Communications Technology Law, 25
Virginia Braun, Victoria Clarke
Please Scroll down for Article Qualitative Research in Psychology Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology
Barry Sheehan, Finbarr Murphy, Martin Mullins, Cian Ryan (2019)
Connected and autonomous vehicles: A cyber-risk classification framework
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice
T. Stoiber, I. Schubert, Raphael Hoerler, P. Burger (2019)
Will consumers prefer shared and pooled-use autonomous vehicles? A stated choice experiment with Swiss households
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment
H. Chen, D. Yan (2018)
Interrelationships between influential factors and behavioral intention with regard to autonomous vehicles
International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 13
Manon Feys, Evy Rombaut, Lieselot Vanhaverbeke (2021)
Does a Test Ride Influence Attitude towards Autonomous Vehicles? A Field Experiment with Pretest and Posttest Measurement
Sustainability, 13
JoAnn Moody, Elizabeth Farr, Marisa Papagelis, David Keith (2021)
The value of car ownership and use in the United States
Nature Sustainability, 4
J. Zmud, I. Sener, J. Wagner (2016)
Self-Driving Vehicles: Determinants of Adoption and Conditions of Usage
Transportation Research Record, 2565
Youlin Huang, Lixian Qian (2021)
Understanding the potential adoption of autonomous vehicles in China: The perspective of behavioral reasoning theory
Psychology & Marketing, 38
D. Milakis, B. Arem, B. Wee (2017)
Policy and society related implications of automated driving: A review of literature and directions for future research
Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 21
M. Kyriakidis, R. Happee, J. Winter (2015)
Public opinion on automated driving: results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents
Transportation Research Part F-traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 32
T. Chen, K. Kockelman (2016)
Management of a Shared Autonomous Electric Vehicle Fleet: Implications of Pricing Schemes
Transportation Research Record, 2572
T. Theoto, P. Kaminski (2019)
A country-specific evaluation on the feasibility of autonomous vehicles
Product Management & Development
Yuyan Liu, M. Tight, Quanxin Sun, Ruiyu Kang (2019)
A systematic review: Road infrastructure requirement for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAVs)
Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1187
S. Tan, Araz Taeihagh (2021)
Adaptive governance of autonomous vehicles: Accelerating the adoption of disruptive technologies in Singapore
Gov. Inf. Q., 38
Jungkun Park, Eun-Jeong Hong, Hoang Le (2021)
Adopting autonomous vehicles: The moderating effects of demographic variables
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 63
Luis Montoro, Sergio Useche, Francisco Alonso, Ignacio Lijarcio, Patricia Bosó-Seguí, Ana Martí-Belda (2019)
Perceived safety and attributed value as predictors of the intention to use autonomous vehicles: A national study with Spanish drivers
Safety Science, 120
N. Kalra, S. Paddock (2016)
Driving to Safety
Jason Hawkins, Khandker Habib (2019)
Integrated models of land use and transportation for the autonomous vehicle revolution
Transport Reviews, 39
Tingru Zhang, D. Tao, Xingda Qu, Xiaoyan Zhang, R. Lin, Wei Zhang (2019)
The roles of initial trust and perceived risk in public’s acceptance of automated vehicles
Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies
P. Penmetsa, E. Adanu, D. Wood, Teng Wang, Steven Jones (2019)
Perceptions and expectations of autonomous vehicles – A snapshot of vulnerable road user opinion
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
Chana Haboucha, R. Ishaq, Y. Shiftan (2017)
User preferences regarding autonomous vehicles
Transportation Research Part C-emerging Technologies, 78
J. Hudson, Marta Orviská, J. Huňady (2019)
People’s attitudes to autonomous vehicles
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice
T. Bellet, Martin Cunneen, Martin Mullins, Finbarr Murphy, Fabian Pütz, Florian Spickermann, Claudia Braendle, Martina Baumann (2019)
From semi to fully autonomous vehicles: New emerging risks and ethico-legal challenges for human-machine interactions
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour
F. Batsch, S. Kanarachos, Madeline Cheah, R. Ponticelli, M. Blundell (2020)
A taxonomy of validation strategies to ensure the safe operation of highly automated vehicles
Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 26
Emily Anania, S. Rice, Nathan Walters, Matthew Pierce, S. Winter, Mattie Milner (2018)
The effects of positive and negative information on consumers’ willingness to ride in a driverless vehicle
Transport Policy
S. Pettigrew, Z. Talati, Richard Norman (2018)
The health benefits of autonomous vehicles: public awareness and receptivity in Australia
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 42
Sicheng Wang, Zhiqiu Jiang, R. Noland, A. Mondschein (2020)
Attitudes towards privately-owned and shared autonomous vehicles
Transportation Research Part F-traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 72
A. Raj (2019)
A multicriteria decision making approach to study barriers to the adoption of autonomous vehicles
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice
P. Bansal, K. Kockelman (2016)
Forecasting Americans' Long-Term Adoption of Connected and Autonomous Vehicle Technologies
S. Pettigrew, Sophie Cronin (2019)
Stakeholder views on the social issues relating to the introduction of autonomous vehicles
Transport Policy
Na Liu, A. Nikitas, S. Parkinson (2020)
Exploring expert perceptions about the cyber security and privacy of Connected and Autonomous Vehicles: A thematic analysis approach
Transportation Research Part F-traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 75
Dasom Lee, D. Hess (2020)
Regulations for on-road testing of connected and automated vehicles: Assessing the potential for global safety harmonization
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice
J. Wiener (2004)
The Regulation of Technology, and the Technology of Regulation
Technology in Society, 26
M. Martínez-Díaz, Francesc Soriguera (2018)
Autonomous vehicles: theoretical and practical challenges
Transportation research procedia, 33
Daniel Fagnant, K. Kockelman (2014)
The Travel and Environmental Implications of Shared Autonomous Vehicles, Using Agent-Based Model Scenarios
Jamil Hamadneh, Duleba Szabolcs, D. Esztergár-Kiss (2022)
Stakeholder viewpoints analysis of the autonomous vehicle industry by using multi-actors multi-criteria analysis
Transport Policy
Kum Yuen, Lanhui Cai, G. Qi, Xueqin Wang (2020)
Factors influencing autonomous vehicle adoption: an application of the technology acceptance model and innovation diffusion theory
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 33
Kanwaldeep Kaur, G. Rampersad (2018)
Trust in driverless cars: Investigating key factors influencing the adoption of driverless cars
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 48
Daniel Fagnant, K. Kockelman (2015)
Preparing a Nation for Autonomous Vehicles: Opportunities, Barriers and Policy Recommendations
S. Nordhoff, J. Winter, M. Kyriakidis, B. Arem, R. Happee (2018)
Acceptance of Driverless Vehicles: Results from a Large Cross-National Questionnaire Study
Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2018
P. Bansal, K. Kockelman, Amit Singh (2016)
Assessing Public Opinions of and Interest in New Vehicle Technologies: An Austin Perspective
F. Golbabaei, Tan Yigitcanlar, A. Paz, J. Bunker (2020)
Individual Predictors of Autonomous Vehicle Public Acceptance and Intention to Use: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity
S. Kaye, I. Lewis, S. Forward, P. Delhomme (2020)
A priori acceptance of highly automated cars in Australia, France, and Sweden: A theoretically-informed investigation guided by the TPB and UTAUT.
Accident; analysis and prevention, 137
Peng Liu, Yawen Zhang, Zhen He (2019)
The effect of population age on the acceptable safety of self-driving vehicles
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 185
Joanne Bennett, Kirsten Challinor, O. Modesto, P. Prabhakharan (2020)
Attribution of blame of crash causation across varying levels of vehicle automation
Safety Science, 132
H. Lim, Araz Taeihagh (2018)
Autonomous Vehicles for Smart and Sustainable Cities: An In-Depth Exploration of Privacy and Cybersecurity Implications
ArXiv, abs/1804.10367
S. Hegner, A. Beldad, Gary Brunswick (2019)
In Automatic We Trust: Investigating the Impact of Trust, Control, Personality Characteristics, and Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivations on the Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles
International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 35
S. Peiris, J. Berecki-Gisolf, Bernard Chen, B. Fildes (2020)
Road Trauma in Regional and Remote Australia and New Zealand in Preparedness for ADAS Technologies and Autonomous Vehicles
Sustainability
Tim Jannusch, Florian David-Spickermann, D. Shannon, Juliane Ressel, Michaele Völler, Finbarr Murphy, Irini Furxhi, Martin Cunneen, Martin Mullins (2021)
Surveillance and privacy – Beyond the panopticon. An exploration of 720-degree observation in level 3 and 4 vehicle automation
Technology in Society
J. Webb (2019)
The future of transport: Literature review and overview
Economic Analysis and Policy
E. Pöllänen, G. Read, B. Lane, Jason Thompson, P. Salmon (2020)
Who is to blame for crashes involving autonomous vehicles? Exploring blame attribution across the road transport system
Ergonomics, 63
Ilja Nastjuk, Bernd Herrenkind, M. Marrone, A. Brendel, L. Kolbe (2020)
What drives the acceptance of autonomous driving? An investigation of acceptance factors from an end-user's perspective
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161
Rosaria Berliner, S. Hardman, Gil Tal (2019)
Uncovering early adopter’s perceptions and purchase intentions of automated vehicles: Insights from early adopters of electric vehicles in California
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour
Amandine Duboz, A. Mourtzouchou, M. Grosso, Viktoriya Kolarova, Rubén Cordera, Sophie Nägele, María Raposo, J. Krause, Ada Garus, Christine Eisenmann, L. dell’Olio, Borja Alonso, B. Ciuffo (2022)
Exploring the acceptance of connected and automated vehicles: Focus group discussions with experts and non-experts in transport
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour
M. Cunningham, M. Regan, T. Horberry, K. Weeratunga, V. Dixit (2019)
Public opinion about automated vehicles in Australia: Results from a large-scale national survey
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice
I. Sener, J. Zmud, T. Williams (2019)
Measures of baseline intent to use automated vehicles: A case study of Texas cities
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour
S. Pettigrew (2017)
Why public health should embrace the autonomous car
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 41
S. Pettigrew, L. Dana, Richard Norman (2019)
Clusters of potential autonomous vehicles users according to propensity to use individual versus shared vehicles
Transport Policy
Alireza Rahimi, Ghazaleh Azimi, H. Asgari, Xia Jin (2020)
Adoption and willingness to pay for autonomous vehicles: Attitudes and latent classes
Transportation Research Part D-transport and Environment, 89
J. Greenblatt, Samveg Saxena (2015)
Autonomous taxis could greatly reduce greenhouse-gas emissions of US light-duty vehicles
Nature Climate Change, 5
Jingchen Dai, Ruimin Li, Zhiyong Liu (2020)
Does initial experience affect consumers' intention to use autonomous vehicles? Evidence from a field experiment in Beijing.
Accident; analysis and prevention, 149
Peng Liu, Qianru Guo, Fei Ren, Lin Wang, Zhigang Xu (2019)
Willingness to pay for self-driving vehicles: Influences of demographic and psychological factors
Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies
Z. Wadud (2017)
Fully automated vehicles: A cost of ownership analysis to inform early adoption
Transportation Research Part A-policy and Practice, 101
Hesavar Manivasakan, Riddhi Kalra, S. O’Hern, Yihai Fang, Yinfei Xi, Nan Zheng (2021)
Infrastructure requirement for autonomous vehicle integration for future urban and suburban roads – Current practice and a case study of Melbourne, Australia
Transportation Research Part A-policy and Practice, 152
J. Piao, M. McDonald, N. Hounsell, Matthieu Graindorge, Tatiana Graindorge, N. Malhéné (2016)
Public Views towards Implementation of Automated Vehicles in Urban Areas
Transportation research procedia, 14
Jingchen Dai, Ruimin Li, Zhiyong Liu, Shi Lin (2021)
Impacts of the introduction of autonomous taxi on travel behaviors of the experienced user: Evidence from a one-year paid taxi service in Guangzhou, China
Transportation Research Part C-emerging Technologies, 130
C. Miltgen, Aleš Popovič, T. Oliveira (2013)
Determinants of end-user acceptance of biometrics: Integrating the "Big 3" of technology acceptance with privacy context
Decis. Support Syst., 56
D. Hooks, Zachary Davis, Vikas Agrawal, Zonghui Li (2021)
Exploring Factors Influencing Technology Adoption Rate at the Macro Level: A Predictive Model
SSRN Electronic Journal

Publisher: SAGE
Copyright: © 2023 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy
ISSN: 1839-3349
eISSN: 1839-3349
DOI: 10.1177/14413582231175152
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

As Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) on public roads today becomes an increasingly realistic possibility, there is growing need to better understand the factors that will facilitate their successful introduction. This study focuses specifically on Australia and investigates various micro and macro environmental factors that may either hinder or support their adoption in the country. The study comprised 18 in-depth interviews with experts from both the public and private sectors who possess direct experience working with AVs. These experts provided valuable insights into several areas, including the legislation and regulations governing AV use, the technical and infrastructure requirements necessary for safe operation on public roads, and the importance of public sentiment in driving AV adoption and introduction. Based on the study’s findings, an integrated framework has been developed to identify and classify the key factors related to AV adoption, as well as their interrelatedness with each other. This framework seeks to guide the development of national strategies to accommodate the necessary political, legal, and social adjustments required for the successful implementation of AVs. Keywords autonomous vehicle (AV), technology and innovation adoption, barriers, and drivers Date received: 24 August 2022; accepted: 24 April 2023 AV trials are being conducted on public roads with vehicles varying Introduction from Levels 3 to 5. For instance, the United States (US) has more Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are becoming increasingly common than 80 companies testing over 1,400 self-driving vehicles across 36 every year and their introduction is expected to significantly disrupt states (Bert et al., 2016; Etherington, 2019). Alongside trials, global the motor industry, with forecasts suggesting that AVs could become cooperation efforts are also proceeding, with a United Nations divi- available in the not-too-distant future (Bert et al., 2016; Chottani sion on automated/autonomous and connected vehicles working to et al., 2018). Their introduction is expected to bring about increased propose vehicle regulations for internationally use and to promote road safety and crash prevention (Fagnant & Kockelman, 2015; harmonized regulations (UNECE, 2020). Milakis et al., 2017), improved environmental impact and emissions Although there is a growing interest in AVs, the feasibility of reductions (Fagnant & Kockelman, 2014; Greenblatt & Saxena, introducing these vehicles to the market on a global scale remains 2015; Milakis et al., 2017), increased travel accessibility for the unclear. Major investments by companies such as Tesla and Google elderly and disabled people (Pettigrew et al., 2018), reduced costs have been made, however, high-profile accidents involving AVs to commercial operators (Wadud, 2017), and reallocation of land have the potential to erode public confidence in the technology (such as parking areas) for other uses (Fagnant & Kockelman, 2015). (National Transportation Safety Board, 2018). Furthermore, differ- However, barriers to their introduction and adoption, including the ent global regions may face unique barriers to the introduction of facilitating conditions, need to be understood to foster a smooth tran- AVs, which could slow down their uptake. Research has shown that sition into this transportation revolution. AVs require more power to support critical in-vehicle technologies To understand the progress of AV development, SAE J3016 than traditional petrol cars can provide (Baxter et al., 2018). As a (2019) has developed six stages of automation to describe different result, it is highly probable that most AVs will run on battery-electric autonomous capabilities and driver input requirements in vehicles. Levels 0–2 describe traditional vehicles with little or no automated Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia features while drivers operate most driving responsibilities. Level 3 describes partially AVs, with drivers required sometimes, but not Corresponding author: continuously. Levels 4 and 5 describe fully AVs, requiring no driver Wesley Lim, School of Management and Marketing, Curtin University, Kent input. This paper follows this classification and examines the drivers St, Bentley, Perth, WA 6102, Australia. and barriers to Level 5 AV adoption in Australia. Globally, various Email: wesley.lim@curtin.edu.au 2 Australasian Marketing Journal 00(0) technology when they become commercially available. In Australia, study aims to gather insights and perspectives from industry experts while the government and legislators are showing an active interest and stakeholders on the critical factors and challenges for the suc- in AV introduction, low investments in supporting infrastructure such cessful implementation and adoption of AVs. The expert interviews as electric charging stations, could impede its widespread adoption in this paper allows for a more nuanced understanding of the unique (Theoto & Kaminski, 2019). challenges and opportunities for AV adoption in Australia. With AVs touted as the next transport revolution, it is important to fully understand the contextual and macroenvironmental factors Review of relevant literature that impact their introduction and adoption. Hawkins and Nurul Habib (2019) highlight that the adoption of AVs will have effects Policy and legislation factors on both transportation and urban systems, with ramifications on the consumption of land and energy by future cities. Such changes will Government legislations are vital in the adoption of new technologies be impacted by the government’s position and willingness to amend (Hooks et al., 2022). For AVs, issues include regulation of automated and develop new policies and legislations. For AVs to enter the mar- vehicles on public roads and during trials, insurance and liability, ket, there is need for clarity around what and how changes will be data privacy, and cybersecurity. Regulatory action may hinder or implemented. propel the progress of AVs, with good policy and legislation bal- To the best of our knowledge, existing research on AV adoption ancing the needs of innovation and regulation to maximize positive predominantly centers around the consumer or end-user. Specifically, AV outcomes (Fagnant & Kockelman, 2015). The specifics of such these studies investigate how attitudes and perceptions can impact the regulation can also influence which technologies are developed as intention to adopt or use AV technology. Common theoretical frame- developers can more easily pursue areas not in conflict with, or con- works such as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Golbabaei strained by, regulations (Fagnant & Kockelman, 2015). Therefore, et al., 2020; Nastjuk et al., 2020; Park et al., 2021; Yuen et al., governments need to be thoughtful and purposeful in their regulatory 2021; Zhang et al., 2019), Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (e.g. actions. H.-K. Chen & Yan, 2019; Dai et al., 2021; Golbabaei et al., 2020) and Before AVs can be introduced to the market, they must be tested the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and trialled on public roads. These tests, conducted under real traffic (e.g. Golbabaei et al., 2020; Kaye et al., 2020) have been utilized conditions, help developers improve and fine-tune systems and for this purpose. Moreover, other frameworks such the Innovation assess safety (Kalra & Paddock, 2016b). However, government regu- Diffusion Theory (Yuen et al., 2021), Behavioural Reasoning Theory lations dictate which trials can be conducted and how. In Australia, (Huang & Qian, 2021) have also been used to understand acceptance AV trials are ongoing, but each state and territory has its own regula- and behavioral intention toward the technology. tions and processes. As of writing, fully automated vehicles are pro- However, the successful diffusion and adoption of any new tech- hibited from public roads without permits or exemptions. Exemption nology is not solely dependent on consumer demand. For example, processes and applications differ between states, introducing barri- regulative action can accelerate the diffusion of the technology such ers to trial introduction, cross-border trials, and information sharing as in the case of Air Bags (Wiener, 2004). For AVs, additional con- (National Transport Commission, n.d.). siderations such as liability attribution (i.e. determining liability dur- Further, in non-automated driving, liability in accidents is gen- ing accidents involving AVs) and infrastructure requirements (i.e. erally attributed to a human driver. However, as vehicles become assessing the need for investments to upgrade existing infrastructure fully automated, drivers are no longer responsible for driving activ- to accommodate AVs on public roads) are necessary. Hence, it is ities, and laws will need to be revised; liability will be transferred to important to recognize the role of other stakeholders, including gov- the manufacturers instead (Alawadhi et al., 2020; Wu, 2018). With ernments, policymakers, and vehicle manufacturers (Duboz et al., partially automated vehicles, however, liability is more compli- 2022; Hamadneh et al., 2022) in facilitating the successful diffusion cated, with both vehicle and human driver potentially contributing and adoption of the technology. For example, studies such as Raj to accidents. For instance, in a crash between a Google self-driving et al. (2020) and Tan and Taeihagh (2021) have found that the wide- car and a bus in 2016, fault was assigned to both the AV and driver spread adoption of AVs is contingent on the ability of policymakers (Bowles, 2016). The vehicle predicted the oncoming bus would and governments to effectively address challenges around infrastruc- yield but the human driver did not respond in time to avoid the ture development and liability attribution. Furthermore, both studies collision. For a successful AV implementation, governments and also highlight that the various issues affecting AV adoption relevant legislators will need to address these circumstances and clarify the to the different stakeholders should be perceived as a component of issue of liability. a bigger eco-system of AV adoption which mutually influences each The nature of insurance will also need to adjust with motor insur- other. Hence, this study proposes a framework for the investigation ance anticipated to undergo a paradigm shift as fully AVs enter the of the diffusion and adoption of AVs. Specifically, the framework market. A 2014 actuarial analysis by KPMG in the US predicted that seeks to capture the different factors that impact on AV adoption and the personal automotive insurance sector could shrink by as much their interrelationships. as 40% over 25 years due to a reduction in accident numbers of up To our knowledge, there is limited research that examines how to 80%; insurance premiums would therefore drop by 21%–41% by these different factors work together to drive AV introduction and 2040 (KPMG, 2019). To adapt, insurers would need to shift focus adoption in Australia (Sun et al., 2017). Furthermore, most research from personal to commercial ownership and liability (Karp et al., focuses on one specific factor rather than examining the different fac- 2017; Wu, 2018). The number of manufacturers and corporations tors collectively. For example, Manivasakan et al. (2021) focuses on requiring insurance for vehicle fleets will be fewer than today’s infrastructure requirements relating to autonomous vehicle integra- number of private owners and drivers, earning them more bargaining tion, while others mostly focus on end-users’ attitudes and behavio- power with insurers (Karp et al., 2017; Wu, 2018). To ensure success ral intentions toward AVs in Australia (e.g. Cunningham et al., 2019; in the insurance sector, formulation of these future liability schemes Kaye et al., 2020; Pettigrew et al., 2018). To gain a better under- will need to be done before these vehicles are implemented (Bellet standing of the interplay of the factors in the Australian context, this et al., 2019). Lim et al. 3 When AVs get introduced, they will generate and collect large be support and investment in technology, particularly from govern- amounts of potentially sensitive information. This will bring ments. For instance, KPMG’s 2019 AV readiness index ranked Israel opportunities and risks which will need to be balanced by regula- first among 25 countries in technology and innovation, recognizing tion. Governments can use data to improve the traffic system and the country’s 500–600 automotive start-ups and technology develop- plan for future infrastructure needs (Fagnant & Kockelman, 2015; ment. Once technology has been developed and tested, commercial Kohler & Colbert-Taylor, 2015). For insurance companies, crash viability of the final AV product will influence adoption speed and data will likely become invaluable to the claim evaluation process success. While technology progressively becomes cheaper, initial (Dhar, 2016; Rannenberg, 2016; Wu, 2018). Companies could AVs will be more expensive than traditional vehicles, and minimiz- also use data to reach potential customers (Glancy, n.d.; Kohler & ing these costs will be important to increasing AV saturation on the Colbert-Taylor, 2015). However, good regulation will be needed to roads (Fagnant & Kockelman, 2015). protect consumers’ privacy and prevent data misuse. For instance, Alongside developments in driving automation, fuel source data could be used for surveillance, both by individuals and govern- innovations are being explored. The anticipated health benefits of ments (Schoonmaker, 2016). Data might also be used to calculate AVs can only be increased by using electricity for power (NRMA, insurance premiums and credit scores, which are error-prone, and 2017). A transition to EVs is supported by global trends moving likely to exacerbate inequalities (Rannenberg, 2016). Without proper to hybrid and electric and bans on petrol and diesel being contem- protections, the potential for targeted marketing becoming excessive plated and planned for (Dugdale, 2018, 2019; World Economic or intrusive is also a risk (Glancy, n.d.; Kohler & Colbert-Taylor, Forum, 2015). The development of connected AVs is likely to 2015). As such, governments are taking different approaches to pri- accelerate and depend on improved EV functioning (e.g. range and vacy with many opting to apply existing laws to this new technology charging infrastructure) (T. D. Chen & Kockelman, 2016; Webb, or developing new guidelines altogether (Lim & Taeihagh, 2018). 2019). Furthermore, AVs are likely to be powered by battery-elec- Australia (National Transport Commission, n.d.), for instance, has tric technology due to the high-power demands of AVs which petrol been working on guidelines with a privacy-by-design approach, solv- cars are not able to support without exceeding current emissions ing privacy issues by placing limits on personal data generation. standards (Baxter et al., 2018). For these reasons, many experts are As technology advances and incorporates more communication anticipating that EVs will saturate the market with the introduction with external networks, the risk of cybersecurity and interference of AVs (NRMA, 2017). from third parties increases (Lim & Taeihagh, 2018). Hacking and To better understand and facilitate the adoption of AVs within viruses have devastating potential. Attacks could be for theft, where the domain of technology and innovation, it is crucial to focus on personal data is stolen, or to target vehicle functions, such as jamming key areas, such as the importance of charging infrastructure due to or altering internal systems (Lim & Taeihagh, 2018). Connections to AVs’ reliance on battery-electric technology and how its uptake will networks could also be disrupted, with important information from depend on the ease of access to charging stations, making this a criti- digital infrastructure unable to reach AVs (Lim & Taeihagh, 2018). cal factor to consider. Additionally, government support, investment, The potential threat to safety is high; as it was demonstrated that and funding are also significant factors that can significantly impact remotely hacking into a 2014 Jeep Cherokee and switching its engine AV adoption rates. off while on the road was possible (Miller, 2019). Hacking has the In Australia, the anticipated cost savings from crash prevention potential to erode public trust, particularly when dealing with safety alone is forecasted to be $16 billion (AUD) per annum (Pettigrew, (Lim & Taeihagh, 2018). As AVs develop, they will become con- 2017). However, while the government is aware of the benefits and is nected with the broader traffic network, making safety risks of hacks receptive to fully AVs on public roads (Parliament of Australia, 2017; even larger (Lim & Taeihagh, 2018). Ongoing safety evaluation and Pettigrew & Cronin, 2019) there remain unique conditions and bar- assurance of AVs and their networks will be paramount for their riers that need further consideration. Australia’s regulatory system successful introduction and adoption. for AVs and AV trials has not yet been harmonized across states Based on the preceding discussion, it is evident that there is a and territories, despite guidelines having been developed (National need for further research to understand the complexities involved in Transport Commission, n.d.; KPMG, 2020). developing a regulatory framework governing AVs that can account for cross-border scenarios and ensure its safe adoption in Australia. Infrastructure factors This is particularly important given that each state and territory have Beyond the technological advances in automated driving tasks, infra- its own regulations and processes, and a lack of standardization could structure upgrades will be essential for AV introduction. For a fully present a barrier for vehicle manufacturers seeking to introduce AVs connected AV system, roads, signage, and digital communications into the market. will require consideration (Liu, Tight et al., 2019). Transitional infra- structure requirements will also need planning, with mixed fleets of Technology and innovation factors both conventional and automated vehicles sharing roadways in the As interest in AVs increases, so does work on improving and innovat- initial stages (Liu, Zhang et al., 2019). ing transportation technology. For many, the future transport system Road surfaces will need to have clear line markings and road signs, will comprise connected, autonomous, electric vehicles. These Level with visible markings being necessary to support AV lane-keeping 5 AVs will run on electricity and connect to digital networks that share and navigation (Johnson, 2017). This requirement alone means that information to optimize the entire fleet (NRMA, 2017). However, many roads will need major upgrades, including in Australia where to achieve this, reliable, safe, and commercially viable technologies many regional and rural roads are not delineated (Peiris et al., 2020). need to be developed and supported; technologies helping vehicles Road signage will need to be replaced and harmonized with formats sense their environment, navigate, and communicate with other vehi- that AVs are programed to recognize across all regions (Liu, Tight cles and digital networks. However, before the introduction to pub- et al., 2019; Lyon et al., 2017). Plans for maintaining sign visibility lic roads, their reliability and safety need to be examined and tested will be important, with obstructions from objects such as roadside (Kalra & Paddock, 2016a). Important to the speed of this process will vegetation potentially interfering with AV functionality. Street 4 Australasian Marketing Journal 00(0) lighting may also need re-examination, to ensure day and night sign Haboucha et al., 2017; Nordhoff et al., 2018; Sener et al., 2019; visibility (Liu, Tight et al., 2019). Zmud et al., 2016), and believing AVs to be safe (Zmud et al., Infrastructure to support connections for AVs will need to be fast, 2016). People who currently have vehicles with automated features reliable, and safe. Connected AVs will be fitted with technology (Kyriakidis et al., 2015; Zmud et al., 2016) have been in car acci- allowing them to communicate with other vehicles, infrastructure, dents (Bansal et al., 2016), commute long distances (Montoro et al., and broader digital networks (Liu, Tight et al., 2019). For full func- 2019; Nordhoff et al., 2018; Shabanpour et al., 2018), and have tionality, input sensors will be needed in-road and above-road to higher intentions to use AV. monitor conditions and optimize travel (Liu, Tight et al., 2019; Lyon Studies exploring interventions to improve attitudes have found et al., 2017). Further, the use of digital maps with real-time informa- promising avenues to promote change. Increasing people’s aware- tion can provide network support (Liu, Tight et al., 2019). Ensuring ness and knowledge of AVs by conveying information about the continual, reliable access will require modification to some existing potential benefits has shown to increase willingness to ride in them infrastructure, such as underground car parks, where Wi-Fi signals (Anania et al., 2018). Providing people with the opportunity to have may fail to reach (Liu, Tight et al., 2019). hands-on experience with AV technology, such as being a passenger, Initial introduction of AVs will see a mixed fleet scenario where has also shown to increase positive attitudes and acceptance (Feys conventional, partially automated, and fully autonomous vehicles et al., 2021). However, research warns that negative information, share roadways. During this period, road users will be traveling in such as potential risks, could reduce riding intentions (Anania et al., vehicles with differing automation profiles and maintaining safety will 2018). The way that AVs are adopted is also likely to be influenced be important as conventional drivers may not understand the behav- by public perception. iors of automated vehicles, while drivers of partially automated vehi- Many of the anticipated benefits of AV introduction have an cles will potentially have to control their vehicles (Martínez-Díaz & underlying assumption that a shared-ownership or ride-sharing Soriguera, 2018). During this transition, retaining and implementing model will be predominant, compared to privately-owned (Fagnant appropriate safety infrastructure will allow safe use of roadways by all & Kockelman, 2014; Stoiber et al., 2019). A shared model scenario vehicle types. For instance, exploration of the feasibility of segregating could also be where AVs become part of the public transport sys- conventional and Avs for a time, retaining emergency stopping areas, tem in the form of robotaxis—already a reality in China (Dai et al., and ensuring all-important road information is visible to those not 2021). In a shared model, AVs will operate more efficiently as acces- connected to network infrastructure will be important (Johnson, 2017; sibility will be broader, with the financial burden of purchasing AVs Liu, Tight et al., 2019). Once a sufficient saturation of Level 4 and 5 not required. Where a privately-owned AV might spend time station- Avs is reached, a full transition to AV driving can be made, and new ary or driving to unoccupied parking locations, shared vehicles can purpose-built infrastructure is adopted (Liu, Tight et al., 2019). be redirected to other users. Likewise, a pooled shared-ownership The country’s expansive road network also presents an issue with model can further enhance benefits by reducing overall vehicle most roads requiring major upgrades before AVs can drive on them miles traveled and preventing increased road congestion (Fagnant & (Peiris et al., 2020). The most in need of upgrades will be rural and Kockelman, 2015). regional roads, which account for 80% of roads and two-thirds of Research by Li et al. (2022) suggests that these robotaxis (shared road fatalities (Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional ownership) could serve as a useful transitional option for consumers. Development, Communications and the Arts, 2021; Peiris et al., Specifically, by providing consumers an opportunity to experience 2020). The impacts of planning for AVs in a country that lacks an the benefits of AVs through robotaxis, this has the potential to help automotive industry and is not currently incentivizing EVs will also alleviate and existing concerns or hesitations they (the consumer) need attention, with Australia likely to import overseas technologies may have about purchasing their own AVs for private use. Once (Theoto & Kaminski, 2019). more, this underscores the significance of consumer education in influencing AV adoption in the future. In Australia, further research into understanding the role of public Public perceptions and awareness factors sentiment will be important, as current research has suggested that Without public acceptance and a desire for AVs, the number of AVs awareness of AVs is low, and a large portion of people do not intend on the road will remain low, and the benefits of a connected AV sys- to use them (Pettigrew et al., 2019). One of the primary reasons tem will not be realized (Golbabaei et al., 2020). Fostering broad is that the Australian public’s exposure to autonomous vehicles is uptake of AVs will involve participation from several stakeholders, limited to shuttle buses (National Transport Commission, n.d.). In including government, industry, and the public themselves (KPMG, contrast, countries such as China have already conducted large-scale 2019). Within the general population, early adopters of innovative testing of the technology through robotaxis (Li et al., 2022). and disruptive technologies are important in influencing broader uptake. They increase technology visibility and can provide positive Methodology user reviews (Pettigrew et al., 2019). Research has identified several demographic, psychological, and A qualitative approach was chosen to understand the key drivers and mobility factors that are associated with more positive views and barriers to the adoption and implementation of AVs. Additionally, the adoption intentions toward AVs (Golbabaei et al., 2020). AV early study aimed to determine the relevance of previously identified driv- adopters are likely to be male (Bansal et al., 2016; Hudson et al., ers and barriers from past research for Australia. This was achieved 2019; Piao et al., 2016), younger (Haboucha et al., 2017; Hudson through semi-structured expert interviews focused on the four areas et al., 2019; Liu, Guo et al., 2019), highly educated (Haboucha et al., of interest, derived from the literature review: Policy and Legislation, 2017; Hudson et al., 2019; Montoro et al., 2019), affluent (Bansal Infrastructure, Technology, and Public Acceptance. & Kockelman, 2017; Bansal et al., 2016; Kyriakidis et al., 2015), and live in densely populated urban areas (Bansal et al., 2016; Participants and sampling Cunningham et al., 2019; Hudson et al., 2019). Psychological fac- tors include being more knowledgeable about AVs (Kyriakidis A total of 18 experts from private and public organizations deemed et al., 2015; Penmetsa et al., 2019), tech-savvy (Bansal et al., 2016; to have vast industry experience in AV adoption were interviewed. Lim et al. 5 Table 1. Thematic Analysis Results Summary. Key area Core themes Sub-themes Policy and Legislation Establishment of a clear and consistent Liability attribution; Support and regulation of AV testing; AV regulatory framework governing AVs manufacturing design standards Infrastructure Consensus on the development of necessary Infrastructure requirements to accommodate AVs; Investment infrastructure to accommodate AVs and funding concerns; Nationally consistent infrastructure Technology and Innovation Development of reliable and commercially Technology readiness; Fuel technology; Commercial viability viable AV technology Public Perception and Awareness Broad public acceptance of AVs Risk and safety concerns; Mobility and vehicle ownership trends; Affordability; Education Cooperation between key stakeholders Playing the “waiting game” Judgment sampling and experts were recruited based on: (1) each Sub-theme: Risk and liability attribution. Risk & Liability attri- having a minimum of 3 years of work or research experience in at bution was identified as one of the key barriers to AV introduction and least one of the four areas; and (2) having had been involved with adoption in Australia. The findings support that, for a fully automated work on Australia’s overall “readiness” for AVs. Key characteris- vehicle, the driver relinquishes controls to the vehicle’s operation and tics of the experts are provided in Appendix 1. While there is no therefore transfers any liability to the manufacturer. However, attrib- prescribed sample size requirement for qualitative research (Boddy, uting liability becomes complicated with partial automation, where 2016), a widely accepted criterion for discontinuing data collection the driving role is shared. In these cases, identifying the party at fault and/or analysis is data saturation, which began occurring around 18 becomes much complicated. This complexity is highlighted by the interviews. Further, with the study being exploratory, the sample size response of R3: “How do you determine at which point, if the car was deemed appropriate. mentions that it needs help, it is your fault for not responding? It gets really messy because nobody wants to be held liable.” Aside from human error and the possibility of software mal- Research instrument and data collection procedure function, respondents raised the issue of “cybersecurity.” For AVs Face-to-face and over-the-phone interviews were conducted. The to function effectively, they combine cameras, sensors, and onboard face-to-face interviews took place in Western Australia (where computers to communicate with their surroundings to sense potential the research team is based in). Each interview lasted 30–60 min. The dangers. This would require AVs to be connected to a network where interviews were audio-recorded with permission obtained by the large data transfers between a vehicle and its environment can take interviewees and transcribed verbatim for the qualitative analysis. place, putting the vehicle at risk of attacks from malicious hackers. The semi-structured interview guide was developed through a R3 indicated that “there is the threat of cybersecurity if the vehicle is workshop consisting of experts from the research team and three hacked. Who will fault be attributed to?” industry professionals that worked in the automotive industry with As such, agreeing on a standardized legal framework to manage prior experience with AVs. The workshop was aimed at ensuring the these complex liability issues is important toward the large-scale questions were appropriate, relevant to research objectives, and com- introduction of AVs. For instance, R8 said: “A clear liability frame- prehensible. The first three interviews were treated as pilot tests and work needs to be established. For example, when Uber had an acci- minor improvements to question structure and order were made. The dent in the US, they settled out of court for $10 million in the matter final set of questions are in Appendix 2. of days. What that means is that a precedent hasn’t really been set. Vehicle manufacturers are essentially continuing to press forward to Method of analysis test their vehicles, and what they are risking is a massive liability suit if something goes wrong.” Reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was used to identify themes from the data collected. The coding and theme devel- Sub-theme: Support and regulation of AV testing. Findings also opment process, involving six researchers, followed the six-phase pro- highlighted the need for convincing evidence proving that AVs can cess: data familiarization; coding; generating initial themes; reviewing perform safely and effectively under real-world conditions. How- themes; defining and naming each theme; and writing up. Steps 1–3 ever, respondents have echoed concerns about how Australia’s poli- were conducted individually while steps 4–6 were performed collabo- cies and legislations hinder the testing of AVs compared to other ratively in a workshop to reduce individual researcher bias. countries, where legislative requirements to test AVs on public roads are less restrictive. For instance, R13 said: “Today you can’t be on the road in an autonomous vehicle without breaking the law.” This is Results and analysis echoed by R16: “We tried to do some autonomous vehicle trials in Five core themes and 11 sub-themes emerged from the analysis (Table 1), [Western Australia] and it was just so difficult to do an open road representing important drivers and barriers that need addressing for test. The restrictions on this were so severe we decided to drop that AVs to be introduced and adopted successfully in Australia. part of the program. . . It’s really tough in Australia, and you don’t see that in the US and Europe.” Theme 1: Establishment of a regulatory framework Sub-theme: Establishment of AV manufacturing design standards. governing AVs Some respondents highlighted that a unified design standard for The results supported past research which indicated that regulatory AVs would represent an important step toward successful adoption action may either hinder or propel the progress of AVs (Fagnant & in Australia. Without a national standard in place, manufacturers Kockelman, 2015). will struggle to obtain the necessary certification to export AVs into 6 Australasian Marketing Journal 00(0) Australia. R1 suggests that: “A critical signpost is when the Com- Sub-theme: Investment and funding responsibility concerns. monwealth has in place design rules that recognize an appropriate Nevertheless, our findings show that some level of investment into software system. When these design rules are in place, and when they improving existing infrastructure is still necessary to accommodate call for manufacturers to certify their vehicles, that would be the AVs. However, what these changes or upgrades are and the extent of turning point in Australia.” Specifically, Australia will need to har- transformation is still unclear. Due to this uncertainty, the Australian monize national vehicle standards for AVs with international regula- government has been hesitant in making infrastructure investment tions. R2 supports this by indicating: “Because these things are going decisions. R15 suggested that “From the government’s perspective, to be universal, there is a move to align with the world standard in it’s important not to invest too early because there are uncertainties terms of design rules. The European system will be the standard that in the technology that will be used.” Australia will follow and that would then enable the vehicle manu- Some respondents also highlighted the issue of funding to support facturer to be fairly confident that they are facing the same regula- changes/upgrades. R3 indicated: “Budgeting is a big issue. Where tory system no matter which country they are going into; Australia does the money come from to accommodate this technology?” This should not get ahead of international development. We don’t want to issue of funding responsibility is further complicated by the fact that put in place [rules] that may not be appropriate and go our own not all roads are government owned. R4 indicated: “In Sydney, there route.” This harmonization is also important for AV manufacturers is nothing has been done to accommodate AV. They are now identify- from a financial perspective, as R4 suggested: “We need to look at the ing what needs to be done. It will be [a] massive change because a best practices that are being implemented around the world and try lot of roads are not controlled by [the] government, it is controlled to harmonize with the other countries. . .if the country is different by private government partnership. Proper road upgrades will be from the rest of the world, it will cost more money to get certified; it very difficult.” doesn’t justify the introduction of AVs.” Sub-theme: Need for nationally consistent infrastructure. There needs to be a consistent and standardized approach to infrastructure decisions across Australia’s states and territories. R4 highlighted that Theme 2: Consensus on necessary infrastructure to “The implementation of AVs in Australia will be in a very long time accommodate AVs because our road infrastructure is different from state to state. We Existing AV research has indicated that upgrades to existing infra- need to achieve harmonization in terms of infrastructure.” Encourag- structure are necessary before AVs can be introduced on roads (Liu, ingly, there is some evidence that efforts are underway in creating Tight et al., 2019). However, the interviews revealed mixed views, consistency in the infrastructure nationally. R18 said: “There’s cur- with some respondents stating that AV technology is likely to advance rently a line–marking project in Australia looking at making the road to a point where it can adapt to existing infrastructure. markings consistent nationally.” Sub-theme: Understanding infrastructure requirements to accom- Theme 3: Development of reliable and commercially modate AVs. An AV relies on its ability to communicate and per- ceive what is happening in its surrounding to function effectively. viable AV technology For example, AVs use camera systems to detect, read, and interpret For AVs to be deemed market-ready, manufacturers need to prove traffic signs and line markings to safely navigate. Specifically, that their technology is reliable and can handle complex road scenar- some respondents have highlighted the importance of quality road ios without requiring human intervention (Kalra & Paddock, 2016b). infrastructure. For instance, R7 said: “AVs like to have clear line markings, consistent signage, and good quality roads.” However, Sub-theme: AV technology readiness. The current state of AV tech- the extent of road infrastructure changes required to accommodate nology indicates that AVs are not yet market ready. The technology AVs is still unclear. This is highlighted by contrasting views has not reached a point at which vehicles can handle all possible between respondents over the ability of AVs to adapt to existing road scenarios safely and efficiently. For instance, R11 indicated: infrastructure. For instance, R9 indicated that: “It seems like the “There needs to be a self-driving algorithm that can handle streets vehicle manufacturers are saying AVs will be able to drive on exist- where traffic is complex. However, the technology is not quite there ing road infrastructure.” However, R16 said: “Three to four years yet when you’re talking about city driving.” R7 concurred: “From ago, the view was that AVs would be infrastructure-free, but the what I have seen from AVs, they are still unable to deal with unex- reality is that we are not likely to get there, so we will need to pected situations such as unscheduled roadworks or a tree that has change all the infrastructure that we currently have in place.” fallen onto the road. Human intervention is still required in these Moreover, the type of vehicle communications technology instances.” the vehicle uses impacts its ability to communicate effectively. The only way for technology to improve is through more AV Specifically, the type of communication infrastructure required trials across a range of driving conditions. While many of these would depend on the type of vehicle communications technology, trials are happening overseas, Australia appears to be lagging. R4 or V2X technology, that would be installed. The two main options said “We need to get some real-life AV trials happening. We are cur- are DSRC and C-V2X. However, consensus was lacking among rently running trials in Korea, California, and Europe. The problem respondents. R16 indicated that: “In the US, it is going to be man- with Australia is that we have done a very poor job in preparing dated that every vehicle will be equipped with a V2X system by 2021 ourselves for electric and AVs.” More specifically, while there is or 2022. The current dominant technology used for the V2X system evidence of AV trials happening in Australia, they have been con- is DSRC, which is backed by Toyota and GM. However, there is cur- ducted in restricted, controlled settings and environments. AVs rently a push to switch to 5G (C-V2X) over DSRC. R11 concurred must be exposed to real traffic and driving conditions to facilitate with this lack of consensus: “We have put in place DSRC communi- further technological fine-tuning. R1 indicated that: “More data and cation both to help in terms of positioning and augmentation as well evidence is still needed around AVs operating in high traffic areas. as in terms of communicating traffic light phases. But we are looking Specifically, AV trials are constrained to restricted areas that are at 5G (C-V2X) as well.” tightly controlled.” Lim et al. 7 Sub-theme: Fuel-technology requirements. The preceding sections private consumption.”” While R13 highlighted that: “The use for AVs have presented compelling evidence indicating that autonomous for public transport [may be a social trend which would accelerate vehicles (AVs) are most likely to be powered by battery-electric tech- the intro of AV]. An AV bus for example.” However, whichever path- nology (NRMA, 2017). This is primarily due to the high-power way is eventually taken will also likely depend on the associated demands of AVs (Baxter et al., 2018), which necessitates a reliable costs of using or owning an AV. R10 indicated that “There are a and sustainable power source. Furthermore, many EU countries have bunch of trends suggesting that people are willing to use on-demand committed to phasing out the production and import of new petrol services and tailored services if there can be a cost-competitive and diesel vehicles over the next two decades, reinforcing battery- proposition.” electric and other zero-emission alternatives as the preferred fuel Sub-theme: Affordability. While positive public perception of AVs source for AV manufacturers (Dugdale, 2018, 2019; World Economic is important, its affordability will ultimately determine its uptake Forum, 2015). (Bansal & Kockelman, 2017; Rahimi et al., 2020). Currently, it is This is also corroborated by the respondents. R15 suggested that: still relatively expensive, and while economies of scale will gradu- “There is a high chance that automated vehicles will be EVs. What ally occur, there is a chance that wide-scale adoption may be limited you see quite quickly, before high levels of automation, is an increas- to a select affluent few. R4 indicated that: “We are working to make ing electric vehicle fleet around the world.” R16 expressed a similar AVs affordable for the public. Our goal is to make the technology sentiment: “In the future, all AVs are going to be electric and con- affordable and widely accepted.” Furthermore, R12 highlighted: “I nected. They are the two fundamental components that regulators in think if we’re not careful, AVs will become something only the rich the US and Europe are tackling now.” can afford and use or the tech-savvy will use because they’re com- fortable or people who are in that early adoption phase of the curve Sub-theme: Commercial viability of AVs. Another common theme will be willing to embrace.” from the interviews is the commercial viability of AVs where man- ufacturing costs are currently a significant barrier; particularly for Sub-theme: Educating consumers. Research has shown that famili- associated in-vehicle technologies. R8 indicated that: “Most AVs arity and knowledge have a positive influence on consumer accept- currently use LiDAR, which makes manufacturing AVs very costly. ance of AVs (Berliner et al., 2019). Hence, the importance of Cheap sensor solutions need to be found to make AVs commercially educating consumers about the technology is critical. R4 said: “In viable.” order to take the AV technology to the next level, the right education is needed, remembering we already have different levels of autonomy Theme 4: Achievement of broad public acceptance in current cars, but not many people have been exposed to it.” Unfor- of AVs tunately, the respondents indicate that very little has been done in consumer education within Australia. R16 indicated that: “Currently For AVs to be adopted, broad acceptance among the public is needed. in Australia, public exposure to AVs has been limited to autonomous For this to happen, the value propositions for AVs alongside the risks shuttle buses. It’s a good soft introduction; however, it doesn’t inform involved need to be communicated and addressed. Specifically, the public about things such as the necessary changes required to respondents have highlighted several factors that would influence support AVs. That’s one of the reasons why we don’t have a strong public acceptance. take-up of smart infrastructure and electric vehicles, which are Sub-theme: Risk and safety concerns. Research has found that AVs important components to driving AV adoption in Australia.” This is perceived as being unsafe is one of the biggest barriers to adoption also expressed by R4: “The government is currently doing a poor job (Autonomous Vehicle Survey Report, 2019). This safety concern at preparing and educating the public about AVs.” While some begins with those inside the AV and extends to others as well. This is respondents have identified the government as the one that should be corroborated across the interviews, whereby R12 said: “Safety is one driving information dissemination and building awareness for AVs, of the critical things the public wants to be assured of. Not only for others have suggested that consumer advocacy groups such as motor- their own safety, but also the safety of other people.” Furthermore, ing clubs may be better positioned to nurture positive perceptions. some respondents also emphasized how the tolerance of error for an R6 indicated that: “Automobile clubs are in the prime seat to educate AV compared to a non-AV is much lower. R7 highlighted that: “The the public about AVs. They are more likely to be perceived to have the tolerance for error in the public’s eyes will be extremely low. . .the public’s best interests at heart. . .” key difference is they are not in control in an AV compared to a non- AV. This is one of the biggest challenges.” Aside from the physical Theme 5: Cooperation between key stakeholders risks that AVs pose, respondents also highlighted other societal con- cerns such as job losses for those in transportation. R14 suggested Another major barrier and driver of AVs in Australia is the coop- that: “The introduction of AVs will have a significant impact on eration between key stakeholders. Due to the potential impact that employment. What needs to be addressed will be around the jobs that the introduction of AVs can have, respondents have highlighted that will go away and the jobs that will be created.” This concern was coordinated effort between key stakeholders such as the government, shared by R9: “It will have an impact on jobs, so there may need to AV manufacturers, and consumer advocacy groups is needed. R11 be a skill shift.” indicated that: “For AVs to be successfully adopted, both industry and governments need to work together. It shouldn’t be just trans- Sub-theme: Mobility and vehicle ownership trends. How AVs will port authorities that drive this; it is also our economic agencies, the be adopted is likely to depend on how mobility and vehicle owner- police, public transport operators, insurance companies, and so on. ship preferences evolve (Pettigrew et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020). The wider public also needs to be involved in the discussions.” Specifically, the two main pathways for adoption are: AVs introduced as an on-demand mobility service (e.g. taxis, ride-share); or mass- Sub-theme: Playing the “waiting game”. From the interviews, how- marketed for private consumption. Most respondents anticipate the ever, there is a general sense that AV manufacturers and governments first pathway, as R8 indicated: “AVs are more likely to be offered by are playing a “waiting game.” For example, AV manufacturers are on-demand mobility services as opposed to being available for waiting on the government to establish policies and guidelines before 8 Australasian Marketing Journal 00(0) Figure 1. Thematic conceptualization of factors influencing AV adoption. they can commit to introducing AVs. Whereas governments are wait- responsible for the development and deployment of AVs and making ing for AV manufacturers to clarify the technological readiness and them available for end-users. Moreover, most of the existing litera- specific infrastructure changes required for AVs to function safely ture focuses on each stakeholder group independently, rather than and effectively. R16 mentioned that “Vehicle manufacturers are only exploring their interrelationships and interdependencies. Our study moving at the speed of legislation” and R4 also indicated that “From addresses the gap in the literature by utilizing a qualitative approach our company’s perspective, we have the technology right now, but we and a highly specialized sample of key opinion leaders to provide a just can’t deploy it anywhere. The regulation, agreed standards, and more holistic and inclusive framework for the introduction and adop- infrastructure are not ready to accommodate AVs.” This sentiment is tion of AV in Australia. Our results offer important insights for the also shared by R9: “Infrastructure and technology are a little bit like challenges and opportunities facing these stakeholders, highlight- the chicken-and-egg dilemma. At this stage, it’s hard to determine ing the need for a collaborative approach that involves all relevant whether it’s the changes/upgrades in infrastructure or the improve- parties in establishing a regulatory framework, building necessary ments in AV technology that needs to occur first before AVs can be infrastructure, developing reliable and commercially viable AV tech- successfully implemented on public roads.” nology, achieving broad public acceptance, and promoting coopera- Figure 1 represents a thematic framework that summarizes the tion among key stakeholders. Furthermore, our findings demonstrate key themes and sub-themes according to our subject experts. The seven key conclusions that have significant implications both theo- graphic depicts the interrelatedness between the different themes retically and practically. synthesized from the qualitative data from the interviews. Table 2 provides a summary of the interrelatedness between specific themes Conclusion 1: Significant role of government role in and sub-themes discussed earlier. It aims to illustrate the connections regulating and facilitating AV adoption between the different concepts and how they impact each other in the This study highlights that governments will be essential in facili- context of AV technology adoption. tating the development and pace of adoption of AVs. This can only occur through the establishment of a clear and consistent regulatory Discussion and implications framework governing AVs that encompass design guidelines, testing Most existing studies on AV adoption have focused on the end- policies, and infrastructure investments. Furthermore, liability attri- user’s attitudes and perceptions as well as their influence on user bution becomes more complex during the partial automation (Levels acceptance and adoption preferences. However, the existing litera- 3 and 4) stages, therefore a clear review of policies and legislation ture remains limited in terms of considering the perspectives of key around the attribution of liability is necessary. This notion is sup- stakeholders, including government, policy makers, technology pro- ported by Pöllänen et al. (2020), who found that respondents attrib- viders, and vehicle manufacturers. These stakeholders are ultimately uted more blame for crashes involving fully AVs to manufacturers Lim et al. 9 Table 2. Summary of Key Interrelatedness Between Different Themes and Sub-themes. Relationship Description Support & Regulation of AV Testing ⇔ AV The true test of whether the technology will be ready depends on its ability to operate safely and effectively on Technology Readiness public roads. Therefore, it is critical that there are regulations in place to support AV testing on public roads. Understanding Infrastructure Requirements Whether or not infrastructure upgrades are needed depends on the evolution of the technology. There are two to Accommodate AVs ⇔ AV Technology main opposing views on this matter. The first view suggests that AV technology will be able to adapt to and function Readiness effectively with the existing road and communication infrastructure. The second view suggests that upgrades and improvements to the existing road and communication infrastructure will be necessary to accommodate AVs. Understanding Infrastructure Requirements In addition to road and communication upgrades, the choice of fuel technology adopted by AVs will also to Accommodate Avs ⇔ Fuel-technology influence infrastructure requirements. For instance, if AVs are powered by battery-electric technology, Requirements availability of charging stations will be likely to influence AV adoption from a practicality standpoint. Commercial Viability of AVs ⇔ Mobility Depending on how mobility and vehicle ownership evolve, there is a possible scenario where AVs become a and Vehicle Ownership Trends mode of public transport, owned, and operated by the public sector. For instance, Robo-taxis are currently being trialled around the world in countries like China and the United States, which could potentially pave the way for publicly owned AVs. This would mean that instead of owning a vehicle, individuals would be able to access AVs as a service, much like public transportation. This could be a more profitable and realistic scenario from a commercial viability perspective for AV manufacturers, as it would enable them to supply AVs to a larger market and generate revenue through service-based business models Commercial Viability of AVs ⇔ The commercial viability of privately-owned AVs will depend on the ability of vehicle manufacturers to Affordability make them affordable for mass production. For AVs to be widely adopted, vehicle manufacturers must scale production and reduce production costs to a level that is affordable to the end-user. Risk and Liability Attribution ⇔ Risk and To achieve broad public acceptance, it is crucial to establish unambiguous legislation concerning risk and liability Safety Concerns attribution, as this would help to alleviate any perceived safety and risk concerns surrounding autonomous vehicles The success of AV adoption will ultimately depend on the coordinated efforts of key stakeholders, such as the Cooperation between Key Stakeholders ⇔ government and policy makers, AV manufacturers, and Public Advocacy Groups. Governments and policy makers Establishment of a Regulatory Framework must work collaboratively with AV manufacturers to ensure the safe introduction of AVs onto public roads, Governing AVs, Consensus on Necessary with appropriate regulations in place to protect the well-being of all road users. Furthermore, government and Infrastructure to Accommodate AVs, consumer advocacy groups should work together to ensure that the public is well-informed about the technology Development of Reliable and Commercially before it is formally introduced to the market. By working together, these stakeholders can ensure that AV Viable AV Technology and Achievement of adoption is successful and that the benefits of the technology are realized in a safe and effective manner. Broad Public Acceptance of AVs and the government as opposed to the driver compared to non-auton- interact with the surrounding environment. As a result, AVs must omous and semi-AVs. be connected to a network to enable large data transfers, making This extends existing literature on innovation adoption and tech- them vulnerable to cyber-attacks from malicious hackers (Sheehan nology diffusion models (Yuen et al., 2021), which have traditionally et al., 2019). The views expressed by respondents on privacy con- focused on consumers and end-users. Specifically, our study demon- cerns regarding data usage, sharing, and storage echo the findings of strates that the adoption of complex innovations such as AVs requires Jannusch et al. (2021), who emphasized the need to regulate personal a much broader perspective that accounts for the roles and perspec- data usage to protect human life. tives of key stakeholders such as the government and policy makers, From a theoretical perspective, existing literature has examined as well as the consideration of macro-environmental factors such as the acceptance of AVs using various frameworks, including TAM, economic, political, and social conditions. This is particularly impor- TPB, and UTAUT (e.g. Golbabaei et al., 2020). However, these theo- tant given that the adoption and diffusion of AVs is likely to have ries predominantly focus on the perceived benefits of the technology significant implications for society. Practically, this means that AV and do not adequately address individual factors such as trustworthi- manufacturers need to take into account the regulatory requirements ness and privacy concerns (Lancelot Miltgen et al., 2013). Therefore, and guidelines set forth by the government while designing and test- our study highlights the need for more research to integrate knowl- ing their AVs. Moreover, they need to collaborate with government edge from technology adoption theories with trust and privacy agencies and policy makers to address the complex liability issues research fields (e.g. Hegner et al., 2019; Kaur & Rampersad, 2018) that arise during the partial automation stages. On the other hand, to provide a more holistic understanding of AV acceptance. government agencies and policy makers need to create a regula- Australia’s limited exposure to AVs and the complexity of safety tory framework that promotes the development and adoption of AVs and liability issues pose significant challenges (Lyon et al., 2017). while ensuring the safety of road users. Such a framework should As other countries are already conducting actual testing on public include guidelines for AV design, testing policies, and infrastructure roads, it is even more critical for Australia to develop policies based investments. on real-world testing specific to the country. For instance, in the US, regulation to permit the introduction of AVs on public roads require evidence gathered from operational testing in real traffic situations Conclusion 2: Addressing safety, liability, and data (Lee & Hess, 2020). To ensure effective policies, it is essential to privacy issues through policy harmonization harmonize them with international best practices while also con- Our findings emphasize the importance of addressing two criti- sidering local conditions. Therefore, gleaning from international cal concerns, data privacy and security, that AV manufacturers and best practices can be a useful starting point for Australia to develop policy makers need to work together to resolve before introducing appropriate AV policies. However, due to the complexity of safety the technology to the market. The operation of AVs depends on an and liability issues, it is crucial to conduct actual testing in real-world intricate network of sensors, cameras, and onboard computers that conditions within the country. 10 Australasian Marketing Journal 00(0) petrol cars with autonomous systems would result in considerably Conclusion 3: Regulating AV testing and establishing higher fuel consumption, exceeding current emission standards. unified design standards in Australia Therefore, a country’s preparedness in terms of EV infrastructure Additionally, the regulation of testing AVs needs to be adaptive as and technology is likely to have a significant impact on its ability technology evolves so as not to hinder or unintentionally restrict its to adopt AVs successfully. This implies that the Australian govern- development (Kalra & Paddock, 2016b). In Australia, the National ment and industry partners needs to prioritize the development of Transport Commission has been working toward a national frame- infrastructure to support EV deployment to facilitate AV adoption. work to regulate AV testing and allow for more flexibility in where Discouragingly, EVs in Australia only represent 0.78% new car and how AV trials can take place (National Transport Commission, sales in 2020 compared to the global average of 4.2%, which is n.d.). However, the general sentiment from the interviews is that the reflected in Australia ranking last for “government leadership and current policies and regulations are insufficient because (1) most AV the maturity of its EV market” and second last for “availability of trials take place in restricted and controlled settings, and (2) cur- charging infrastructure” in the Arcadis Annual Global EV Catalyst rent Australian policies and legislation only accommodate limited Index (Read, 2021). At the time of writing, there are only three hydro- deployment of vehicles for testing. gen-car refueling stations in Australia. This would mean a significant Further, the Australian government requires all road vehicles, whe- expenditure to installing alternative fueling stations to support the ther manufactured in Australia or imported, comply with the relevant successful introduction of AVs in Australia. Swift action is needed ADRs (Australian Design Rules) which are national standards for from the government and policymakers to encourage the adoption of vehicle safety, anti-theft, and emissions (Department of Infrastructure, EVs through the introduction of government incentives and rebates Transport, Regional Development and Communications, n.d.). A uni- for EV purchases and increased investment charging infrastructure. fied design standard for AVs was cited in the interviews as an impor- tant step toward their successful adoption in Australia. Specifically, Conclusion 5: Communication and education respondents highlighted that Australia should work in tandem with key to improving public acceptance overseas governments so that there are no conflicting design stand- ards for manufacturers when importing AVs. Hence, it is important Consumer education is integral to the acceptance of innovative tech- for AV manufacturers, the government and policy makers to work nology (N. Liu et al., 2020). Recent reports show that both industry collaboratively to ensure that policies and regulations keep up with experts and regulators view consumer concerns as one of the big- technological advancements. This includes actively engaging in the gest threats to AV growth (Autonomous Vehicle Survey Report, development of adaptive regulations that allow for flexibility and 2019). As emphasized by one of the respondents, “Safety is one of evolution as the technology advances. By doing so, this creates a the critical things the public wants to be assured of.” Respondents conducive environment for the successful adoption and deployment of highlighted that this aspect of safety is not limited to those operat- AVs in Australia while minimizing regulatory and compliance risks. ing the AV but extends to others as well. With current public sen- timent being somewhat negative, largely fueled by several highly publicized fatal accidents (Wakabayashi, 2018), the ability of AV Conclusion 4: Navigating the uncertainty of AV manufacturers to demonstrate that AVs will reduce road crashes and infrastructure requirements and funding in Australia fatal accidents through the elimination of driver error is paramount The findings show that there is uncertainty around infrastructure (Thorpe & Motwani, 2017). Moreover, respondents also highlighted requirements necessary to accommodate AVs on public roads. Speci- that consumers are more likely to have a lower tolerance of error for fically, the interviews indicate mixed views on whether infrastructure AVs compared to non-AVs; Bennett et al. (2020) found that as the upgrades/changes are necessary. Some respondents believe that AVs level of automation increases, the blame on the vehicle manufacturer will be infrastructure-free (i.e. adapting to existing infrastructure), increased. whereas others assert that AVs will be infrastructure dependant (i.e. Unfortunately, respondents have highlighted that little effort has infrastructure upgrade/changes needed). Respondents highlighted been made to educate the public about AV technology in Australia. the government’s decisions about infrastructure investments are Currently, exposure to Avs within Australia is limited to autono- dependent on how AV technology evolves. Furthermore, differences in mous shuttle buses, as noted by the Automated Vehicle Program at state regulations and infrastructure funding add complexities around the National Transport Commission (n.d.). Given this limited expo- who (i.e. federal, state, or local government) will fund upgrades/ sure and educational outreach efforts within the country (Austroads, changes and how the associated costs will be distributed among n.d.), it is imperative to implement increased public education and different stakeholders. The speed of innovation and technological awareness campaigns to create greater exposure and alleviate per- advancement will also determine when AVs will emerge on public ceived risks. Additionally, integrating research on privacy and trust roads in Australia. However, existing research (Batsch et al., 2022) is essential to better understand the acceptance of this complex and this study suggest that AV technology is still unable to handle technology, as highlighted by Hegner et al. (2019) and Kaur and complex scenarios safely and reliably in public road conditions. To Rampersad (2018). To ensure positive consumer responses, two achieve this, AV trials are required in improving their reliability and key stakeholders—governments and consumer advocacy groups functionality. Unfortunately, AV trials in Australia are currently hin- must work collaboratively to communicate the benefits of AVs to dered by existing policies and regulations. Managerially, it is neces- the public. sary for the Australian government to advocate for adaptive policies and regulations that allow for AV trials in real-world conditions. Conclusion 6: Private versus public ownership The findings align with previous research (NRMA, 2017), with models of AVs respondents favoring zero-emission alternatives (such as battery- electric) as the most likely power source for AVs. Baxter et al. (2018) Past research suggests that public perception will influence how AVs also found that AVs require more power to support critical in-vehicle are adopted. For the anticipated benefits to be realized (e.g. reduced technologies, which traditional petrol fuel cannot provide. Equipping emissions, mobility increases for elderly and disabled populations, Lim et al. 11 and a more efficient transport system), there is an underlying be useful to develop hypotheses and test the identified factors more assumption that a shared-ownership or ride-sharing model of AVs objectively. Second, while due diligence was taken in developing the will be predominant, compared to a privately-owned model (Fagnant interview guide, additional dimensions associated with AV adoption & Kockelman, 2014; Stoiber et al., 2019). This view is corrobo- may have been omitted. Figure 1 provides future studies a useful rated in the interviews suggesting that AVs would serve as an “on- framework to help guide question development for future studies. demand mobility service” as opposed to private consumption, partly Finally, we acknowledge that although our paper aims to focus influenced by growing concerns about environmental sustainability, on Level 5 automation, there may be technological challenges that parking, and congestion alongside the high costs of purchasing and prevent this level of automation from being achieved. Therefore, maintaining a vehicle. The data also indicates that consumers con- future studies should consider investigating the influence and impact sider alternative ways of commuting and are gradually becoming less of each of the factors identified in Figure 1 within the context of interested in private car ownership. However, in Australia, the case Levels 3 and 4 individually. This could provide valuable insights into for AVs being available for private consumption is still viable, as the challenges and opportunities presented by partial automation and car ownership is still perceived as important. For example, a study provide a solid foundation for the potential achievement of Level 5 by Moody et al. (2021) found that consumers value the freedom automation. Such insights can further contribute to the development and flexibility to travel whenever the need arises, and the perceived of a comprehensive framework that considers the various aspects of status associated with owning a vehicle. AV technology and its adoption. Theoretically and managerially, these current findings are novel and significant. Existing research has primarily focus on consumers’ Declaration of conflicting interests adoption intention of AV for private ownership. However, the current The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect research highlight that AV adoption is a complex and multifaceted, to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. and the technology can be adopted in different models such as a pub- lic ownership and even services such as on-demand mobility. The findings therefore prompt researchers and practitioners within the AV Funding or vehicle industry to consider possible scenarios and product and/ The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for or service as well as consumers acceptance of these different facets the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We would that can arises from AV technology. Furthermore, our findings high- like to acknowledge RAC Insurance for funding and supporting this light the crucial role of public acceptance not only in driving but also research. in consuming private or public services afforded by AV. Practically, AV manufacturers and policymakers should also consider the need to ORCID iDs tackle concerns of co-sharing AV such as hygiene and safety. At the same time, they should also explore how shared-ownership models Wesley Lim https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7630-1825 can promote environmental sustainability, increase mobility options Billy Sung https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0028-6574 for elderly and disabled populations, and create a more effective transportation system. References Alawadhi, M., Almazrouie, J., Kamil, M., & Khalil, K. A. (2020). Review and Conclusion 7: Cultivating a culture of openness analysis of the importance of autonomous vehicles liability: A systematic and collaboration between key stakeholders literature review. International Journal of Systems Assurance Engineering and Management, 11(6), 1227–1249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198- Finally, our findings emphasize the significance of adopting a holis- 020-00978-9 Anania, E. C., Rice, S., Walters, N. W., Pierce, M., Winter, S. R., & Milner, tic and interdisciplinary approach to examine the adoption of AVs. M. N. (2018). The effects of positive and negative information on con- Key stakeholders such as governments and policymakers, AV manu- sumers’ willingness to ride in a driverless vehicle. Transport Policy, 72, facturers, and consumer advocacy groups together all play a role in 218–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.04.002 determining the successful adoption of AVs in Australia. Specifically, Autonomous Vehicle Survey Report. (2019). https://www.perkinscoie.com/ it necessary that these key stakeholders work together to address key en/autonomous-vehicle-systems-systems/2019-autonomous-vehicle- systems-survey-results.html issues relating to policy and legislation, infrastructure, technology Austroads. (n.d.). Australian and New Zealand Trials. Retrieved January 13, and innovation, and public acceptance. For example, before the gov- 2022, from https://austroads.com.au/drivers-and-vehicles/future-vehicles ernment can commit to infrastructure upgrades/changes, there needs -and-technology/trials to be clarity on the technology evolution. Furthermore, AV manufac- Bansal, P., & Kockelman, K. M. (2017). Forecasting Americans’ long- term adoption of connected and autonomous vehicle technologies. turers must work closely with policy makers and consumer advocacy Transportation Research Part A Policy and Practice, 95, 49–63. https:// groups to develop technologies that meet regulatory and consumer doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.10.013 needs, while also ensuring that public acceptance is considered. Bansal, P., Kockelman, K. M., & Singh, A. (2016). Assessing public opin- To foster this collaboration, a culture of openness and knowledge- ions of and interest in new vehicle technologies: An Austin perspective. sharing needs to be encouraged and promoted through ongoing open Transportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies, 67, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.01.019 forums, industry roundtables, and bilateral discussions. Batsch, F., Kanarachos, S., Cheah, M., Ponticelli, R., & Blundell, M. (2022). A taxonomy of validation strategies to ensure the safe operation of highly Limitations and future directions automated vehicles. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 26(1), 14–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/15472450.2020.1738231 The research has its limitations. First, this study used qualitative data Baxter, J. A., Merced, D. A., Costinett, D. J., Tolbert, L. M., & Ozpineci, B. (2018). Review of electrical architectures and power requirements for from in-depth interviews conducted with expert and key opinion lead- automated vehicles. Paper presented at the 2018 IEEE Transportation ers in the AV field, however, the limited sample size (18 experts) and and Electrification Conference and Expo, ITEC 2018 (pp. 102–107). context (Australia) limits the generalizability of the findings. Future IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITEC.2018.8449961 studies should consider a larger sample size and involve experts from Bellet, T., Cunneen, M., Mullins, M., Murphy, F., Pütz, F., Spickermann, F., wider geographical context. Furthermore, quantitative studies may Braendle, C., & Baumann, M. F. (2019). From semi to fully autonomous 12 Australasian Marketing Journal 00(0) vehicles: New emerging risks and ethico-legal challenges for human- Fagnant, D. J., & Kockelman, K. (2015). Preparing a nation for autono- machine interactions. Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology mous vehicles: Opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. and Behaviour, 63, 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.04.004 Transportation Research Part A Policy and Practice, 77, 167–181. Bennett, J. M., Challinor, K. L., Modesto, O., & Prabhakharan, P. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.003 Attribution of blame of crash causation across varying levels of vehi- Fagnant, D. J., & Kockelman, K. M. (2014). The travel and environmental cle automation. Safety Science, 132, 104968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. implications of shared autonomous vehicles, using agent-based model ssci.2020.104968 scenarios. Transportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies, 40, Berliner, R. M., Hardman, S., & Tal, G. (2019). Uncovering early adopter’s 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2013.12.001 perceptions and purchase intentions of automated vehicles: Insights from Feys, M., Rombaut, E., Vanhaverbeke, L., Polydoropoulou, A., Thomopoulos, early adopters of electric vehicles in California. Transportation Research N., & Rappazzo, V. (2021). Does a test ride influence attitude towards Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 60, 712–722. https://doi.org/ autonomous vehicles? A field experiment with pretest and posttest 10.1016/j.trf.2018.11.010 measurement. Sustainability, 13(10), 5387. https://doi.org/10.3390/ Bert, J., Collie, B., Xu, G., & Gerrits, M. (2016). What’s ahead for car shar- su13105387 ing? https://www.bcg.com/publications/2016/automotive-whats-ahead- Glancy, D. J. (n.d). Santa Clara law review privacy in autonomous vehicles. car-sharing-new-mobility-its-impact-vehicle-sales Santa Clara Law Review, 52(4), 12–14. Retrieved January 22, 2022, Boddy, C. R. (2016). Sample size for qualitative research. Qualitative from http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview Market Research An International Journal, 19(4), 426–432. https://doi. Golbabaei, F., Yigitcanlar, T., Paz, A., & Bunker, J. (2020). Individual org/10.1108/qmr-06-2016-0053 predictors of autonomous vehicle public acceptance and intention to Bowles, N. (2016, March 1). Google self-driving car collides with bus in use: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Open Innovation California, accident report says. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian. Technology Market and Complexity, 6(4), 106. https://doi.org/10.3390/ com/technology/2016/feb/29/google-self-driving-car-accident-california joitmc6040106 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Greenblatt, J. B., & Saxena, S. (2015). Autonomous taxis could greatly reduce Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.11 greenhouse-gas emissions of US light-duty vehicles. Nature Climate 91/1478088706qp063oa Change, 5(9), 860–863. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2685 Chen, H.-K., & Yan, D.-W. (2019). Interrelationships between influential Haboucha, C. J., Ishaq, R., & Shiftan, Y. (2017). User preferences regard- factors and behavioral intention with regard to autonomous vehicles. ing autonomous vehicles. Transportation Research Part C Emerging International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 13(7), 511–527. Technologies, 78, 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2017.01.010 https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2018.1488021 Hamadneh, J., Duleba, S., & Esztergár-Kiss, D. (2022). Stakeholder view- Chen, T. D., & Kockelman, K. M. (2016). Management of a shared autonomous points analysis of the autonomous vehicle industry by using multi- electric vehicle fleet: Implications of pricing schemes. Transportation actors multi-criteria analysis. Transport Policy, 126, 65–84. https://doi. Research Record, 2572, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.3141/2572-05 org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.07.005 Chottani, A., Hastings, G., Murnane, J., & Neuhaus, F. (2018). Autonomous Hawkins, J., & Nurul Habib, K. (2019). Integrated models of land use and trucks disrupt US logistics. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/travel- transportation for the autonomous vehicle revolution. Transport Reviews, logistics-and-infrastructure/our-insights/distraction-or-disruption-auton- 39(1), 66–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2018.1449033 omous-trucks-gain-ground-in-us-logistics Hegner, S. M., Beldad, A. D., & Brunswick, G. J. (2019). In automatic we Cunningham, M. L., Regan, M. A., Horberry, T., Weeratunga, K., & Dixit, trust: Investigating the impact of trust, control, personality characteristics, V. (2019). Public opinion about automated vehicles in Australia: Results and extrinsic and intrinsic motivations on the acceptance of autonomous from a large-scale national survey. Transportation Research Part A vehicles. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 35(19), Policy and Practice, 129, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.08.002 1769–1780. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1572353 Dai, J., Li, R., & Liu, Z. (2021). Does initial experience affect consumers’ Hooks, D., Davis, Z., Agrawal, V., & Li, Z. (2022). Exploring factors intention to use autonomous vehicles? Evidence from a field experiment influencing technology adoption rate at the macro level: A predictive in Beijing. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 149, 105778. https://doi. model. Technology in Society, 68, 101826. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105778 TECHSOC.2021.101826 Dai, J., Li, R., Liu, Z., & Lin, S. (2021). Impacts of the introduction of auton- Huang, Y., & Qian, L. (2021). Understanding the potential adoption of auton- omous taxi on travel behaviors of the experienced user: Evidence from a omous vehicles in China: The perspective of behavioral reasoning theory. one-year paid taxi service in Guangzhou, China. Transportation Research Psychology and Marketing, 38(4), 669–690. https://doi.org/10.1002/ Part C Emerging Technologies, 130, 103311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. mar.21465 trc.2021.103311 Hudson, J., Orviska, M., & Hunady, J. (2019). People’s attitudes to autono- Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communi- mous vehicles. Transportation Research Part A Policy and Practice, 121, cations and the Arts. (2021). Road trauma Australia - Annual summaries. 164–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.08.018 https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/road_deaths_australia_ Jannusch, T., David-Spickermann, F., Shannon, D., Ressel, J., Völler, M., annual_summaries Murphy, F., Furxhi, I., Cunneen, M., & Mullins, M. (2021). Surveillance Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and and privacy – Beyond the panopticon. An exploration of 720-degree obser- Communications. (n.d). Australian design rules. Retrieved February 8, vation in level 3 and 4 vehicle automation. Technology and Society, 66, 2022, from https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure-transport- 101667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101667 vehicles/vehicles/vehicle-design-regulation/australian-design-rules Johnson, C. (2017). Readiness of the road network for connected and autono- Dhar, V. (2016). Equity, safety, and privacy in the autonomous vehicle era. mous vehicles. RAC Foundation. Computer, 49(11), 80–83. https://doi.org/10.1109/mc.2016.326 Kalra, N., & Paddock, S. M. (2016a). How many miles of driving would it Duboz, A., Mourtzouchou, A., Grosso, M., Kolarova, V., Cordera, R., Nägele, take to demonstrate autonomous vehicle reliability? RAND Corporation. S., Alonso Raposo, M., Krause, J., Garus, A., Eisenmann, C., Dell’Olio, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/j.ctt1btc0xw L., Alonso, B., & Ciuffo, B. (2022). Exploring the acceptance of con- Kalra, N., & Paddock, S. M. (2016b). Driving to safety: How many miles nected and automated vehicles: Focus group discussions with experts of driving would it take to demonstrate autonomous vehicle reliabil- and non-experts in transport. Transportation Research Part F Traffic ity? Transportation Research Part A Policy and Practice, 94, 182–193. Psychology and Behaviour, 89, 200–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.09.010 trf.2022.06.013 Karp, L., Kim, R., Liu, C., & Liu, B. (2017). Insuring Autonomous Vehicles an Dugdale, M. (2018, August 1). European countries banning fossil fuel cars $81 Billion Opportunity Between Now and 2025. https://www.accenture. and switching to electric. Road Traffic Technology. https://www.road- com/_acnmedia/pdf-60/accenture-insurance-autonomous-vehicles-pov.pdf traffic-technology.com/features/european-countries-banning-fossil-fuel- Kaur, K., & Rampersad, G. (2018). Trust in driverless cars: Investigating key cars/ factors influencing the adoption of driverless cars. Journal of Engineer- Dugdale, M. (2019, June 7). Asian countries banning fossil fuel vehicles and ing and Technology Management, 48, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. plans for electric cars. Road Traffic Technology. https://www.roadtraffic- jengtecman.2018.04.006 technology.com/features/asian-countries-banning-fossil-fuel-cars/ Kaye, S.-A., Lewis, I., Forward, S., & Delhomme, P. (2020). A priori Etherington, D. (2019). Over 1,400 self-driving vehicles are now in test- acceptance of highly automated cars in Australia, France, and Sweden: ing by 80+ companies across the US. TechCrunch. https://techcrunch. A theoretically-informed investigation guided by the TPB and UTAUT. com/2019/06/11/over-1400-self-driving-vehicles-are-now-in-testing-by- Accident Analysis and Prevention, 137, 105441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 80-companies-across-the-u-s/ aap.2020.105441 Lim et al. 13 Kohler, W. J., & Colbert-Taylor, A. (2015). Current law and potential legal Forecasting and Social Change, 161, 120319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. issues pertaining to automated, autonomous and connected vehicles techfore.2020.120319 recommended citation. Technology Law Journal, 31(1), 99–138. http:// National Transportation Safety Board. (2018). Preliminary Report Highway digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol31/iss1/3 HWY18MH010. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/NTS KPMG. (2019). 2019 Autonomous Vehicles Readiness Index. https://assets. Buber.pdf kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2019/02/2019-autonomous-vehicles- National Transport Commission. (n.d). Automated vehicle program. readiness-index.pdf Retrieved February 10, 2022, from https://www.ntc.gov.au/transport- KPMG. (2020). 2020 Autonomous Vehicles Readiness Index. https://assets. reform/automated-vehicle-program kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2020/07/2020-autonomous-vehicles- Nordhoff, S., de Winter, J., Kyriakidis, M., van Arem, B., & Happee, R. readiness-index.pdf (2018). Acceptance of driverless vehicles: Results from a large cross- Kyriakidis, M., Happee, R., & de Winter, J. C. F. (2015). Public opinion on national questionnaire study. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2018, automated driving: Results of an international questionnaire among 5000 5382192. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5382192 respondents. Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and NRMA. (2017). The future of car ownership. NRMA. https://www.mynrma. Behaviour, 32, 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.04.014 com.au/-/media/documents/reports/the-future-of-car-ownership.pdf?la=e Lancelot Miltgen, C., Popovič, A., & Oliveira, T. (2013). Determinants of n&hash=9AF4B0574E4FFD3F1A371551D89D182F end-user acceptance of biometrics: Integrating the “Big 3” of technology Park, J., Hong, E., & Le, H. T. (2021). Adopting autonomous vehicles: acceptance with privacy context. Decision Support Systems, 56, 103–114. The moderating effects of demographic variables. Journal of Retailing https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.05.010 and Consumer Services, 63, 102687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretcon- Lee, D., & Hess, D. J. (2020). Regulations for on-road testing of connected ser.2021.102687 and automated vehicles: Assessing the potential for global safety har- Parliament of Australia. (2017). Social issues relating to land-based automated monization. Transportation Research Part A Policy and Practice, 136, vehicles in Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/ 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.03.026 Committees/House/Former_Committees/Industry_Innovation_Science_ Li, D., Huang, Y., & Qian, L. (2022). Potential adoption of robotaxi service: and_Resources/Driverless_vehicles/Government_Response The roles of perceived benefits to multiple stakeholders and environmen- Peiris, S., Berecki-Gisolf, J., Chen, B., & Fildes, B. (2020). Road trauma tal awareness. Transport Policy, 126, 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. in regional and remote Australia and New Zealand in preparedness for tranpol.2022.07.004 ADAS Technologies and autonomous vehicles. Sustainability, 12(11), Lim, H., & Taeihagh, A. (2018). Autonomous vehicles for smart and sustain- 4347. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114347 able cities: An in-depth exploration of privacy and cybersecurity implica- Penmetsa, P., Adanu, E. K., Wood, D., Wang, T., & Jones, S. L. (2019). tions. Energies, 11(5), 1062. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11051062 Perceptions and expectations of autonomous vehicles – A snapshot of Liu, N., Nikitas, A., & Parkinson, S. (2020). Exploring expert perceptions vulnerable road user opinion. Technological Forecasting and Social about the cyber security and privacy of connected and autonomous vehi- Change, 143, 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.02.010 cles: A thematic analysis approach. Transportation Research Part F Pettigrew, S. (2017). Why public health should embrace the autonomous car. Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 75, 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 41(1), 5–7. https:// trf.2020.09.019 doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12588 Liu, P., Guo, Q., Ren, F., Wang, L., & Xu, Z. (2019). Willingness to pay Pettigrew, S., & Cronin, S. L. (2019). Stakeholder views on the social issues for self-driving vehicles: Influences of demographic and psychological relating to the introduction of autonomous vehicles. Transport Policy, 81, factors. Transportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies, 100, 64–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.06.004 306–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.01.022 Pettigrew, S., Dana, L. M., & Norman, R. (2019). Clusters of potential auton- Liu, P., Zhang, Y., & He, Z. (2019). The effect of population age on the omous vehicles users according to propensity to use individual versus acceptable safety of self-driving vehicles. Reliability Engineering & shared vehicles. Transport Policy, 76, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. System Safety, 185(C), 341–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019. tranpol.2019.01.010 01.003 Pettigrew, S., Talati, Z., & Norman, R. (2018). The health benefits of autono- Liu, Y., Tight, M., Sun, Q., & Kang, R. (2019). A systematic review: Road mous vehicles: public awareness and receptivity in Australia. Australian infrastructure requirement for connected and Autonomous Vehicles and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 42(5), 480–483. https://doi. (CAVs). Journal of Physics Conference Series, 1187(4), 1–13. https:// org/10.1111/1753-6405.12805 doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1187/4/042073 Piao, J., McDonald, M., Hounsell, N., Graindorge, M., Graindorge, T., & Lyon, B., Hudson, N., Twycross, M., Finn, D., Porter, S., & Maklary, Z. Malhene, N. (2016). Public views towards implementation of automated (2017). Automated Vehicles - Do we know which road to take? www. vehicles in urban areas. Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 2168– advisian.com 2177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.232 Manivasakan, H., Kalra, R., O’Hern, S., Fang, Y., Xi, Y., & Zheng, N. Pöllänen, E., Read, G. J. M., Lane, B. R., Thompson, J., & Salmon, P. M. (2021). Infrastructure requirement for autonomous vehicle integration (2020). Who is to blame for crashes involving autonomous vehicles? for future urban and suburban roads – Current practice and a case study Exploring blame attribution across the road transport system. Ergonomics, of Melbourne, Australia. Transportation Research Part A Policy and 63(5), 525–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2020.1744064 Practice, 152, 36–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.07.012 Rahimi, A., Azimi, G., Asgari, H., & Jin, X. (2020). Adoption and will- Martínez-Díaz, M., & Soriguera, F. (2018). Autonomous vehicles: theo- ingness to pay for autonomous vehicles: Attitudes and latent classes. retical and practical challenges. Transportation Research Procedia, 33, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 89, 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2018.10.103 102611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102611 Milakis, D., van Arem, B., & van Wee, B. (2017). Policy and society related Raj, A., Kumar, J. A., & Bansal, P. (2020). A multicriteria decision mak- implications of automated driving: A review of literature and directions ing approach to study barriers to the adoption of autonomous vehicles. for future research. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 21(4), Transportation Research Part A Policy and Practice, 133, 122–137. 324–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/15472450.2017.1291351 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.01.013 Miller, C. (2019). Lessons learned from hacking a car. IEEE Design and Test, Rannenberg, K. (2016). Opportunities and risks associated with collecting 36(6), 7–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/mdat.2018.2863106 and making usable additional data. In M. Maurer, J. Gerdes, B. Lenz, & H. Montoro, L., Useche, S. A., Alonso, F., Lijarcio, I., Bosó-Seguí, P., & Winner (Eds.), Autonomous driving: Technical, legal and social aspects Martí-Belda, A. (2019). Perceived safety and attributed value as predic- (pp. 497–517). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48847-8_24 tors of the intention to use autonomous vehicles: A national study with Read, M. (2021, November 12). Australia ranked last for electric car use Spanish drivers. Safety Science, 120, 865–876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. and government leadership. The Financial Review. https://www.afr.com/ ssci.2019.07.041 policy/energy-and-climate/australia-ranked-last-for-electric-car-use-and- Moody, J., Farr, E., Papagelis, M., & Keith, D. R. (2021). The value of government-leadership-20211111-p5984q car ownership and use in the United States. Nature Sustainability, 4(9), SAE J3016. (2019). Levels of driving automation. https://www.sae.org/ 769–774. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00731-5 news/2019/01/sae-updates-j3016-automated-driving-graphic Nastjuk, I., Herrenkind, B., Marrone, M., Brendel, A. B., & Kolbe, L. M. Schoonmaker, J. (2016). Proactive privacy for a driverless age. Information (2020). What drives the acceptance of autonomous driving? An investiga- & Communications Technology Law, 25(2), 96–128. https://doi.org/10.1 tion of acceptance factors from an end-user’s perspective. Technological 080/13600834.2016.1184456 14 Australasian Marketing Journal 00(0) Sener, I. N., Zmud, J., & Williams, T. (2019). Measures of baseline intent Wadud, Z. (2017). Fully automated vehicles: A cost of ownership analysis to use automated vehicles: A case study of Texas cities. Transportation to inform early adoption. Transportation Research Part A Policy and Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 62, 66–77. https:// Practice, 101, 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.05.005 doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.12.014 Wakabayashi, D. (2018, March 19). Self-driving uber car kills pedestrian in Shabanpour, R., Golshani, N., Shamshiripour, A., & Mohammadian, A. (2018). Arizona, where robots roam. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes. Eliciting preferences for adoption of fully automated vehicles using best- com/2018/03/19/technology/uber-driverless-fatality.html worst analysis. Transportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies, Wang, S., Jiang, Z., Noland, R. B., & Mondschein, A. S. (2020). Attitudes 93, 463–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRC.2018.06.01410.1016/j.trc.2 towards privately-owned and shared autonomous vehicles. Transportation 018.06.014 Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 72, 297–306. https:// Sheehan, B., Murphy, F., Mullins, M., & Ryan, C. (2019). Connected and doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.05.014 autonomous vehicles: A cyber-risk classification framework. Transpor- Webb, J. (2019). The future of transport: Literature review and overview. tation Research Part A Policy and Practice, 124, 523–536. https://doi. Economic Analysis and Policy, 61, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap. org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.06.033 2019.01.002 Stoiber, T., Schubert, I., Hoerler, R., & Burger, P. (2019). Will consumers pre- Wiener, J. B. (2004). The regulation of technology, and the technology of fer shared and pooled-use autonomous vehicles? A stated choice experi- regulation. Technology and Society, 26(2-3), 483–500. https://doi.org/10. ment with Swiss households. Transportation Research Part D: Transport 1016/j.techsoc.2004.01.033 and Environment, 71, 265–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.12.019 World Economic Forum. (2015). Press briefing: Self-driving vehicles in an Sun, Y., Olaru, D., Smith, B., Greaves, S., & Collins, A. (2017). Road to urban context. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Press%20release. autonomous vehicles in Australia: An exploratory literature review. Road pdf & Transport Research, 26(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit. Wu, E. (2018, September 10). What is the uncertain future of self-driving 233588632509382 car insurance? https://www.capgemini.com/au-en/2018/09/autonomous- Tan, S. Y., & Taeihagh, A. (2021). Adaptive governance of autonomous vehicle-insurance-challenges-and-solutions/ vehicles: Accelerating the adoption of disruptive technologies in Yuen, K. F., Cai, L., Qi, G., & Wang, X. (2021). Factors influencing Singapore. Government Information Quarterly, 38(2), 101546. https:// autonomous vehicle adoption: An application of the technology accept- doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101546 ance model and innovation diffusion theory. Technology Analysis and Theoto, T. N., & Kaminski, P. C. (2019). A country-specific evaluation on the Strategic Management, 33(5), 505–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/095373 feasibility of autonomous vehicles. Product Management & Development, 25.2020.1826423 17(2), 123–133. https://doi.org/10.4322/pmd.2019.013 Zhang, T., Tao, D., Qu, X., Zhang, X., Lin, R., & Zhang, W. (2019). The Thorpe, J., & Motwani, E. (2017). Nudging people into autonomous vehicles. roles of initial trust and perceived risk in public’s acceptance of auto- https://www.pwc.com.au/publications/pdf/nudging-people-into-autono- mated vehicles. Transportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies, mous-vehicles.pdf 98, 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.11.018 UNECE. (2020). Working party on automated/autonomous and connected Zmud, J., Sener, I. N., & Wagner, J. (2016). Self-driving vehicles: Determi- vehicles. https://unece.org/transport/vehicle-regulations/working-party- nants of adoption and conditions of usage. Transportation Research automatedautonomous-and-connected-vehicles-introduction Record, 2565(1), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.3141/2565-07 Appendix Appendix 1. ID Industry Role/area of expertise Key area(s) commented on R1 Government Australian Road Rules Policy and Legislation, Technology R2 Academic Transport and economic research, Transport legislation Policy and Legislation, Technology R3 Government Environmental, social, and economic community sustainability Policy and Legislation, Technology, Public acceptance R4 Industry Part of strategic insights team to prepare market (consumers) for Policy and Legislation, Technology, Public acceptance AV introduction R5 Academic Automotive and Engineering and AV research Technology R6 Industry Involvement with Public policy development to support mobility Policy and Legislation, Public acceptance for Western Australians R7 Government Policy development relating to road safety Policy and Legislation, Public acceptance R8* Academic Automotive research Policy and Legislation R9 Government Infrastructure policy development, Policy relating to AV reform Policy and Legislation, Infrastructure, Public acceptance R10 Government Policy consultant involved with legislation development relating to Policy and Legislation, Infrastructure, Public acceptance AV trails in Australia, R11** Government Coordinate and manage the introduction of AVs into the country Policy and Legislation, Infrastructure, Technology, (e.g., through AV trials and deployment) Public acceptance R12 Government Future and Urban mobility, Innovation, and Transport modelling Policy and Legislation, Public acceptance R13 Industry Consultant with strategy experience relating to new technology Policy and Legislation, Infrastructure, Technology, impact on insurance industry Public acceptance R14 Industry Strategy to improve public acceptance of new technologies Public acceptance R15 Government Infrastructure policy consultant provides local governments with Infrastructure, Technology, Public acceptance advice relating to infrastructure issues R16 Industry Automation and robotics expert in the resource sector Policy and Legislation, Infrastructure, Public acceptance R17 Industry Autonomous technology research related to manufacturing, Policy and Legislation, Technology mining, and agriculture R18 Government Futurists dealing with the impact of new vehicle technologies Policy and Legislation, Infrastructure, Technology *Overseas expert from the US, **Overseas expert from Southeast Asia. Lim et al. 15 Appendix 2. Section 1: Background of interviewee This section consisted of general questions about the expert’s background. Specifically, they were asked about the industry they worked in, their role in the organization, and how it relates to AVs. • What company (industry) do you work for? • What is your current position in the company? • Briefly describe your role in the company and how it relates to AVs (if appropriate) Section 2: Role that (the specific area) has on AV adoption This section consisted of questions specific to the four key areas of: Policy and Legislation, Infrastructure, Technology and Innovation, and Public Perception and Awareness. • What role do you think (insert one of the 4 areas) plays in the introduction of AV vehicles? • What are your perspectives on the current state of (insert one of the 4 areas e.g., Policy and Legislation) in (insert interviewee’s country/state e.g., Western Australia) in supporting the implementation of AVs on public roads? • What steps do you think (insert interviewee’s country/state e.g., Western Australia) taken to ensure that it is AV-ready? • What do you think is currently lacking in (insert one of the 4 areas e.g., Policy and Legislation) in relation to the adoption of AVs in your (insert interviewee’s country/state e.g., Western Australia)? • What other barriers and challenges do you think still need to be overcome before AVs can be successfully introduced in your (insert interviewee’s country/state e.g., Western Australia)? • Who do you think are the key individuals/groups/organizations that are necessary to drive (or lead) this initiative (agenda) of change? Section 3: Future market impact of AVs This section consisted of questions to gain the interviewee’s perspective on the impacts that AV adoption will have on society. • What do you think will be the major impacts on society from the adoption of AVs? (e.g., (Probes: Lifestyle changes, the economy, vehicle ownership, urban design, insurance models, etc.)

Journal

Australasian Marketing Journal – SAGE

Published: Jan 1, 2023

Keywords: autonomous vehicle (AV); technology and innovation adoption; barriers; and drivers

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Is Australia Ready for Autonomous Vehicles? Examining the Factors Influencing AV Adoption through Expert Interviews

Is Australia Ready for Autonomous Vehicles? Examining the Factors Influencing AV Adoption through Expert Interviews

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Is Australia Ready for Autonomous Vehicles? Examining the Factors Influencing AV Adoption through Expert Interviews

Is Australia Ready for Autonomous Vehicles? Examining the Factors Influencing AV Adoption through Expert Interviews

References (72)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies