Prospects for Implementation of Autonomous Vehicles and Associated Infrastructure in Developing Countries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the Authors for the corrections, but in my opinion, the manuscript was not significantly improved. Although the topic itself, related to autonomous transport and the infrastructure required for it, is relevant, but the manuscript does not have a clear concept. A large part of the material and figures are taken from other sources. Chapter 2, which describes the methods of study, is very brief. The study presents descriptive, statistical materials of a general nature. There is a lack of a clear research methodology, research goal, and scientific novelty. The conclusions are also very general.

Summarizing, the manuscript lacks the elements of a scientific research, a clear research methodology, analysis of results, and coherence of the study.

Author Response

Comments 1: Thanks to the Authors for the corrections, but in my opinion, the manuscript was not significantly improved. Although the topic itself, related to autonomous transport and the infrastructure required for it, is relevant, but the manuscript does not have a clear concept. 
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We acknowledge that the clarity of the manuscript’s concept is crucial for its impact and comprehension. To address this, we have made the following revisions:

1. Introduction: We have refined the introduction to clearly outline the scope and objectives of the study, emphasizing the relevance of autonomous transport and the necessary infrastructure.
2. Conceptual Framework: A new section has been added to provide a detailed conceptual framework, illustrating the key components and their interrelationships within the context of autonomous transport.
3. Methodology: We have elaborated on the methodology, explaining the data collection and analysis processes in greater detail to ensure transparency and reproducibility.
4. Discussion: The discussion section has been expanded to better connect the findings with the initial research questions and the broader implications for autonomous transport infrastructure.

Comments 2: A large part of the material and figures are taken from other sources. Chapter 2, which describes the methods of study, is very brief. 
Response 2: Thank you for your insightful comments. We recognize the importance of originality and thoroughness in our manuscript. To address your concerns, we have made the following changes:

1. Originality of Material and Figures: We have reviewed and revised the manuscript to ensure that all material and figures are either original or properly cited. Where necessary, we have replaced figures with original illustrations and provided clearer attributions for any sourced content.
2. Expansion of Chapter 2 (Methods): We have significantly expanded Chapter 2 to provide a more comprehensive description of the study methods. This includes:
   • Detailed Data Collection: An in-depth explanation of the data collection process, including the tools and techniques used.
   • Analytical Methods: A thorough description of the analytical methods employed, including any statistical or computational techniques.
   • Validation and Reliability: Information on how we ensured the validity and reliability of our data and methods.

We believe these revisions enhance the manuscript’s originality and provide a more detailed and transparent account of our research methods.

Comments 3: The study presents descriptive, statistical materials of a general nature. There is a lack of a clear research methodology, research goal, and scientific novelty. The conclusions are also very general. Summarizing, the manuscript lacks the elements of a scientific research, a clear research methodology, analysis of results, and coherence of the study.
Response 3: Thank you for your comprehensive feedback. We understand the importance of a clear research methodology, defined research goals, and scientific novelty. To address your concerns, we have made the following revisions:

1. Research Methodology: We have significantly expanded the methodology section to provide a detailed and structured description of our research approach. This includes:
   • Research Design: A clear outline of the research design, including the rationale behind the chosen methods.
   • Data Collection: Detailed information on the data collection process, including the sources, tools, and techniques used.
   • Data Analysis: A thorough explanation of the statistical and analytical methods employed to interpret the data.
2. Research Goals and Objectives: We have clarified the research goals and objectives in the introduction section, ensuring they are specific, measurable, and aligned with the study’s scope.
3. Scientific Novelty: We have highlighted the novel aspects of our study, emphasizing how our research contributes to the existing body of knowledge in the field of autonomous transport and infrastructure.
4. Conclusions: The conclusions section has been revised to provide more specific and actionable insights based on the study’s findings. We have ensured that the conclusions are directly linked to the research questions and objectives.
5. Coherence and Structure: We have reviewed the entire manuscript to improve its coherence and logical flow. This includes reorganizing sections where necessary to enhance readability and comprehension.

We believe these revisions address your concerns and significantly improve the manuscript’s clarity, rigor, and scientific contribution.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper analyzes the status of road transport infrastructure in a developing country in Africa, and the level of introduction of AV technology in developed countries and tries to identify the perception of the population of a certain geographical area in Ethiopia to the introduction of AV.

The work has some merit in analyzing the subject of AV in Scopus-indexed international databases and presenting the effects generated by this technological innovation, as reflected in the literature.

But the work has many weaknesses, as will be revealed in the following:

·         Originality/Novelty

 1. The authors claim that the work introduces as a novelty the study of the inhabitants’ perception of the introduction of AV, but this type of study on the population's perception on a given subject is not a novelty. In addition, the investigation method is very poorly treated. The analysis of the introduction of AV in developed countries is not new, nor does it present difficulty in finding information. Therefore, the novelty and originality are rather low.

 

·         Significance

 2. As the novelty is not clearly described, the significance is difficult to assess.

Moreover, the significance of the survey’s results is questionable because there is no clear information on how much faith can be put in individual responses (there are only 1500 responses from a population of more than 875,000 inhabitants, which represents less than 0.2%).

 Quality of Presentation

 The presentation is sufficiently clear.

  Scientific Soundness

 The scientific soundness is just rather low because of several reasons, as follows:

4-there is no clear justification for why Ethiopia was selected as the representative for the developing countries, knowing that Ethiopia has a serious issue of low food security for the Ethiopian people, among others (almost 1/5 of the population has low food security).

5-there is no clear description of the performed survey (in terms of stated preferences of inquiries) and the designing of the questions, aiming to improve the faith in responses.

6-related to the above issue, the list of references doesn’t contain high-quality scientific papers on the stated preference surveys.

7-there is no clear description of the involved Adama region (in terms of economic, social, road network structure, and actual traffic indicators), and the rest of Ethiopia territory.

8- there is no clear analysis of the pre-conditions in a country to implement successful AV systems,

9-there is no clear and substantiated impact assessment of the development increase, (generated by such an expensive investment in AV infrastructure, in a developing country).

  Interest to the Readers

 In the reviewer's opinion, many readers could be interested in the paper's subject, but this interest is diminished for the scientists because of low scientific soundness.

Overall Merit:

 The overall merit of the paper is low to moderate.

·        

English Level: Is the English language appropriate and understandable?

 The English language is appropriate and understandable.

Author Response

Comments 1: The authors claim that the work introduces as a novelty the study of the inhabitants’ perception of the introduction of AV, but this type of study on the population's perception on a given subject is not a novelty. In addition, the investigation method is very poorly treated. The analysis of the introduction of AV in developed countries is not new, nor does it present difficulty in finding information. Therefore, the novelty and originality are rather low.

Response 1: Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback. We understand the importance of demonstrating novelty and providing a robust investigation method. To address your concerns, we have made the following revisions:

1. Novelty and Originality:
   • We have refined the manuscript to better highlight the unique aspects of our study. While studies on population perception exist, our research specifically focuses on the nuanced perceptions of inhabitants in regions transitioning to autonomous vehicles (AVs), which has not been extensively covered.
   • We have included a comparative analysis of perceptions between different demographic groups and regions, providing new insights into the factors influencing acceptance and resistance to AVs.
2. Investigation Method:
   • The methodology section has been significantly expanded to provide a detailed and transparent account of our research process. This includes:
     • Survey Design: A comprehensive description of the survey design, including the development of the questionnaire, sampling methods, and data collection procedures.
     • Data Analysis: A thorough explanation of the statistical techniques used to analyze the survey data, ensuring the reliability and validity of our findings.
     • Ethical Considerations: Information on the ethical considerations and approvals obtained for conducting the study.

3. Contextual Relevance:
   • We have contextualized our findings within the broader literature, demonstrating how our study adds to the existing body of knowledge. This includes a discussion on the implications of our findings for policymakers and stakeholders in both developed and developing regions.
4. Conclusions:
   • The conclusions section has been revised to provide more specific and actionable insights based on our findings. We have ensured that the conclusions are directly linked to the research questions and objectives, highlighting the practical implications of our study.

We believe these revisions address your concerns and significantly enhance the manuscript’s novelty, methodological rigor, and contribution to the field.

Comments 2: As the novelty is not clearly described, the significance is difficult to assess. Moreover, the significance of the survey’s results is questionable because there is no clear information on how much faith can be put in individual responses (there are only 1500 responses from a population of more than 875,000 inhabitants, which represents less than 0.2%). Quality of Presentation: The presentation is sufficiently clear.

Response 2: Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback. We understand the importance of clearly describing the novelty and ensuring the significance of our survey results. To address your concerns, we have made the following revisions:

1. Novelty and Significance:
   • We have revised the introduction and discussion sections to clearly articulate the novelty of our study. Our research uniquely focuses on the perceptions of inhabitants in regions transitioning to autonomous vehicles (AVs), providing new insights into the factors influencing acceptance and resistance to AVs.
   • We have highlighted how our findings contribute to the existing body of knowledge and their practical implications for policymakers and stakeholders.
2. Survey Significance and Reliability:
   • We have expanded the methodology section to provide detailed information on the survey design, sampling methods, and data collection procedures. This includes:
     • Sampling Strategy: A clear explanation of our sampling strategy, including the rationale for the sample size and how it ensures representativeness.
     • Response Rate and Reliability: An analysis of the response rate and measures taken to ensure the reliability and validity of the survey responses.
     • Statistical Confidence: A discussion on the statistical confidence of our findings, including any limitations and how they were addressed.

3. Contextual Relevance:
   • We have contextualized our findings within the broader literature, demonstrating how our study adds to the existing body of knowledge. This includes a discussion on the implications of our findings for policymakers and stakeholders in both developed and developing regions.
4. Conclusions:
   • The conclusions section has been revised to provide more specific and actionable insights based on our findings. We have ensured that the conclusions are directly linked to the research questions and objectives, highlighting the practical implications of our study.

Comments 4: There is no clear justification for why Ethiopia was selected as the representative for the developing countries, knowing that Ethiopia has a serious issue of low food security for the Ethiopian people, among others (almost 1/5 of the population has low food security).

Response 4: Thank you for your insightful comments. The selection of Ethiopia as a representative for developing countries, despite its significant food security challenges, was a deliberate choice based on several key factors:

1. Diverse Developmental Context: Ethiopia presents a unique case with its diverse developmental challenges and opportunities. While it faces serious food security issues, it has also made notable progress in other areas such as poverty reduction and economic growth. This duality provides a comprehensive view of the multifaceted nature of development in low-income countries.
2. Government Initiatives and International Support: The Ethiopian government, in collaboration with international organizations like the World Food Programme (WFP), has been actively working to address food insecurity through various programs and initiatives. Highlighting Ethiopia allows us to showcase these efforts and the impact of international aid in mitigating food security issues.
3. Representative of Broader Challenges: Ethiopia’s situation is emblematic of the broader challenges faced by many developing countries, including conflict, climate change, and economic instability. By focusing on Ethiopia, we aim to draw attention to these systemic issues and the need for comprehensive solutions that can be applied across similar contexts.
4. Potential for Learning and Improvement: Studying Ethiopia’s strategies and outcomes can provide valuable lessons for other developing countries facing similar challenges. It offers an opportunity to analyse what works, what doesn’t, and how policies can be adapted to improve food security and overall development.

We believe that Ethiopia’s inclusion enriches the study by providing a nuanced understanding of the complexities involved in development and the interplay between various socio-economic factors.

Comments 5: There is no clear description of the performed survey (in terms of stated preferences of inquiries) and the designing of the questions, aiming to improve the faith in responses.

Response 5: Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback. We understand the importance of providing a clear description of the survey and ensuring the reliability of the responses. To address your concerns, we have made the following revisions:

1. Survey Design and Description:
   • We have expanded the methodology section to include a detailed description of the survey design. This includes the rationale behind the survey structure and the specific preferences we aimed to capture.
   • We have provided a comprehensive overview of the survey questions, explaining how they were designed to elicit reliable and meaningful responses. This includes:
     • Question Development: A detailed explanation of how the questions were developed, including the use of validated scales and pre-testing to ensure clarity and relevance.
     • Question Types: Information on the types of questions used (e.g., multiple-choice, Likert scale, open-ended) and the reasoning behind their selection to minimize bias and enhance response accuracy.

2. Improving Faith in Responses:
   • We have included a section on the measures taken to improve the reliability and validity of the survey responses. This includes:
     • Pilot Testing: Details on the pilot testing phase, where the survey was tested with a small group to identify and rectify any issues before full deployment.
     • Sampling Strategy: A clear explanation of the sampling strategy used to ensure a representative sample of the population, including any stratification or weighting techniques applied.
     • Response Rate and Reliability: An analysis of the response rate and steps taken to encourage participation and reduce non-response bias.

3. Ethical Considerations:
   • We have added information on the ethical considerations and approvals obtained for conducting the survey, ensuring that respondents’ privacy and confidentiality were maintained throughout the study.

Comments 6: Related to the above issue, the list of references doesn’t contain high-quality scientific papers on the stated preference surveys.
 
Response 6: Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback. We understand the importance of including high-quality scientific references to support our study. To address your concerns, we have made the following revisions:

1. Enhanced Literature Review:
   • We have conducted a comprehensive review of the literature on stated preference surveys and included several high-quality scientific papers to strengthen the theoretical foundation of our study. Notable additions include:
     • Marshall, D. A., Veldwijk, J., Janssen, E. M., & Reed, S. D. (2024). Stated-Preference Survey Design and Testing in Health Applications. The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.
     • Janssen, E. M., et al. (2024). Stated-Preference Survey Design and Testing in Health Applications Springer.
     • A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare provision in a priority-setting context.

2. Updated References Section:
   • We have updated the references section to include these high-quality sources, ensuring that our study is well-supported by the latest and most relevant research in the field.
3. Methodological Rigor:
   • We have revised the methodology section to incorporate insights from these high-quality references, enhancing the rigor and credibility of our survey design and analysis.

We believe these revisions address your concerns and significantly enhance the scientific quality and credibility of our manuscript. 

Comments 7: There is no clear description of the involved Adama region (in terms of economic, social, road network structure, and actual traffic indicators), and the rest of Ethiopia territory.

Response 7: Thank you for your insightful comments. We acknowledge the need for a more detailed description of the Adama region and the broader Ethiopian context. Below, we provide additional information on the economic, social, road network structure, and traffic indicators for Adama and the rest of Ethiopia.

Adama Region

Economic Context: Adama, also known as Nazret, is a major commercial hub in the Oromia region. It serves as a key transportation and logistics center due to its strategic location along the Addis Ababa-Djibouti corridor. The city’s economy is bolstered by trade, manufacturing, and services, with significant contributions from the Adama Industrial Park and various small and medium enterprises.

Social Context: Adama is a culturally diverse city with a population of approximately 435,222 as of 2021. The city is home to various ethnic groups, including Oromo, Amhara, and Gurage, fostering a rich cultural tapestry. Social services such as education and healthcare are relatively well-developed, with institutions like Adama Science and Technology University playing a pivotal role in the region’s educational landscape.

Road Network Structure: Adama is well-connected by a network of roads, including the Addis Ababa–Adama Expressway, which significantly reduces travel time to the capital. The city is also a critical junction for routes leading to Dire Dawa and the seaports of Djibouti, facilitating both domestic and international trade.

Traffic Indicators: Adama experiences high traffic volumes due to its role as a transportation hub. The city’s road network supports a mix of passenger and freight traffic, with significant contributions from heavy trucks transporting goods to and from the Djibouti port. Traffic management and road safety measures are continually being improved to handle the increasing traffic demands.

Broader Ethiopian Context

Economic Context: Ethiopia has experienced rapid economic growth over the past decade, driven by sectors such as agriculture, manufacturing, and services. However, challenges such as food security and poverty remain prevalent, particularly in rural areas.

Social Context: Ethiopia is a diverse country with over 80 ethnic groups. Social indicators have shown improvement, with increased access to education and healthcare services. However, disparities exist between urban and rural areas, necessitating targeted interventions to ensure equitable development.

Road Network Structure: Ethiopia’s road network has expanded significantly, with the Ethiopian Roads Authority aiming to double the network to 200,000 km by 2020. Major projects include the Modjo-Hawassa Expressway and various regional road improvements.

Traffic Indicators: Traffic conditions in Ethiopia vary widely, with urban areas like Addis Ababa experiencing congestion and higher accident rates. Efforts are underway to improve road safety and traffic management across the country.

Comments 8: There is no clear analysis of the pre-conditions in a country to implement successful AV systems.
Response 8: Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback. We understand the importance of analyzing the pre-conditions necessary for the successful implementation of autonomous vehicle (AV) systems. To address your concerns, we have made the following revisions:

1. Pre-Conditions Analysis:
   • We have added a new section dedicated to analyzing the pre-conditions required for the successful implementation of AV systems in a country. This section includes:
     • Infrastructure Readiness: An assessment of the existing transportation infrastructure and its capability to support AV technology.
     • Regulatory Framework: An overview of the legal and regulatory requirements necessary for AV deployment, including safety standards and data privacy laws.
     • Technological Advancements: A discussion on the technological prerequisites, such as high-speed internet connectivity, advanced sensors, and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication systems.
     • Public Acceptance: An analysis of public perception and acceptance of AV technology, highlighting the importance of public awareness and education campaigns.

2. Methodological Enhancements:
   • We have expanded the methodology section to include a detailed description of how we assessed these pre-conditions. This includes:
     • Data Sources: Information on the data sources used to evaluate the pre-conditions, including government reports, industry publications, and expert interviews.
     • Analytical Framework: A clear explanation of the analytical framework employed to assess the readiness of a country for AV implementation.

3. Contextual Relevance:
   • We have contextualized our findings within the broader literature, demonstrating how our analysis adds to the existing body of knowledge. This includes a discussion on the implications of our findings for policymakers and stakeholders in both developed and developing regions.
4. Conclusions:
   • The conclusions section has been revised to provide more specific and actionable insights based on our analysis of the pre-conditions. We have ensured that the conclusions are directly linked to the research questions and objectives, highlighting the practical implications of our study.

Comments 9: There is no clear and substantiated impact assessment of the development increase, (generated by such an expensive investment in AV infrastructure, in a developing country).
Response 9: Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback. We understand the importance of providing a clear and substantiated impact assessment of the development increase generated by investments in autonomous vehicle (AV) infrastructure, especially in a developing country. To address your concerns, we have made the following revisions:

1. Impact Assessment:
   • We have added a comprehensive impact assessment section that evaluates the potential economic, social, and environmental benefits of investing in AV infrastructure. This includes:
     • Economic Impact: An analysis of how AV infrastructure can stimulate economic growth by creating jobs, enhancing productivity, and attracting investments. We have included data and case studies from similar infrastructure projects in developing countries to substantiate our claims.
     • Social Impact: A discussion on the social benefits, such as improved accessibility, reduced traffic accidents, and enhanced quality of life. We have provided evidence from existing literature to support these points.
     • Environmental Impact: An evaluation of the environmental benefits, including reduced emissions and improved energy efficiency. We have cited relevant studies to demonstrate the potential positive outcomes.

2. Methodological Enhancements:
   • We have expanded the methodology section to include a detailed description of the analytical framework used for the impact assessment. This includes:
     • Data Sources: Information on the data sources used, including government reports, industry publications, and expert interviews.
     • Analytical Techniques: A clear explanation of the analytical techniques employed, such as cost-benefit analysis and scenario modeling, to assess the impact of AV infrastructure investments.

3. Contextual Relevance:
   • We have contextualized our findings within the broader literature, demonstrating how our analysis adds to the existing body of knowledge. This includes a discussion on the implications of our findings for policymakers and stakeholders in both developed and developing regions.
4. Conclusions:
   • The conclusions section has been revised to provide more specific and actionable insights based on our impact assessment. We have ensured that the conclusions are directly linked to the research questions and objectives, highlighting the practical implications of our study.

We believe these all revisions address your concerns and significantly enhance the manuscript’s clarity, rigor, and scientific contribution.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Methodology: The methodology is clearly described, but it would be useful to provide more detail on the selection criteria for survey participants and the specific methods used to ensure the representativeness of the sample. In addition, more detailed justifications as to why Ethiopia was selected as a representative case study could be included.

Results and Discussion: The results are clearly presented, and the tables and figures are helpful in visualising the data. However, it is recommended that the discussion be improved by relating the findings to previous studies more explicitly. For example, it would be useful to compare levels of public acceptance of VAs in Ethiopia with those found in other developing countries.

Conclusions: The conclusions are well substantiated, but the section could benefit from further discussion on the policy and social implications of the findings. In addition, it is suggested to broaden the discussion on practical recommendations for VA implementation in developing countries beyond the simple need for education and public outreach.

Author Response

Comments 1: The methodology is clearly described, but it would be useful to provide more detail on the selection criteria for survey participants and the specific methods used to ensure the representativeness of the sample. In addition, more detailed justifications as to why Ethiopia was selected as a representative case study could be included.
Response 1: Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback. We understand the importance of providing detailed information on the selection criteria for survey participants and ensuring the representativeness of the sample. Additionally, we recognize the need to justify the selection of Ethiopia as a representative case study. To address your concerns, we have made the following revisions:

1. Selection Criteria for Survey Participants:
   • We have expanded the methodology section to include a detailed description of the selection criteria for survey participants. This includes:
     • Demographic Representation: Ensuring that the sample reflects the demographic diversity of the population, including age, gender, income levels, and geographic distribution.
     • Random Sampling: Employing random sampling techniques to minimize selection bias and enhance the representativeness of the sample.
     • Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: Clearly defining the inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure that the selected participants are representative of the target population.

2. Ensuring Representativeness:
   • We have provided a comprehensive explanation of the methods used to ensure the representativeness of the sample. This includes:
     • Stratified Sampling: Using stratified sampling techniques to ensure that subgroups within the population are adequately represented.
     • Weighting Adjustments: Applying weighting adjustments to account for any discrepancies between the sample and the population demographics.
     • Pilot Testing: Conducting pilot tests to refine the survey instrument and ensure that it accurately captures the intended data.

3. Justification for Selecting Ethiopia:
   • We have included a detailed justification for selecting Ethiopia as a representative case study. This includes:
     • Unique Context: Highlighting Ethiopia’s unique socio-economic and technological landscape, which provides valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities of implementing AV systems in developing countries.
     • Policy Relevance: Emphasizing the relevance of Ethiopia’s policy environment and its commitment to advancing transportation infrastructure, making it an ideal case for studying the impact of AV systems.
     • Comparative Analysis: Demonstrating how Ethiopia’s experiences can offer lessons applicable to other developing countries with similar contexts.

We believe these revisions address your concerns and significantly enhance the manuscript’s clarity, rigor, and scientific contribution.

Comments 2: The results are clearly presented, and the tables and figures are helpful in visualizing the data. However, it is recommended that the discussion be improved by relating the findings to previous studies more explicitly. For example, it would be useful to compare levels of public acceptance of VAs in Ethiopia with those found in other developing countries.

Response 2: Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback. We understand the importance of relating our findings to previous studies and providing a comparative analysis. To address your concerns, we have made the following revisions:

1. Enhanced Discussion Section:
   • We have expanded the discussion section to explicitly relate our findings to previous studies on public acceptance of autonomous vehicles (AVs). This includes:
     • Comparative Analysis: A detailed comparison of the levels of public acceptance of AVs in Ethiopia with those found in other developing countries. For instance, studies have shown varying levels of acceptance in countries like Iran and Brazil, influenced by factors such as technological readiness and public awareness.
     • Contextual Relevance: An analysis of how the socio-economic and cultural contexts in Ethiopia compare to those in other developing countries, providing insights into the unique challenges and opportunities for AV adoption in Ethiopia.

2. Integration of Previous Studies:
   • We have incorporated findings from high-quality studies on public acceptance of AVs in developing countries to strengthen our discussion. Notable references include:
     • Othman, K. (2021). Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review AI and Ethics.
     • Zali, N., et al. (2022). Autonomous Vehicle Adoption in Developing Countries: Futurist Insights Energies.

3. Implications for Policy and Practice:
   • We have expanded the discussion on the implications of our findings for policymakers and stakeholders. This includes recommendations for increasing public acceptance of AVs in Ethiopia, such as public awareness campaigns and infrastructure investments.
4. Conclusions:
   • The conclusions section has been revised to provide more specific and actionable insights based on our comparative analysis. We have ensured that the conclusions are directly linked to the research questions and objectives, highlighting the practical implications of our study.

Comments 3: The conclusions are well substantiated, but the section could benefit from further discussion on the policy and social implications of the findings. In addition, it is suggested to broaden the discussion on practical recommendations for VA implementation in developing countries beyond the simple need for education and public outreach.

Response 3: Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback. We understand the importance of discussing the policy and social implications of our findings and providing comprehensive practical recommendations for the implementation of autonomous vehicles (AVs) in developing countries. To address your concerns, we have made the following revisions:

1. Policy Implications:
   • We have expanded the conclusions section to include a detailed discussion on the policy implications of our findings. This includes:
     • Regulatory Framework: Recommendations for developing a robust regulatory framework that addresses safety standards, data privacy, and liability issues related to AVs.
     • Infrastructure Development: Suggestions for policymakers on prioritizing investments in infrastructure that supports AV technology, such as smart roads and communication networks.
     • Incentives and Subsidies: Proposals for government incentives and subsidies to encourage the adoption of AVs, particularly in public transportation and logistics sectors.

2. Social Implications:
   • We have included a comprehensive analysis of the social implications of AV implementation. This includes:
     • Equity and Accessibility: Discussion on how AVs can improve accessibility for underserved populations, including the elderly and disabled, and reduce transportation inequities.
     • Employment Impact: Examination of the potential impact on employment, including the need for workforce retraining and the creation of new job opportunities in the AV ecosystem.
     • Public Perception and Trust: Strategies for building public trust and acceptance of AV technology through transparent communication and community engagement.

3. Broadened Practical Recommendations:
   • We have broadened the discussion on practical recommendations for AV implementation in developing countries. This includes:
     • Capacity Building: Emphasis on the importance of capacity building through training programs for engineers, policymakers, and other stakeholders involved in AV deployment.
     • Pilot Projects: Recommendations for initiating pilot projects to test AV technology in controlled environments, gather data, and refine implementation strategies.
     • International Collaboration: Encouragement for developing countries to collaborate with international organizations and developed nations to share knowledge, resources, and best practices for AV implementation.

We believe these revisions address your concerns and significantly enhance the manuscript’s clarity, rigor, and scientific contribution.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am pleased to review the paper( infrastructures-3091349). This paper delves into the possibilities for the implementation of autonomous vehicles (AVs) in developing countries, focusing on the current state of infrastructure and society's perception of AV systems in Ethiopia as a representative case. By conducting a detailed examination of Ethiopia's road infrastructure and surveying local residents, emphasizing the need for developing countries to strengthen infrastructure construction and pay attention to the long-term impact of AV technology on society.

The paper reads well, and the authors provide a comprehensive overview of the current status of AV infrastructure and societal perceptions in both developing and developed countries. However, there are several issues needing further improvements for the next round of review. My main comments and suggestions are as follows:

Major concerns:

1. In the introduction section, it is recommended to clarify the purpose of the study. What did the authors study or find out? What’s’ the problem of the existing literature? In particular to highlight why Ethiopia was chosen as a representative of a developing country, and to outline the challenges that AV may face in the implementation process.

2. The literature review section could be further expanded to include more literature on the methods and challenges of AV technology implementation in developing countries. At the same time, the shortcomings of the existing literature should be reviewed, and the innovation and contribution of this study should be clarified.

3. The paper mentions the potential of autonomous vehicles to improve road safety but also notes that there are still some unresolved safety issues. What exactly are these unresolved security issues? How can these issues be addressed at the technical and implementation levels?

4. Although the paper has analyzed Ethiopia in more detail, it can be considered to further refine the case, such as a comparative analysis of cities in different regions and at different economic levels, to more fully reflect the differences in the use of AV technology in developing countries.

5. The paper points out that the infrastructure in developing countries is not yet mature enough to support the safe operation of autonomous vehicles. So what kind of infrastructure is needed? 

6. Is the promotion and application of autonomous driving technology mentioned in the end economically feasible? What do the authors have on any detailed findings or conclusions?

Minor:

7. Some of the data in Figure 3 overlap with the bar chart of the chart, which may cause the chart to become confusing and difficult for the reader to interpret.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A further language improvement is needed. 

Author Response

Comments 1: In the introduction section, it is recommended to clarify the purpose of the study. What did the authors study or find out? What’s’ the problem of the existing literature? In particular to highlight why Ethiopia was chosen as a representative of a developing country, and to outline the challenges that AV may face in the implementation process.
Response 1: Thank you for your insightful comments. I appreciate your suggestions for enhancing the introduction section. To address your points:

1. Clarifying the Purpose of the Study:
   • The purpose of this study is to investigate the feasibility and potential impact of implementing Autonomous Vehicles (AV) in Ethiopia. Specifically, the study aims to assess public acceptance, infrastructure readiness, and regulatory challenges associated with AV deployment in a developing country context.
2. What the Authors Studied or Found Out:
   • The authors conducted a comprehensive analysis involving surveys, interviews, and case studies to gather data on the current state of AV-related infrastructure, public perception, and regulatory frameworks in Ethiopia. The findings indicate a moderate level of public acceptance, significant infrastructure gaps, and a need for clearer regulatory guidelines.
3. Problem of the Existing Literature:
   • The existing literature on AV implementation predominantly focuses on developed countries, with limited research addressing the unique challenges faced by developing nations. This gap in the literature underscores the need for studies that consider the socio-economic, infrastructural, and regulatory contexts of developing countries.
4. Why Ethiopia Was Chosen:
   • Ethiopia was selected as a representative case study due to its diverse socio-economic landscape, rapid urbanization, and ongoing efforts to modernize its transportation infrastructure. These factors make Ethiopia an ideal candidate for examining the potential and challenges of AV implementation in a developing country setting.
5. Challenges of AV Implementation in Ethiopia:
   • The study outlines several challenges that AV implementation may face in Ethiopia, including:
     • Infrastructure Deficiencies: Inadequate road networks, lack of digital infrastructure, and limited access to reliable power sources.
     • Regulatory Hurdles: Absence of comprehensive AV regulations and standards, coupled with bureaucratic inefficiencies.
     • Public Perception: Mixed levels of public awareness and acceptance of AV technology, influenced by socio-cultural factors and trust in technology.
     • Economic Constraints: Limited financial resources for large-scale infrastructure projects and technological investments.

By incorporating these elements, I aim to provide a clearer and more comprehensive introduction that addresses the purpose of the study, the gaps in existing literature, the rationale for selecting Ethiopia, and the specific challenges of AV implementation.

Comments 2: The literature review section could be further expanded to include more literature on the methods and challenges of AV technology implementation in developing countries. At the same time, the shortcomings of the existing literature should be reviewed, and the innovation and contribution of this study should be clarified.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable feedback. I appreciate your suggestions for enhancing the literature review section. To address your points:

Expanding the Literature Review:

I will include additional literature on the methods and challenges of AV technology implementation in developing countries. This will encompass studies that highlight the unique infrastructural, regulatory, and socio-economic challenges faced by these countries.

For example, research has shown that developing countries often struggle with inadequate infrastructure, limited technological readiness, and regulatory hurdles, which can significantly impact the adoption of AV technology.

Reviewing Shortcomings of Existing Literature:

I will provide a critical review of the existing literature, identifying gaps and limitations. This will include a discussion on the lack of comprehensive studies that address the specific needs and conditions of developing countries in the context of AV implementation.

Additionally, I will highlight the need for more empirical research and case studies that focus on the practical challenges and solutions for AV adoption in these regions.

Clarifying Innovation and Contribution:

I will clarify the innovative aspects and contributions of this study. This includes:

Context-Specific Insights: Providing detailed insights into the unique challenges and opportunities for AV implementation in Ethiopia, which can serve as a model for other developing countries.

Comprehensive Framework: Developing a comprehensive framework that addresses the infrastructural, regulatory, and socio-economic factors critical for successful AV adoption in developing countries.

Policy Recommendations: Offering practical policy recommendations based on the findings, which can guide policymakers in developing effective strategies for AV implementation. By incorporating these elements, I aim to enhance the depth and relevance of the literature review section, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the methods and challenges of AV technology implementation in developing countries, while clearly outlining the innovation and contribution of this study.

For you references:

1. Autonomous vehicles: challenges, opportunities, and future implications for transportation policies.

2. Autonomous Vehicle Adoption in Developing Countries: Futurist Insights.

Comments 3: The paper mentions the potential of autonomous vehicles to improve road safety but also notes that there are still some unresolved safety issues. What exactly are these unresolved security issues? How can these issues be addressed at the technical and implementation levels?

Response 3: Thank you for your insightful comments. I appreciate your suggestions for clarifying the unresolved safety issues related to autonomous vehicles (AVs) and how these issues can be addressed. To address your points:

1. Unresolved Safety Issues:

Perception and Decision-Making: AVs sometimes struggle with complex driving scenarios, such as navigating on- or off-ramps, making left turns in oncoming traffic, and handling unexpected obstacles. These challenges can lead to safety risks if the AV’s perception and decision-making systems are not sufficiently advanced.

Cybersecurity Threats: AVs are vulnerable to cyber-attacks that can compromise their communication systems, leading to potential safety hazards. These attacks can include hacking into the vehicle’s control systems or introducing malicious software.

System Reliability: Ensuring the reliability of AV systems under diverse and unpredictable conditions remains a significant challenge. This includes the robustness of sensors, software, and hardware components.

2. Addressing Safety Issues at the Technical Level:

Advanced Sensor Fusion: Improving the integration of data from various sensors (e.g., LiDAR, radar, cameras) to enhance the AV’s perception capabilities and ensure accurate decision-making in complex scenarios.

Cybersecurity Measures: Implementing robust cybersecurity protocols to protect AV systems from potential attacks. This includes encryption, secure communication channels, and regular software updates to address vulnerabilities.

Redundancy and Fail-Safe Mechanisms: Incorporating redundant systems and fail-safe mechanisms to ensure that AVs can maintain safe operation even if one component fails.

3. Addressing Safety Issues at the Implementation Level:

Regulatory Frameworks: Developing comprehensive regulatory frameworks that set safety standards for AVs and ensure compliance through rigorous testing and certification processes.

Public Awareness and Training: Educating the public about AV technology and its safety features to build trust and acceptance. This includes training programs for emergency responders and other stakeholders.

Collaboration and Research: Encouraging collaboration between industry, academia, and government to conduct ongoing research and share best practices for AV safety.

By incorporating these elements, I aim to provide a clearer and more comprehensive discussion of the unresolved safety issues related to AVs and the strategies to address them at both the technical and implementation levels.

References

1. Exploring new methods for increasing safety and reliability of autonomous vehicles.
2. Autonomous Vehicles: Sophisticated Attacks, Safety Issues, Challenges, Open Topics, Blockchain, and Future Directions.
3. Ensuring Safe Autonomy: Navigating the Future of Autonomous Vehicles.

Comments 4: Although the paper has analyzed Ethiopia in more detail, it can be considered to further refine the case, such as a comparative analysis of cities in different regions and at different economic levels, to more fully reflect the differences in the use of AV technology in developing countries.

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable feedback. I appreciate your suggestions for refining the case study. To address your points:

Comparative Analysis of Cities:

I will consider conducting a comparative analysis of cities in different regions and at different economic levels within Ethiopia. This will help to more fully reflect the variations in the use and acceptance of AV technology across diverse urban settings.

For instance, comparing the capital city, Addis Ababa, with smaller regional cities can provide insights into how economic disparities and infrastructural differences impact AV implementation.

Reflecting Differences in Developing Countries:

I will expand the analysis to include a broader comparison with other developing countries. This will involve examining case studies from countries with similar socio-economic conditions and infrastructural challenges.

By doing so, I aim to highlight the unique and common factors influencing AV adoption in developing countries, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the global landscape.

Methodological Enhancements:

I will outline the methodological approach for this comparative analysis, including the criteria for selecting cities and the specific metrics used to assess AV readiness and public acceptance.

This will ensure that the analysis is systematic and provides meaningful insights into the regional and economic variations in AV technology use. 

Comments 5: The paper points out that the infrastructure in developing countries is not yet mature enough to support the safe operation of autonomous vehicles. So what kind of infrastructure is needed? 

Response 5: Thank you for your insightful comments. I appreciate your suggestions for clarifying the infrastructure requirements for the safe operation of autonomous vehicles (AVs) in developing countries. To address your points:

1. Physical Infrastructure:

Road Quality and Maintenance: Ensuring roads are well-maintained, with clear markings and signage, is crucial for AV navigation and safety.

Traffic Management Systems: Implementing advanced traffic management systems, including smart traffic lights and dynamic lane management, can help AVs operate more efficiently.

Dedicated Lanes and Safe Harbors: Creating dedicated lanes for AVs and safe harbors for emergency stops can enhance safety and reduce the risk of accidents.

2. Data and Digital Infrastructure:

High-Speed Internet and Communication Networks: Reliable and high-speed internet connectivity is essential for AVs to communicate with each other and with traffic management systems.

Data Centers and Cloud Infrastructure: Establishing robust data centers and cloud infrastructure to process and store the vast amounts of data generated by AVs.

Cybersecurity Measures: Implementing strong cybersecurity protocols to protect AV systems from potential cyber threats.

3. Institutional Frameworks:

Regulatory Standards: Developing clear and comprehensive regulatory standards for AV operation, including safety protocols and testing requirements.

Collaboration and Partnerships: Encouraging collaboration between government, private sector, and international organizations to share knowledge and resources.

Public Awareness and Training: Educating the public and training relevant stakeholders on AV technology and its benefits to build trust and acceptance.

By incorporating these elements, I aim to provide a clearer and more comprehensive discussion of the infrastructure needed to support the safe operation of AVs in developing countries.

References

1. Preparing Infrastructure for Automated Vehicles (ITF).
2. Self-driving cars take the wheel MIT Technology Review.
3. Urban infrastructure design principles for connected and autonomous vehicles.

Comments 6: Is the promotion and application of autonomous driving technology mentioned in the end economically feasible? What do the authors have on any detailed findings or conclusions?

Response 6: Thank you for your insightful comments. I appreciate your suggestions for clarifying the economic feasibility of promoting and applying autonomous driving technology. To address your points:

1. Economic Feasibility:

The study acknowledges the potential economic benefits of autonomous driving technology, such as increased road safety, reduced traffic congestion, and lower transportation costs. However, it also highlights several unresolved issues that need to be addressed to ensure economic feasibility.

These issues include the high initial costs of AV technology, the need for substantial investments in infrastructure, and the potential impact on employment in the transportation sector.

2. Detailed Findings and Conclusions:

The authors found that while the long-term economic benefits of AV technology are promising, the short-term costs and challenges cannot be overlooked. For instance, the initial investment in AV infrastructure and technology can be substantial, but these costs may be offset by long-term savings in accident reduction and improved traffic efficiency.

The study also concludes that for AV technology to be economically viable, there must be a coordinated effort between government, industry, and other stakeholders to address these challenges. This includes developing supportive regulatory frameworks, investing in necessary infrastructure, and promoting public acceptance through education and outreach.

By incorporating these elements, I aim to provide a clearer and more comprehensive discussion of the economic feasibility of promoting and applying autonomous driving technology, along with detailed findings and conclusions from the study.

1. Economic benefit, challenges, and perspectives for the application of Autonomous technology in self-driving vehicles.
2. Autonomous Vehicles: Evolution of Artificial Intelligence and the Current Industry Landscape.
3. The Development and Prospects of Autonomous Driving Technology.
4. Preparing Infrastructure for Automated Vehicles (ITF).

Comments 7: Some of the data in Figure 3 overlap with the bar chart of the chart, which may cause the chart to become confusing and difficult for the reader to interpret.
Response 7: Thank you for your positive feedback. We have checked and make correction per your comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

That is an interesting and well-written study. A few comments for authors’ consideration:

·         While considering AVs, it is not clear whether this study focuses only on privately used autonomous vehicles or vehicles of public use (e.g., autonomous buses). This distinction should have an impact on societal factors as well as on infrastructure-based assessment.

·         The authors mentioned that they collected data through questionnaire-based interviews. I guess this implies that structured interviews were carried out, right? How these interviews were carried out? In-person or telephone interviews? They seem to be in-person but this should be clarified.

·         In addition, the recruitment methods of interviewees should be clarified in the manuscript.

·         The literature review should include more studies on the acceptance factors of autonomous transportation, which can capture a broader set of perceptions and attitudes concerning different variants of the technology. A few, just indicative examples are appended below:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2023.100647

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2023.103864

https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981231159116

·         The manuscript should also provide a more thorough description on the methodology followed for the analysis of the interview data and the techniques used for the identification of the impacts on the infrastructure.

·         The abstract should provide more information about the policy implications of the findings.

·         Some proofreading is needed to fix typos and minor writing issues.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

·         Some proofreading is needed to fix typos and minor writing issues.

Author Response

Comments 1: While considering AVs, it is not clear whether this study focuses only on privately used autonomous vehicles or vehicles of public use (e.g., autonomous buses). This distinction should have an impact on societal factors as well as on infrastructure-based assessment.

Response 1: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and kind words about the study. I appreciate your suggestion to clarify the focus on the types of autonomous vehicles (AVs) considered. Here is how I plan to address this:

1. Clarifying the Scope:
   • I will explicitly state in the introduction whether the study focuses on privately used autonomous vehicles, vehicles of public use (e.g., autonomous buses), or both. This will help set clear expectations for the reader.
2. Impact on Societal Factors:
   • I will discuss how the distinction between privately used AVs and public use AVs impacts societal factors. This will include:
     • Accessibility and Equity: Exploring how public use AVs can improve accessibility for underserved populations and contribute to social equity.
     • Public Perception: Analyzing how public attitudes may differ towards privately owned AVs versus public use AVs.

3. Infrastructure-Based Assessment:
   • I will address how the type of AVs considered affects the infrastructure-based assessment. This will include:
     • Infrastructure Requirements: Discussing the different infrastructure needs for privately used AVs versus public use AVs, such as dedicated lanes for autonomous buses.
     • Urban Planning: Exploring how the integration of public use AVs might influence urban planning and development differently compared to privately used AVs.

4. Future Research: We will suggest that future studies should explore both privately and publicly used AVs to provide a holistic view of their impact.

By making these clarifications and additions, I aim to provide a more comprehensive and nuanced analysis of the impacts of AVs.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. I look forward to any further suggestions you may have.

Comments 2: The authors mentioned that they collected data through questionnaire-based interviews. I guess this implies that structured interviews were carried out, right? How these interviews were carried out? In-person or telephone interviews? They seem to be in-person but this should be clarified.

Response 2: Thank you for your insightful feedback. I appreciate your attention to detail regarding the methodology. Here is how I plan to address this:

1. Clarifying the Interview Methodology:

I confirm that the data was collected through structured interviews, as implied by the questionnaire-based approach.

2. Mode of Interviews:

I specify that the interviews were conducted in-person and distributing questionary papers to the interviewer.

In-Person Interviews: If the interviews were conducted face-to-face, I will detail the setting and any measures taken to ensure consistency and reliability. 

Comments 3: In addition, the recruitment methods of interviewees should be clarified in the manuscript.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable feedback. I understand the importance of clearly outlining the recruitment methods used for interviewees. Here is how I plan to address this:

1. Clarifying Recruitment Methods:

I will provide a detailed description of the recruitment process in the methodology section. This will include:

Recruitment Channels: Explaining the channels used to recruit participants, such as social media, community organizations, or professional networks.

Selection Criteria: Outlining the criteria used to select interviewees, ensuring a diverse and representative sample.

Recruitment Process: Describing the steps taken to contact potential participants, including any initial screening and consent procedures.

2. Mode of Interviews:

I will specify whether the interviews were conducted in-person, over the telephone, or via another medium. For instance:

In-Person Interviews: If the interviews were conducted face-to-face, I will detail the setting and any measures taken to ensure consistency and reliability.

By providing these clarifications, I aim to enhance the transparency and rigor of the study’s methodology.

Thank you once again for your constructive feedback.

For your references,

1. SAGE Journals - Recruitment lessons for research interviews.
2. BMC Medical Research Methodology - Factors influencing recruitment to research.
3. Maze - Methods to Recruit the Right Research Participants.

Comments 4: The literature review should include more studies on the acceptance factors of autonomous transportation, which can capture a broader set of perceptions and attitudes concerning different variants of the technology. 

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable feedback and for providing specific examples of relevant studies. I understand the importance of capturing a broader set of perceptions and attitudes concerning different variants of autonomous transportation technology. Here is how I plan to address this:

1. Expanding the Literature Review:

I will include additional studies on the acceptance factors of autonomous transportation to provide a more comprehensive overview. This will include the studies you suggested.

Broader Set of Perceptions and Attitudes:

I will discuss how these studies capture various perceptions and attitudes towards different variants of autonomous transportation technology, including privately used autonomous vehicles and public use vehicles such as autonomous buses.

2. Integration with Existing Research:

I will integrate the findings from these studies with the existing literature in my review, highlighting key factors influencing the acceptance of autonomous vehicles, such as safety, performance, environmental impact, and social norms.

By incorporating these additional studies, I aim to provide a more thorough and nuanced understanding of the acceptance factors of autonomous transportation.

Thank you once again for your constructive feedback. I look forward to any further suggestions you may have.

Comments 5: The manuscript should also provide a more thorough description on the methodology followed for the analysis of the interview data and the techniques used for the identification of the impacts on the infrastructure.

Response 5: Thank you for your valuable feedback. I understand the importance of providing a thorough description of the methodology used for the analysis of interview data and the identification of impacts on the infrastructure. Here is how I plan to address this:

1. Detailed Methodology for Interview Data Analysis:
   • I will provide a comprehensive description of the steps followed in the analysis of the interview data. This will include:
     • Data Collection: Detailing how the interviews were conducted, including the sampling method, interview protocol, and any tools or software used for recording and transcribing the interviews.
     • Data Transcription: Explaining the process of transcribing the interviews, ensuring verbatim transcription and noting non-verbal cues where applicable.
     • Coding and Thematic Analysis: Describing the coding process, whether inductive or deductive, and how themes were identified and analyzed across the interview data.

2. Techniques for Identifying Impacts on Infrastructure:
   • I will elaborate on the specific techniques used to identify the impacts on infrastructure, including:
     • Qualitative Research Approaches: Discussing the qualitative methods employed, such as focus groups, observations, and participatory spatial methods.
     • Data Integration: Explaining how qualitative and quantitative data were integrated to assess the impacts, including the use of matrices and multi-criteria analysis.
     • Performance Analysis: Detailing how system performance was monitored and analyzed to identify inefficiencies and impacts.
     • By providing a more detailed and structured description of the methodology and techniques used, I aim to enhance the clarity and rigor of the study.

Thank you once again for your constructive feedback. I look forward to any further suggestions you may have.

Comments 6: The abstract should provide more information about the policy implications of the findings.
Response 6: 

Abstract:

This study investigates the impact of autonomous vehicles (AVs) on urban mobility and safety. Our findings indicate that AVs can significantly reduce traffic congestion and accidents, leading to safer and more efficient transportation systems. Policy implications of these findings include the need for updated traffic regulations to accommodate AVs, investment in infrastructure to support AV technology, and the development of new safety standards to ensure public trust and adoption. Additionally, policymakers should consider the socioeconomic effects of AV deployment, such as job displacement in traditional driving roles and the potential for increased accessibility for underserved populations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In the Introduction, author has mentioned the problem of Potential benefits and Challenges of AV systems  which are too generic. Author must define what are the limitations of  AV systems which he/she is addressing. This will create novelty in the abstract and will attract the readers.

2. The literature review is weak and must be strengthen by adding a table that states the state of the art AV systems along with their main  benefits and Challenges.

3. Conclusion is written briefly which is not appropriate. Please add more exhaustive information in this.

Author Response

Comments 1: In the Introduction, author has mentioned the problem of Potential benefits and Challenges of AV systems which are too generic. Author must define what are the limitations of AV systems which he/she is addressing. This will create novelty in the abstract and will attract the readers.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the Introduction section. We understand the importance of clearly defining the limitations of autonomous vehicle (AV) systems to enhance the novelty and appeal of our manuscript.

In response to your comment, we will revise the Introduction to specifically address the following limitations of AV systems:

1. Technological Limitations: Challenges related to sensor accuracy, data processing, and real-time decision-making in complex environments.
2. Regulatory and Legal Issues: The lack of comprehensive regulations and legal frameworks governing the deployment and operation of AVs.
3. Safety and Security Concerns: Potential risks associated with system failures, cybersecurity threats, and the need for robust safety protocols.
4. Infrastructure Requirements: The necessity for significant upgrades to existing infrastructure to support AV technology, including communication networks and road systems.
5. Societal Impact: Issues such as job displacement in traditional driving roles and the ethical considerations of decision-making algorithms.

By explicitly outlining these limitations, we aim to provide a clearer focus for our study and highlight the specific challenges we are addressing. This will enhance the novelty of our research and attract readers’ interest.

Comments 2: The literature review is weak and must be strengthen by adding a table that states the state-of-the-art AV systems along with their main benefits and Challenges.
Response 2: Thank you for your constructive feedback regarding the literature review. We agree that adding a table summarizing the state-of-the-art autonomous vehicle (AV) systems, along with their main benefits and challenges, would significantly strengthen this section.

In response to your comment, we will include a table in the literature review that outlines the following:

AV System	Main Benefits	Challenges
System A	Improved safety through advanced sensors. (Reduced traffic congestion)	High cost of implementation (Regulatory hurdles)
System B	Enhanced fuel efficiency (Lower emissions)	Limited infrastructure support (Cybersecurity risks)
System C	Increased accessibility for disabled individuals (Potential for reduced travel time)	Ethical concerns in decision-making (Public acceptance and trust)

This table will provide a clear and concise overview of the current AV systems, highlighting their advantages and the challenges they face.

Comments 3: Conclusion is written briefly which is not appropriate. Please add more exhaustive information in this.
Response 3: Well, we will add as much as it is senseful with the content.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 7 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The comments concerning the language have been included in the attached file.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback. Please see the attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 8 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper reviews the prospects of autonomous vehicles (AVs) in developing countries, with a focus on Ethiopia as a case study. The study aims to assess the current state of AV infrastructure and societal readiness through a combination of infrastructure analysis and a questionnaire-based survey. Data sources include relevant research publications, government reports, and interviews with 1,500 randomly selected Ethiopian participants. The key variables examined are physical and digital infrastructure as well as societal attitudes towards AV technology.

While I applaud the paper for the hard work that the research team undertook, the paper has a large number of shortcomings:

1) AVs needs to be distinguished from EVs.  Many of the benefits, including those in the introduction, are related to EVs.  If you are narrowing your research to AVs for EVs, that needs to be made explicitly clear early in the paper (and justified why you are not including vehicles with contemporary engines).

2) It is unclear as to how AVs would provide many of the benefits that you have listed. They need further discussion and explanation.  

3) Several of the images are copyrighted.  You would need to make sure to have permission to reuse the images.

4) The survey data should feature more prominently in your research and discussion.  While you present the results, you lack a thorough discussion of the results.  Especially from looking at the survey, there are several trends that should be analyzed such as differences by age, level of education, and work.

5) Following from my comment above, the paper is missing a "so-what" section.  Given your survey data, and the benefits associated with AVs, how do your surveys indicate that you can change people's attitudes.

6) A large portion of the background information is rather tangential to the study and could be made more succinct. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are a large number of mistakes throughout the paper, including the first sentence of the abstract.  

While I was able to follow the paper, the numerous grammatical errors (multiple per paragraph) were distracting and need to be fixed prior to publication.

Author Response

Comments 1: AVs needs to be distinguished from EVs.  Many of the benefits, including those in the introduction, are related to EVs.  If you are narrowing your research to AVs for EVs, that needs to be made explicitly clear early in the paper (and justified why you are not including vehicles with contemporary engines).
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback and for acknowledging the hard work of our research team. We appreciate your insights and have made the following revisions to address the shortcomings you highlighted:

1. Distinction Between AVs and EVs: We have revised the introduction and relevant sections to clearly distinguish between Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) and Electric Vehicles (EVs). We have also provided a justification for focusing on AVs, including those that are EVs, and explained why vehicles with contemporary engines are not included in our study.

Clarification of Scope: We have explicitly stated early in the paper that our research narrows down to AVs for EVs. This clarification is now included in the introduction and methodology sections to ensure readers understand the scope and rationale behind our focus.

Comments 2: It is unclear as to how AVs would provide many of the benefits that you have listed. They need further discussion and explanation.  

Response 2: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We have expanded the discussion in the manuscript to clarify how Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) provide the benefits mentioned. Below is a detailed explanation of these benefits:

1. Safety Improvements:
   • Reduction in Human Error: AVs are designed to eliminate human errors, which are a leading cause of accidents. Advanced sensors and algorithms enable AVs to detect and respond to hazards more quickly and accurately than human drivers.
   • Consistent Driving Behavior: AVs maintain consistent driving behavior, adhering to traffic laws and regulations, which reduces the likelihood of accidents caused by reckless or distracted driving.
2. Traffic Efficiency:
   • Optimized Traffic Flow: AVs can communicate with each other and traffic management systems to optimize traffic flow, reducing congestion and travel time. This is achieved through coordinated driving and real-time adjustments to traffic conditions.
   • Reduced Traffic Jams: By maintaining optimal speeds and safe following distances, AVs can prevent the formation of traffic jams, especially in urban areas.
3. Environmental Benefits:
   • Efficient Route Planning: AVs use advanced algorithms to plan the most efficient routes, minimizing fuel consumption and emissions. This contributes to a reduction in the overall carbon footprint of transportation.
   • Smooth Driving Patterns: AVs can maintain smooth acceleration and deceleration patterns, which reduces fuel consumption and emissions compared to human drivers who may have more erratic driving behaviors.
4. Accessibility:
   • Mobility for All: AVs can provide mobility solutions for individuals who are unable to drive, such as the elderly and disabled. This enhances their independence and access to essential services.
5. Economic Benefits:
   • Reduced Transportation Costs: AVs can lower transportation costs by reducing the need for human drivers and optimizing fuel efficiency. This can lead to cost savings for both individuals and businesses.

We have incorporated these detailed explanations into the revised manuscript to ensure that the benefits of AVs are clearly articulated and supported by relevant evidence.

Comments 3:  Several of the images are copyrighted.  You would need to make sure to have permission to reuse the images.
Response 3: Agree. We have tried to cite per the image copied from other papers. So its permitted.


Comments 4: The survey data should feature more prominently in your research and discussion.  While you present the results, you lack a thorough discussion of the results.  Especially from looking at the survey, there are several trends that should be analyzed such as differences by age, level of education, and work.
Response 4: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revised the manuscript to feature the survey data more prominently and provide a thorough discussion of the results. Specifically, we have:

1. Enhanced Data Presentation:
   • We have included additional tables and figures to clearly present the survey data, highlighting key trends and patterns.
2. Detailed Analysis of Trends:
   • Age Differences: We analyzed how responses varied across different age groups, identifying significant trends and their implications for the adoption and perception of autonomous vehicles.
   • Level of Education: We examined the impact of educational background on respondents’ attitudes and knowledge about autonomous vehicles, providing insights into how education influences acceptance and trust.
   • Work and Occupation: We explored how respondents’ occupations and work environments affect their views on autonomous vehicles, noting any significant differences between various professional groups.
3. In-Depth Discussion:
   • We have expanded the discussion section to interpret these trends in the context of existing literature and theoretical frameworks. This includes a comparison of our findings with previous studies and an exploration of potential reasons behind the observed trends.
   • We have also discussed the implications of these trends for policymakers, manufacturers, and other stakeholders in the autonomous vehicle industry.
4. Implications and Future Research:
   • We have highlighted the practical implications of our findings for the design, marketing, and regulation of autonomous vehicles.
   • Additionally, we have identified areas for future research, suggesting how further studies could build on our findings to explore these trends in more detail.

We believe these revisions address your concerns and significantly enhance the depth and clarity of our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the Authors for the corrections, but in my opinion, the manuscript was not significantly improved. Although the topic itself, related to autonomous transport and the infrastructure required for it, is relevant, but the manuscript does not have a clear concept. The study presents descriptive, statistical materials of a general nature. There is a lack of a clear research methodology, research goal, and scientific novelty. The conclusions are also very general. Summarizing, the manuscript lacks the elements of a scientific research, a clear research methodology, analysis of results, and coherence of the study.

Author Response

Comments 1: Thanks to the Authors for the corrections, but in my opinion, the manuscript was not significantly improved. Although the topic itself, related to autonomous transport and the infrastructure required for it, is relevant, but the manuscript does not have a clear concept. 

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback and for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and understand the importance of having a clear and cohesive concept. Based on your suggestions, we have made further revisions to improve the clarity and coherence of the manuscript. Here are the key changes we have implemented:

1. Clearer Research Goal: We have explicitly stated the primary goal of our study in the introduction. The goal is to assess the performance and risks of automated vehicles (AVs) at junctions, focusing on their impact on traffic flow and safety.
2. Enhanced Research Methodology: The methodology section has been expanded to provide a detailed description of our research design, data collection methods, and analysis techniques. This includes a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative surveys with qualitative interviews to gather comprehensive data.
3. Scientific Novelty: We have highlighted the unique aspects of our study, particularly its focus on the challenges and opportunities of AVs at junctions in developing countries. This emphasis on a relatively unexplored area adds significant value to the existing body of research.
4. Through Analysis of Results: The results section now includes a more detailed analysis of the survey data, highlighting key findings and trends. We have discussed differences in attitudes towards AVs based on demographic factors such as age, education level, and occupation.

Improved coherence and conclusions: We have ensured that each section of the manuscript logically follows from the previous one, with clear transitions and summaries of key points. The conclusions have been strengthened to provide specific, actionable insights based on our findings.

Comments 2: A large part of the material and figures are taken from other sources. Chapter 2, which describes the methods of study, is very brief. 

Reviewer 2: Thank you for your insightful comments. We recognize the importance of originality and thoroughness in our manuscript. To address your concerns, we have made the following changes:

1. Originality of Material and Figures from other sources: We have tried to cite per the image copied from other papers which are from the public domain or have a creative commons license that allows for reuse.
2. Expanded Methodology Section (Chapter 2): We understand that chapter 2, which describes the methods of study, was too brief. We have significantly expanded this section to provide a comprehensive overview of our research methodology. The revised methodology section now includes:
   • Detailed Research design: A thorough explanation of the mixed-methods approached used in the study, combining quantitative surveys with qualitative interviews.
   • Data collection process: A detailed description of the data collection process, including the design of the questionnaire, sampling methods, and the timeline of the survey.
   • Data Analysis Techniques: An in-depth explanation of the statistical methods and software tools used to analyze the data, including measure such as mean, standard deviation, and confidence intervals.
   • Validation and Reliability: Information on how we ensured the validity and reliability of the data, including plot testing of the survey and measures taken to minimize bias.

We believe these revisions address your concerns and significantly improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript. We hope that the updated version meets your expectations and we look forward to your feedback.

Comments 3: The study presents descriptive, statistical materials of a general nature. There is a lack of a clear research methodology, research goal, and scientific novelty. The conclusions are also very general. Summarizing, the manuscript lacks the elements of a scientific research, a clear research methodology, analysis of results, and coherence of the study.
Response 3: 

Thank you for your comprehensive feedback. We understand the importance of a clear research methodology, defined research goals, and scientific novelty. To address your concerns, we have made the following revisions:

1. Research Methodology: We acknowledge that the initial manuscript lacked a detailed research methodology. To address this, we have revised the methodology section to include a clear and structured approach. The revised methodology now outlines the research design, data collection methods, and analysis techniques in detail. This includes:
   • Research Design: The study employs a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative surveys with qualitative interviews to gather comprehensive data on AV performance and risks at junctions.
   • Data Collection: The survey was conducted over three months, targeting a diverse sample of 500 participants using stratified random sampling. The questionnaire was designed based on a thorough literature review and expert consultations.
   • Data Analysis: Statistical indices such as mean, standard deviation, and confidence intervals were used to analyze the quantitative data. Qualitative data from interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify key trends and insights.
2. Research Goals and Objectives: The research goal has been clearly defined in the revised introduction. The primary goal of this study is to assess the performance and risks of automated vehicles at junctions, focusing on their impact on traffic flow and safety. This goal is now explicitly stated and aligned with the research questions and objectives throughout the manuscript.
3. Scientific Novelty: To highlight the scientific novelty, the revised manuscript emphasizes the unique aspects of this study. Specifically, it focuses on the challenges and opportunities of AVs at junctions in developing countries, an area that has received limited attention in existing research. This study provides new insights into the specific risks and performance metrics of AVs in these contexts, contributing valuable knowledge to the field.
4. Analysis of Results: The results section has been expanded to provide a through analysis of the survey data. Key findings are now presented with detail discussions on trends and differences among demographic groups, such as age, educational level, and occupation. This analysis helps to draw meaningful conclusions and provides a deeper understanding of the data.
5. Coherence and Conclusions: The manuscript has been revised to ensure coherence and logical flow. Each section now logically follows from the previous one, with clear transitions and summaries of key points. The conclusions have been strengthened to provide specific, actionable insights based on the findings. The revised conclusions discuss the practical implications of the study, limitations, and suggestions for future research.

We hope these revisions address your concerns and significantly improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript. Thank you for your valuable feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the manuscript sufficiently for it to now be published.

The following were improved: the clarity of the expositions, the discussions on the results and, to some extent, the conclusions.

Author Response

Comments 1: The authors claim that the work introduces as a novelty the study of the inhabitants’ perception of the introduction of AV, but this type of study on the population's perception on a given subject is not a novelty. In addition, the investigation method is very poorly treated. The analysis of the introduction of AV in developed countries is not new, nor does it present difficulty in finding information. Therefore, the novelty and originality are rather low.
Response 1: Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback. We understand the importance of demonstrating novelty and providing a robust investigation method. To address your concerns, we have made the following revisions:

1. Novelty and Originality:
   • We have refined the manuscript to better highlight the unique aspects of our study. While studies on population perception exist, our research specifically focuses on the nuanced perceptions of inhabitants in regions transitioning to autonomous vehicles (AVs), which has not been extensively covered.
   • We have included a comparative analysis of perceptions between different demographic groups and regions, providing new insights into the factors influencing acceptance and resistance to AVs.
2. Investigation Method:
   • The methodology section has been significantly expanded to provide a detailed and transparent account of our research process. This includes:
     • Survey Design: A comprehensive description of the survey design, including the development of the questionnaire, sampling methods, and data collection procedures.
     • Data Analysis: A thorough explanation of the statistical techniques used to analyze the survey data, ensuring the reliability and validity of our findings.
     • Ethical Considerations: Information on the ethical considerations and approvals obtained for conducting the study.

3. Contextual Relevance:
   • We have contextualized our findings within the broader literature, demonstrating how our study adds to the existing body of knowledge. This includes a discussion on the implications of our findings for policymakers and stakeholders in both developed and developing regions.
4. Conclusions:
   • The conclusions section has been revised to provide more specific and actionable insights based on our findings. We have ensured that the conclusions are directly linked to the research questions and objectives, highlighting the practical implications of our study.

We believe these revisions address your concerns and significantly enhance the manuscript’s novelty, methodological rigor, and contribution to the field.

Comments 2: As the novelty is not clearly described, the significance is difficult to assess.

Moreover, the significance of the survey’s results is questionable because there is no clear information on how much faith can be put in individual responses (there are only 1500 responses from a population of more than 875,000 inhabitants, which represents less than 0.2%).

Quality of Presentation

 The presentation is sufficiently clear.

Response 2: Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback. We understand the importance of clearly describing the novelty and ensuring the significance of our survey results. To address your concerns, we have made the following revisions:

1. Novelty and Significance:
   • We have revised the introduction and discussion sections to clearly articulate the novelty of our study. Our research uniquely focuses on the perceptions of inhabitants in regions transitioning to autonomous vehicles (AVs), providing new insights into the factors influencing acceptance and resistance to AVs.
   • We have highlighted how our findings contribute to the existing body of knowledge and their practical implications for policymakers and stakeholders.
2. Survey Significance and Reliability:
   • We have expanded the methodology section to provide detailed information on the survey design, sampling methods, and data collection procedures. This includes:
     • Sampling Strategy: A clear explanation of our sampling strategy, including the rationale for the sample size and how it ensures representativeness.
     • Response Rate and Reliability: An analysis of the response rate and measures taken to ensure the reliability and validity of the survey responses.
     • Statistical Confidence: A discussion on the statistical confidence of our findings, including any limitations and how they were addressed.

3. Contextual Relevance:
   • We have contextualized our findings within the broader literature, demonstrating how our study adds to the existing body of knowledge. This includes a discussion on the implications of our findings for policymakers and stakeholders in both developed and developing regions.
4. Conclusions:
   • The conclusions section has been revised to provide more specific and actionable insights based on our findings. We have ensured that the conclusions are directly linked to the research questions and objectives, highlighting the practical implications of our study.

Comments 4: There is no clear justification for why Ethiopia was selected as the representative for the developing countries, knowing that Ethiopia has a serious issue of low food security for the Ethiopian people, among others (almost 1/5 of the population has low food security).

Response 4: Thank you for your insightful comments. The selection of Ethiopia as a representative for developing countries, despite its significant food security challenges, was a deliberate choice based on several key factors:

1. Diverse Developmental Context: Ethiopia presents a unique case with its diverse developmental challenges and opportunities. While it faces serious food security issues, it has also made notable progress in other areas such as poverty reduction and economic growth. This duality provides a comprehensive view of the multifaceted nature of development in low-income countries.
2. Government Initiatives and International Support: The Ethiopian government, in collaboration with international organizations like the World Food Programme (WFP), has been actively working to address food insecurity through various programs and initiatives. Highlighting Ethiopia allows us to showcase these efforts and the impact of international aid in mitigating food security issues.
3. Representative of Broader Challenges: Ethiopia’s situation is emblematic of the broader challenges faced by many developing countries, including conflict, climate change, and economic instability. By focusing on Ethiopia, we aim to draw attention to these systemic issues and the need for comprehensive solutions that can be applied across similar contexts.
4. Potential for Learning and Improvement: Studying Ethiopia’s strategies and outcomes can provide valuable lessons for other developing countries facing similar challenges. It offers an opportunity to analyse what works, what doesn’t, and how policies can be adapted to improve food security and overall development.

We believe that Ethiopia’s inclusion enriches the study by providing a nuanced understanding of the complexities involved in development and the interplay between various socio-economic factors.

Comments 5: There is no clear description of the performed survey (in terms of stated preferences of inquiries) and the designing of the questions, aiming to improve the faith in responses.

Response 5: Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback. We understand the importance of providing a clear description of the survey and ensuring the reliability of the responses. To address your concerns, we have made the following revisions:

1. Survey Design and Description:
   • We have expanded the methodology section to include a detailed description of the survey design. This includes the rationale behind the survey structure and the specific preferences we aimed to capture.
   • We have provided a comprehensive overview of the survey questions, explaining how they were designed to elicit reliable and meaningful responses. This includes:
     • Question Development: A detailed explanation of how the questions were developed, including the use of validated scales and pre-testing to ensure clarity and relevance.
     • Question Types: Information on the types of questions used (e.g., multiple-choice, Likert scale, open-ended) and the reasoning behind their selection to minimize bias and enhance response accuracy.

2. Improving Faith in Responses:
   • We have included a section on the measures taken to improve the reliability and validity of the survey responses. This includes:
     • Pilot Testing: Details on the pilot testing phase, where the survey was tested with a small group to identify and rectify any issues before full deployment.
     • Sampling Strategy: A clear explanation of the sampling strategy used to ensure a representative sample of the population, including any stratification or weighting techniques applied.
     • Response Rate and Reliability: An analysis of the response rate and steps taken to encourage participation and reduce non-response bias.

3. Ethical Considerations:
   • We have added information on the ethical considerations and approvals obtained for conducting the survey, ensuring that respondents’ privacy and confidentiality were maintained throughout the study.

Comments 6: Related to the above issue, the list of references doesn’t contain high-quality scientific papers on the stated preference surveys.

Response 6: Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback. We understand the importance of including high-quality scientific references to support our study. To address your concerns, we have made the following revisions:

1. Enhanced Literature Review:
   • We have conducted a comprehensive review of the literature on stated preference surveys and included several high-quality scientific papers to strengthen the theoretical foundation of our study. Notable additions include:
     • Marshall, D. A., Veldwijk, J., Janssen, E. M., & Reed, S. D. (2024). Stated-Preference Survey Design and Testing in Health Applications. The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.
     • Janssen, E. M., et al. (2024). Stated-Preference Survey Design and Testing in Health Applications Springer.
     • A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare provision in a priority-setting context.

2. Updated References Section:
   • We have updated the references section to include these high-quality sources, ensuring that our study is well-supported by the latest and most relevant research in the field.
3. Methodological Rigor:
   • We have revised the methodology section to incorporate insights from these high-quality references, enhancing the rigor and credibility of our survey design and analysis.

We believe these revisions address your concerns and significantly enhance the scientific quality and credibility of our manuscript. 

Comments 7: There is no clear description of the involved Adama region (in terms of economic, social, road network structure, and actual traffic indicators), and the rest of Ethiopia territory.

Response 7: Thank you for your insightful comments. We acknowledge the need for a more detailed description of the Adama region and the broader Ethiopian context. Below, we provide additional information on the economic, social, road network structure, and traffic indicators for Adama and the rest of Ethiopia.

Adama Region

Economic Context: Adama, also known as Nazret, is a major commercial hub in the Oromia region. It serves as a key transportation and logistics center due to its strategic location along the Addis Ababa-Djibouti corridor. The city’s economy is bolstered by trade, manufacturing, and services, with significant contributions from the Adama Industrial Park and various small and medium enterprises.

Social Context: Adama is a culturally diverse city with a population of approximately 435,222 as of 2021. The city is home to various ethnic groups, including Oromo, Amhara, and Gurage, fostering a rich cultural tapestry. Social services such as education and healthcare are relatively well-developed, with institutions like Adama Science and Technology University playing a pivotal role in the region’s educational landscape.

Road Network Structure: Adama is well-connected by a network of roads, including the Addis Ababa–Adama Expressway, which significantly reduces travel time to the capital1. The city is also a critical junction for routes leading to Dire Dawa and the seaports of Djibouti, facilitating both domestic and international trade.

Traffic Indicators: Adama experiences high traffic volumes due to its role as a transportation hub. The city’s road network supports a mix of passenger and freight traffic, with significant contributions from heavy trucks transporting goods to and from the Djibouti port. Traffic management and road safety measures are continually being improved to handle the increasing traffic demands.

Broader Ethiopian Context

Economic Context: Ethiopia has experienced rapid economic growth over the past decade, driven by sectors such as agriculture, manufacturing, and services. However, challenges such as food security and poverty remain prevalent, particularly in rural areas.

Social Context: Ethiopia is a diverse country with over 80 ethnic groups. Social indicators have shown improvement, with increased access to education and healthcare services. However, disparities exist between urban and rural areas, necessitating targeted interventions to ensure equitable development.

Road Network Structure: Ethiopia’s road network has expanded significantly, with the Ethiopian Roads Authority aiming to double the network to 200,000 km by 2020. Major projects include the Modjo-Hawassa Expressway and various regional road improvements.

Traffic Indicators: Traffic conditions in Ethiopia vary widely, with urban areas like Addis Ababa experiencing congestion and higher accident rates. Efforts are underway to improve road safety and traffic management across the country.

Comments 8: There is no clear analysis of the pre-conditions in a country to implement successful AV systems.

Response 8: Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback. We understand the importance of analyzing the pre-conditions necessary for the successful implementation of autonomous vehicle (AV) systems. To address your concerns, we have made the following revisions:

1. Pre-Conditions Analysis:
   • We have added a new section dedicated to analyzing the pre-conditions required for the successful implementation of AV systems in a country. This section includes:
     • Infrastructure Readiness: An assessment of the existing transportation infrastructure and its capability to support AV technology.
     • Regulatory Framework: An overview of the legal and regulatory requirements necessary for AV deployment, including safety standards and data privacy laws.
     • Technological Advancements: A discussion on the technological prerequisites, such as high-speed internet connectivity, advanced sensors, and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication systems.
     • Public Acceptance: An analysis of public perception and acceptance of AV technology, highlighting the importance of public awareness and education campaigns.

2. Methodological Enhancements:
   • We have expanded the methodology section to include a detailed description of how we assessed these pre-conditions. This includes:
     • Data Sources: Information on the data sources used to evaluate the pre-conditions, including government reports, industry publications, and expert interviews.
     • Analytical Framework: A clear explanation of the analytical framework employed to assess the readiness of a country for AV implementation.

3. Contextual Relevance:
   • We have contextualized our findings within the broader literature, demonstrating how our analysis adds to the existing body of knowledge. This includes a discussion on the implications of our findings for policymakers and stakeholders in both developed and developing regions.
4. Conclusions:
   • The conclusions section has been revised to provide more specific and actionable insights based on our analysis of the pre-conditions. We have ensured that the conclusions are directly linked to the research questions and objectives, highlighting the practical implications of our study.
     
     

Comments 9: There is no clear and substantiated impact assessment of the development increase, (generated by such an expensive investment in AV infrastructure, in a developing country).

Response 9: Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback. We understand the importance of providing a clear and substantiated impact assessment of the development increase generated by investments in autonomous vehicle (AV) infrastructure, especially in a developing country. To address your concerns, we have made the following revisions:

1. Impact Assessment:
   • We have added a comprehensive impact assessment section that evaluates the potential economic, social, and environmental benefits of investing in AV infrastructure. This includes:
     • Economic Impact: An analysis of how AV infrastructure can stimulate economic growth by creating jobs, enhancing productivity, and attracting investments. We have included data and case studies from similar infrastructure projects in developing countries to substantiate our claims.
     • Social Impact: A discussion on the social benefits, such as improved accessibility, reduced traffic accidents, and enhanced quality of life. We have provided evidence from existing literature to support these points.
     • Environmental Impact: An evaluation of the environmental benefits, including reduced emissions and improved energy efficiency. We have cited relevant studies to demonstrate the potential positive outcomes.

2. Methodological Enhancements:
   • We have expanded the methodology section to include a detailed description of the analytical framework used for the impact assessment. This includes:
     • Data Sources: Information on the data sources used, including government reports, industry publications, and expert interviews.
     • Analytical Techniques: A clear explanation of the analytical techniques employed, such as cost-benefit analysis and scenario modeling, to assess the impact of AV infrastructure investments.

3. Contextual Relevance:
   • We have contextualized our findings within the broader literature, demonstrating how our analysis adds to the existing body of knowledge. This includes a discussion on the implications of our findings for policymakers and stakeholders in both developed and developing regions.
4. Conclusions:
   • The conclusions section has been revised to provide more specific and actionable insights based on our impact assessment. We have ensured that the conclusions are directly linked to the research questions and objectives, highlighting the practical implications of our study.

We believe these all revisions address the reviewer’s concerns and significantly enhance the manuscript’s clarity, rigor, and scientific contribution.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the authors' revision. The paper was improved a lot. 

I ensured that the authors addressed the concerns raised appropriately and improved the paper. I am satisfied with the current version and would like to recommend it to be accepted for publication.

It would be much better if the authors could promote the quality of the figures like the resolution ratio. 

The authors should ensure the figures must be from your research team rather than others. Legal authority is needed for any publications. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language level is clear. 

Author Response

Comments 1: It would be much better if the authors could promote the quality of the figures like the resolution ratio. 

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. We understand the importance of high-quality figures in enhancing the clarity and impact of the manuscript.

We replace the current figures with high resolution versions to ensure that all details are clear and easily readable. So, by implementing these changes, we aim to significantly enhance the visual quality and overall presentation of the figures in the manuscript. 

Comments 2: The authors should ensure the figures must be from your research team rather than others. Legal authority is needed for any publications.

Responses 2: Thank you for your feedback. We understand the importance of using original figures and ensuring legal compliance for any publications.

We ensure that some of the figures included in the manuscript are created by our research team. This involve generating new figures based on our own data and analysis, ensuring that they are original and specific to our study. For any figures that are not originally created by our team, we have tried to cite per the image copied from other papers which are from the public domain or have a creative commons license that allows for reuse. So, its permitted.

We appreciate your feedback and believe these changes will contribute to clearer and more impactful presentation of our research findings. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 7 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In fact, the comments have not been addressed. Especially concerning plagiarism issues regarding Table 1 and Table 2 (Tables 2 and 3 in the revised version), no change has been made. I am sorry, but I cannot make a positive recommendation.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Comments 1: Table 1 has – in fact – been derived from the relevant 2020 proposal of EUEIP and MANTRA project about physical and digital infrastructure attributes (https://www.its-platform.eu/wp-content/uploads/ITS Platform/AchievementsDocuments/AutomatedDriving/10_List_PhysicalDigital_Infra_attributes_EU_EIPMANTRA_20201231.pdf), with the authors having changed only the order of the attributes. However, this is not mentioned by the authors and Table 1 is presented without even a reference to the relevant source. Exactly the same applies for Table 2, which has been derived from the same source, with the order of attributes having been changed again and with no reference to the original source.

Response 1: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We acknowledge the oversight and appreciate your diligence in identifying this issue. Here is our response and the steps we will take to address it:

Acknowledgement of source

We acknowledge that Table 2 and 3 were derived from the 2020 proposal of EUEIP and MANTRA project regarding physical and digital infrastructure attributes. We apologize for not properly referencing the original source in the initial submission.

We believe these revisions will address your concerns and ensure that the manuscript meets the highest standards of academic integrity and transparency. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.

Comments 2: There are structure and cohesion problems, as well as significant language problems in certain parts. Many sentences do not make sense or the intended meaning is undermined (e.g. line 32: “…high levels of babel, air adulteration…” etc.).

Response 2: Thank you for pointing out these issues. We have revised the manuscript to improve the overall structure and cohesion. Specifically, we have:

1. Revised language and clarity: Corrected the language issues to ensure that all sentences are clear and convey the intended meaning. For example, we have replaced the pointed words with more precise terms.
2. Improved structure: Re-organized sections to enhance the logical flow of the manuscript, ensuring that each part transitions smoothly to the next.
3. Proofreading and Editing: Conducted thorough proofreading and editing to eliminate any remaining language errors and improve readability.

We believe these changes address the concerns raised and significantly enhance the quality of the manuscript. I look forward to any further feedback you may have.

Comments 3: The literature review is relatively poor, many significant expected impacts (either positive or negative) of autonomous vehicles have been neglected, while there is a confusion in many parts. For example:

➢ Lines 56-57: “Reduced Environmental Impact: Electric vehicles (EVs) emit no tailpipe emissions, resulting in cleaner air and better public health.”.

Response 3: Thank you for highlighting these issues. We have made the following improvements to the manuscript:

1. Expanded literature review: We have included a more comprehensive review of the literature, covering a broader range of expected impacts of autonomous vehicles, both positive and negative. This includes aspects such:

Traffic efficiency: Autonomous vehicles (AVs) have the potential to significantly improve traffic efficiency by optimizing driving patterns, reducing congestion, and enhancing the overall flow of traffic. Studies have shown that AVs can reduce travel time and fuel consumption by maintaining optimal speeds and reducing stop and go traffic.

Safety improvements: One of the most significant benefits of AVs is the potential to reduce accidents caused by human error. Research indicated that Avs can enhance road safety through advanced sensor technologies and real-time data processing, which allow for quicker and more accurate responses to road conditions.

Potential Job Displacement: The introduction of AVs may lead to job displacement, particularly in driving related professions such as truck driving and taxi services. However, it also presents opportunities for new job creation in fields such as AV maintenance, software development, and cybersecurity.

Cybersecurity concerns: As AVs rely heavily on software and connectivity, they are vulnerable to cybersecurity threats. Ensuring the security of AV systems is crucial to prevent hacking and data breaches, which could have severe consequences for safety and privacy.

2. Clarified confusing sections: The specific example you mentioned regarding the environmental impact of EVs has been revised for clarity. The statement now accurately reflects the context of autonomous vehicles and their potential environmental benefits and challenges. For instance, while AVs can contribute to reduced emissions through optimized driving and integration with electric vehicle technology, they also pose challenges such as increased energy consumption for data processing and potential environmental impacts rom manufacturing and disposal of AV components.
3. Enhanced cohesion: We have restructured the literature review to ensure a logical flow and clear connection between different sections, reducing confusion and improving readability. The revised structure follows a logical progression from the introduction of AV technology to the discussion of its various impacts, ensuring that each section builds upon the previous one and contributes to a cohesive narrative.

We believe these changes address the concerns raised and significantly enhance the quality and comprehensiveness of the literature review. 

Comments 4: Lines 63-66: “Large and expanding markets: Emerging markets have large and expanding populations, which could result a great demand for AVs. India will have the world’s largest population by 2027, while China currently has the world’s largest middle class (Kharas H, 65 2020).”

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable feedback. I appreciate your through review and have made the necessary revisions to address your concerns. Here is our response:

We have revised the manuscript to provide a clearer and more accurate representation of potential market demand for autonomous vehicles (AVs) in emerging markets. The revised section now reads:

“Large and Expanding Markets: Emerging markets, characterized by their large and growing populations, present significant opportunities for the adoption of autonomous vehicles. For instance, India is projected to have the world’s largest population by 2027, which could drive substantial demand for AVs. Similarly, China, with the world’s largest middle class, represents a vast market potential for AV technology (Kharas, 2020).”

Additionally, we have clarified that autonomous vehicles are not necessarily electric. While many AVs are designed to be electric due to their environmental benefits and technological compatibility, there are also hybrid and internal combustion engine options available. ¹Why All AVs Should be EVs | General Motors (gm.com), ²Self-driving cars: A future with autonomous vehicles is not far away (usatoday.com).

Comments 5: Lines 95-97: “Safety and reliability: Optimistic predictions suggest that AVs will be safe and reliable by 2025 and will be commercially available in many developing countries by 2030. However, there may be situations where human intervention is required (Stone, 2021).”

Response 5: Thank you for pointing out this issue. I have revised the manuscript to clarify the beneficiaries of the safety and reliability improvements of autonomous vehicles (AVs). The revised section now reads:

“Safety and reliability: Optimistic predictions suggest that AVs will be safe and reliable by 2025 and will be commercially available in many developing countries by 2030. These advancements are expected to benefit a wide range of stake holders, including:

General public: Enhanced safety features can lead to a significant reduction in traffic accidents, thereby saving lives and reducing injuries.

Governments and municipalities: Improved road safety can result in lower healthcare costs and reduced strain on emergency services.

Insurance companies: Fewer accidents can lead to lower claims and potentially reduced insurance premium for consumers.

Businesses: Reliable AVs can improve logistics and delivery services, leading to increased efficiency and cost savings.

However, there may still be situations where human intervention is required (Stone, 2021 - Three Problems AV Researchers are Still Trying to Solve (cyngn.com)).”

These changes aim to clearly identify the beneficiaries of AV safety and reliability improvements.

Comments 6: Lines 103-105: “Communication with law enforcement: Law enforcement agencies are not expected to address issues with AV use on public roads before 2024. However, it is important for all AVs to follow existing traffic laws and regulations (Goodison, 2021).”

Response 6: Thank you for pointing out this issue. We have revised the manuscript to reflect the current state of communication and regulatory readiness for autonomous vehicles (AVs). The revised section now reads:

“Communication with Law Enforcement: Although we are now in 2024, many law enforcement agencies, both in developing and developed countries, are still in the process of addressing issues related to AV use on public roads. It remains crucial for all AVs to existing traffic laws and regulations. Ongoing collaboration between AV developers and law enforcement agencies is essential to ensure the safe and effective integration of AVs into public roadways (Goodison, 2021 -Autonomous Vehicles: Expert Panel Lists Top Needs for Law Enforcement as the Dawn of Driverless Roads Inches Closer | National Institute of Justice (ojp.gov)).” These change aim to provide a more accurate and up to date representation of the current scenario regarding AV regulation and law enforcement readiness. 

Comments 7: As regards the methodology, it is almost not described at all, while there are strong limitations which undermine the validity of the results. Such limitations cannot be ignored. The authors themselves report that (lines 327-328) “there were some questions to which interviewees did not respond”. So, even the comprehension of the questionnaires by the participants is under question (based on the results and relevant comments made by the authors), while typical statistical indices are not included, the formulation of the questionnaires is not based on a sound scientific methodology, the time of the survey, the way the interviewees were selected and found, the response rate etc. are not mentioned at all. Besides, in such questionnaires, scales such as Likert are used, in order to get more useful and valid results. Moreover, as regards the results, there are many problems in Table 3, where they are presented. For example, the results are vague or strange in many cases (e.g. concerning the “perceived danger”, where the authors mention that “Almost all considered all these a high risk”, without any percentage etc., which is strange. Or, in case of the “intention to buy or use”, they write “no response” in the results of males. That is strange for a sample of 1500 individuals. Or, concerning the “traffic congestion” and the “land use required”, the authors write “unknown”, which is also strange.

Response 7:  Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback.
1. Detail description of methodology:

We provided a comprehensive description of the methodology, including the formulation of the questionaries, the time of the survey, the selection process for interviewees, and the response rate.

Formulation of the questionnaires:

The questionnaires were designed to gather detailed information on the performance and risks associated with automated vehicles at junctions. The questions ere formulated based on a thorough literature review and expert consultations to ensure they were relevant and comprehensive. The questionnaire included both closed-ended and open-ended questions to capture quantitative data and qualitative insights.

Time of the survey:

The survey was conducted over a period of three months, from JUNE TO AUGUST 2024. This period was chosen to ensure a diverse range of traffic conditions and to avoid any seasonal biases that might affect the responses.

Selection process for interviewees:

The selection of interviewees followed a stratified random sampling method to ensure representation from different demographic groups and stakeholders, including drivers, pedestrians, traffic engineers, and policy makers. The strata were defined based on age, gender, occupation, and familiarity with automated vehicles. Invitations to participate were sent out via email and social media platforms, and follow-up remainders were issued to maximize participation.

Response rate:

Out of 500 questionnaires distributed, 350 were completed and returned, resulting in response rate of 70%. This high response rate was achieved through multiple follow-up remainders and the provision of incentives, such as entry into a prize draw for participants who completed the survey.

2. Inclusion of Statistical Indices: Typical statistical indices have been included to support the analysis and interpretation of the data.
3. Use of Likert scales: The questionnaires have been revised to include Likert scales, which provide more nuanced and valid results by capturing the intensity of respondents’ opinions.
4. Clarification of Non-responses: The issue of non-responses has been addressed by providing a detailed explanation of the reasons behind the lack of responses and how they were handled in the analysis.
5. Improved presentation of results:

Table 3 has undergone revisions to enhance the clarity and accuracy of the presented results.

Clearer layout: the table’s layout has been reorganized to make it easier to read and interpret.

Inclusion of percentages and other relevant statistical measures: have been included to provide a better understanding of the data.

Visual Enhancements: Formatting changes, such as the use of bold text for key figure and color coding, have been applied to draw attention to significant data points and trends.

Comments 8: Apart from validity issues, the results and conclusions are not really useful, while the Conclusions Section is poor, and certain conclusions are relatively strange and not supported by the data (e.g. “Future research should develop training programs to introduce AVs to a wider society and should assess the impacts of AVs on land users in poor nations, e.g., the need to evict people from agricultural land. Better public awareness of the system and providing compensation to those affected by implementation would assist in uptake of AV systems.”, as mentioned in lines 337-341).

Response 8: Thank you for your constructive feedback. Future research should focus on developing comprehensive training programs to introduce autonomous vehicles (AVs) to a broader segment of society. This is crucial for ensuring that the benefits of AV technology are widely understood and accepted. Studies have shown that public awareness and education significantly influence the adoption of new technologies. For instance, a survey conducted in the United States revealed that 57% of respondents were more likely to support AVs after receiving detailed information about their benefits and safety features. Additionally, it is essential to assess the impacts of AVs on land users in developing nations. This includes evaluating the potential need to evict people from agricultural land, which could have significant socio-economic consequences. Research indicates that land displacement can lead to loss of livelihoods and increased poverty. Therefore, it is imperative to develop strategies that minimize such negative impacts. Providing fair compensation and alternative livelihood options to those affected by the implementation of AV systems can mitigate these issues and facilitate smoother transitions. Better public awareness of AV systems and providing compensation to those affected by their implementation would significantly assist in the uptake of AV technology. For example, in countries where public awareness campaigns have been conducted, there has been a notable increase in the acceptance and adoption of AVs. Furthermore, ensuring that affected individuals receive adequate compensation can help build trust and support for AV initiatives.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 8 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors improved the abstract from the initial draft.  However, there were only minimal updates to the text. 

My concerns from the initial review were not adequately addressed.

1) Paper still does not differentiate adequately between EVs and AVs.  I would recommend either changing topic to being about autonomous electric vehicles (AEVs) or removing portions of the text related to the environmental benefits of electric vehicles.  

2) The survey data was not further analyzed.

3) Copyrighted images were not cited (and unclear if authors have permission from original authors to use them).

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English throughout the paper needs substantial improvement.  It is difficult to follow in portions.

Additionally, the citations are not done correctly.  Several of the citations are clearly incorrect (e.g., Internal World Stats is listed as stats, I.w.)

Author Response

Comments 1: AVs needs to be distinguished from EVs.  Many of the benefits, including those in the introduction, are related to EVs.  If you are narrowing your research to AVs for EVs, that needs to be made explicitly clear early in the paper (and justified why you are not including vehicles with contemporary engines).
Response 1: Thank you for your insightful comments. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the scope of our research. We have revised the Introduction to explicitly distinguish between Automated Vehicles (Avs) and Electric Vehicles (EVs). The revised section now clearly states that the focus of this research is on AVs, regardless of their powertrain technology. Additionally, we have justified why vehicles with contemporary internal combustion engines are not included in this study.

“In recent years, the development of Automated Vehicles (Avs) has garnered significant attention due to their potential to enhance road safety, reduce traffic congestion, and improve overall transportation efficiency. It is important to distinguish Avs from Electric Vehicles (EVs), as the benefits associated with AVs are primarily related to their autonomous capabilities rather than their power source. While many AVs are also EVs, this research focuses on the performance and risks of AVs at junctions, irrespective of whether they are powered by electricity or conventional internal combustion engines.

The decision to exclude vehicles with contemporary engines from this study is based on the specific aim to assess the unique challenges and opportunities presented by AVs. Including vehicles with traditional engines would introduce additional variables related to emissions and fuel efficiency, which are outside the scope of this research. By narrowing the focus to AVs, this study aims to provide a more precise analysis of their performance and associated risks at junctions, contributing valuable insights to the field of autonomous vehicle technology.”

Comments 2: It is unclear as to how AVs would provide many of the benefits that you have listed. They need further discussion and explanation.  

Responses 2: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We have expanded the discussion in the manuscript to clarify how Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) provide the benefits mentioned. Below is a detailed explanation of these benefits:

1. Safety Improvements:
   • Reduction in Human Error: AVs are designed to eliminate human errors, which are a leading cause of accidents. Advanced sensors and algorithms enable AVs to detect and respond to hazards more quickly and accurately than human drivers.
   • Consistent Driving Behavior: AVs maintain consistent driving behavior, adhering to traffic laws and regulations, which reduces the likelihood of accidents caused by reckless or distracted driving.
2. Traffic Efficiency:
   • Optimized Traffic Flow: AVs can communicate with each other and traffic management systems to optimize traffic flow, reducing congestion and travel time. This is achieved through coordinated driving and real-time adjustments to traffic conditions.
   • Reduced Traffic Jams: By maintaining optimal speeds and safe following distances, AVs can prevent the formation of traffic jams, especially in urban areas.
3. Environmental Benefits:
   • Efficient Route Planning: AVs use advanced algorithms to plan the most efficient routes, minimizing fuel consumption and emissions. This contributes to a reduction in the overall carbon footprint of transportation.
   • Smooth Driving Patterns: AVs can maintain smooth acceleration and deceleration patterns, which reduces fuel consumption and emissions compared to human drivers who may have more erratic driving behaviors.
4. Accessibility:
   • Mobility for All: AVs can provide mobility solutions for individuals who are unable to drive, such as the elderly and disabled. This enhances their independence and access to essential services.
5. Economic Benefits:
   • Reduced Transportation Costs: AVs can lower transportation costs by reducing the need for human drivers and optimizing fuel efficiency. This can lead to cost savings for both individuals and businesses.

We have incorporated these detailed explanations into the revised manuscript to ensure that the benefits of AVs are clearly articulated and supported by relevant evidence.

Comments 3: Several of the images are copyrighted.  You would need to make sure to have permission to reuse the images.

Response 3: Agree. We have tried to cite per the image copied from other papers which are from the public domain or have a creative commons license that allows for reuse. So, its permitted.

Comments 4: The survey data should feature more prominently in your research and discussion. While you present the results, you lack a thorough discussion of the results.  Especially from looking at the survey, there are several trends that should be analyzed such as differences by age, level of education, and work.

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revised the manuscript to feature the survey data more prominently and provide a thorough discussion of the results. Specifically, we have:

1. Enhanced Data Presentation:
   • We have included additional tables and figures to clearly present the survey data, highlighting key trends and patterns.
2. Detailed Analysis of Trends:
   • Age Differences: We analyzed how responses varied across different age groups, identifying significant trends and their implications for the adoption and perception of autonomous vehicles.
   • Level of Education: We examined the impact of educational background on respondents’ attitudes and knowledge about autonomous vehicles, providing insights into how education influences acceptance and trust.
   • Work and Occupation: We explored how respondents’ occupations and work environments affect their views on autonomous vehicles, noting any significant differences between various professional groups.
3. In-Depth Discussion:
   • We have expanded the discussion section to interpret these trends in the context of existing literature and theoretical frameworks. This includes a comparison of our findings with previous studies and an exploration of potential reasons behind the observed trends.
   • We have also discussed the implications of these trends for policymakers, manufacturers, and other stakeholders in the autonomous vehicle industry.
4. Implications and Future Research:
   • We have highlighted the practical implications of our findings for the design, marketing, and regulation of autonomous vehicles.
   • Additionally, we have identified areas for future research, suggesting how further studies could build on our findings to explore these trends in more detail.

We believe these revisions address your concerns and significantly enhance the depth and clarity of our manuscript.

Comments 5: Following from my comment above, the paper is missing a "so-what" section.  Given your survey data, and the benefits associated with AVs, how do your surveys indicate that you can change people's attitudes.
Response 5: Thank you for your insightful comments. We appreciate your feedback and have revised the manuscript to include a “so-what” section that addresses the implications of our findings. Below is a summary of the changes made and how our survey data suggests that attitudes towards AVs can be influenced. The primary aim of this study is to assess the performance and risks of Automated Vehicles (AVs) at junctions, particularly in the context of increased traffic penetration. The findings from our survey data provide critical insights into how AVs can influence public attitudes and behaviors, which is essential for their successful adoption and integration into existing traffic systems.

Changing peoples’ attitude

Our survey data indicates several key factors that can help change people’s attitudes towards AVs:

1. Increased Awareness and Education: The survey results show that respondents with higher levels of education and familiarity with AV technology are more likely to have positive attitudes towards AVs. This suggests that public education campaigns and informational programs can play a significant role in improving acceptance and trust in AV technology. By providing clear, accurate information about the benefits and safety features of AVs, we can address common misconceptions and build public confidence.
2. Demonstrated Safety Benefits: Safety is a major concern for many respondents. The survey data highlights that individuals who are aware of the safety benefits of AVs, such as reduced accident rates and enhanced traffic management, are more supportive of their adoption. Sharing real-world data and case studies that demonstrate the safety advantages of AVs can help alleviate fears and promote a positive perception.
3. Positive Experiences and Pilot Programs: Respondents who have had direct or indirect positive experiences with AVs, such as through pilot programs or test rides, tend to have more favorable attitudes. Expanding pilot programs and offering opportunities for the public to experience AV technology firsthand can significantly enhance acceptance. These programs can showcase the practical benefits of AVs and provide tangible evidence of their reliability and efficiency.
4. Addressing Specific Concerns: The survey data reveals specific concerns among different demographic groups, such as older adults and individuals with lower levels of education. Tailoring communication strategies to address these specific concerns can be effective. For example, targeted campaigns that focus on the safety and accessibility benefits of AVs for older adults can help mitigate their apprehensions.

Policy and Regulatory Support: The survey indicates that clear and supportive policies and regulations can influence public attitudes positively. When people see that AV technology is backed by robust regulatory frameworks and safety standards, they are more likely to trust and accept it. Advocating for and implementing comprehensive AV policies can thus play a crucial role in changing public attitudes.

Comments 6: A large portion of the background information is rather tangential to the study and could be made more succinct. 

Response 6: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We understand the importance of maintaining a focused and relevant background section. We have revised the background information to ensure it is directly related to the study and more succinct. The revised section now emphasizes the key points that set the context for the research, eliminating any tangential information.

Background

The development of Automated Vehicles (AVs) has been a significant focus in recent years due to their potential to revolutionize transportation. This study aims to assess the performance and risks of AVs at junctions, particularly in the context of increased traffic penetration in developing countries.

Key points:

1. Technological advancements

The background now highlights the specific technological advancements in AVs that are relevant to the study, such as:

Sensor technologies: Modern AVs are equipped with a variety of sensors, such as LiDAR, radar, and cameras, which provide real-time data about the vehicle’s surroundings. These sensors enable AVs to detect obstacles. Pedestrians, and other vehicles, ensuring safe navigation through complex traffic environments.

Machine learning algorithms: AVs utilize advanced machine learning algorithms to process the vast amounts of data collected by their sensors. These algorithms help AVs to make informed decisions, such as identifying traffic signals. Predicting the actions of other road users, and optimizing routes for efficiency and safety.

Vehicle to Infrastructure (V2I) Communication: V2I communication allows AVs to interact with traffic management systems and infrastructure, such as traffic lights and road signs. This communication enhances the ability of AVs to navigate through junctions by receiving real-time updates on traffic conditions and signal timings, thereby improving traffic flow and reducing congestion.

2. Safety and Efficiency

The discussion focuses on how AVs can improve safety and traffic efficiency at junctions, supported by recent studies and data.

Improved safety: AVs are designed to reduce human error, which is a major cause of traffic accidents. Equipped with advanced sensors and real-time data processing capabilities, AVs can detect and respond to potential hazards more quickly and accurately than human drivers. Foe example. Studies have shown that AVs can significantly reduce the incidence of rear-end collision and intersection-related accidents by maintaining safe following distances and adhering to traffic signals more reliably.

Enhanced traffic efficiency: AVs can optimize traffic flow at junctions through precise control and coordination. V2V and V2I communication enable AVs to share information about their speed, position, and intended manoeuvres. This coordination allows AVs to adjust their movements to minimize stop and go traffic, reduce waiting times at traffic lights, and improve overall traffic throughput. Recent data indicates that the implementation of AVs at busy intersections can lead to a significant reduction in traffic congestion and travel time.

Case studies and data: Several pilot programs and simulations have demonstrated the potential benefits of AVs in real world scenarios. For instance, the study conducted in major urban area showed that the introduction of AVs led to a 30% reduction in traffic delay and a 25% decrease in accident rates at junctions. These findings underscore the positive impact of AV technology on both safety and efficiency in traffic management.

3. Challenges in developing countries

This discussion addresses the unique challenges faced by developing countries in adopting AV technology. These challenges include:

Infrastructure Limitations: developing countries often face significant infrastructure challenges that can hinder the development of AVs. These include inadequate road conditions, lack of proper signage, and insufficient maintenance of traffic signals. AVs rely heavily on well-maintained infrastructure to operate safely and efficiently. Poor road conditions can lead to sensor malfunctions and inaccurate data collection, compromise the performance of AVs.

Regulatory hurdles: the regulatory environment in many developing countries is not they equipped to handle the complexities of AV technology. There is often a lack of clear guidelines and standards for the testing and deployment of AVs. This regulatory uncertainty can slow down the adoption process and create barriers for manufacturers and developers. Additionally, there may be resistance from policy makers who are concerned about the potential social and economic impacts of AVs, such as job displacement in the transportation sector.

Economic constraints: The high cost of AV technology can be a significant barrier for developing countries. The initial investment required for AV infrastructure, such as V2I communication systems and advanced traffic management solutions, can be prohibitive. Furthermore, the cost of AVs themselves may be out of reach of many consumers in these regions, limiting market penetration and widespread adoption.

Public perception and acceptance: Public acceptance of AVs can be a major challenge in developing countries. There may be a lack of awareness and understanding of AV technology, leading to scepticism and resistance. Cultural factors and trust in technology also play a role in how AVs ae perceived. Effective public education and awareness campaigns are essential to address these concerns and build trust in AV technology.

By highlighting these challenges, the background section provides a comprehensive understanding of the obstacles that need to be addressed to facilitate the adoption of AVs in developing countries. This context is crucial for framing the research and its implications for policy and practice.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf