IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v209y2026ics0965856426001655.html

Social justice in the age of privately owned autonomous vehicles: A multi-level acceptance framework linking local and general acceptance to behavioral intention and opposition-oriented collective action in South Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Yoo, JungJe

Abstract

The deployment of privately owned autonomous vehicles (AVs) raises not only technological and market questions but also concerns about social justice and transport policy. This study examines how perceptions of social justice—comprising distributive, procedural, and interactional dimensions—are associated with public responses to privately owned AVs through distinct acceptance pathways. Using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) with cross-sectional survey data from 400 respondents in South Korea, the study tests a multi-level framework that distinguishes between local acceptance, referring to community-level evaluations of nearby deployment, and general acceptance, referring to broader societal evaluations of AV technology. The results show that social justice perceptions are positively associated with both local and general acceptance, with a stronger association observed for general acceptance. Local acceptance, in turn, shows a stronger positive association with behavioral intention than general acceptance. For opposition-oriented collective action, local acceptance is negatively associated with resistance-oriented mobilization, whereas general acceptance is not statistically significant in this sample. Given the cross-sectional, single-source design, these relationships are interpreted as associative and context-specific rather than causal. The findings suggest that fairness perceptions are relevant to broad societal legitimacy, whereas more proximal community-level evaluations are more closely aligned with intended use and collective resistance in an owner-centered early market. Overall, the study provides a bounded contribution to transport policy and technology governance research by demonstrating the multi-level nature of AV acceptance and its differentiated links to individual and collective behavioral outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Yoo, JungJe, 2026. "Social justice in the age of privately owned autonomous vehicles: A multi-level acceptance framework linking local and general acceptance to behavioral intention and opposition-oriented collective action in South Korea," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:209:y:2026:i:c:s0965856426001655
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2026.105024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856426001655
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2026.105024?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cohen, Scott A. & Hopkins, Debbie, 2019. "Autonomous vehicles and the future of urban tourism," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 33-42.
    2. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    3. Shelly Etzioni & Jamil Hamadneh & Arnór B. Elvarsson & Domokos Esztergár-Kiss & Milena Djukanovic & Stelios N. Neophytou & Jaka Sodnik & Amalia Polydoropoulou & Ioannis Tsouros & Cristina Pronello & N, 2020. "Modeling Cross-National Differences in Automated Vehicle Acceptance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-22, November.
    4. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    5. Jiang, Like & Chen, Haibo & Chen, Zhiyang, 2022. "City readiness for connected and autonomous vehicles: A multi-stakeholder and multi-criteria analysis through analytic hierarchy process," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 13-24.
    6. Sonnberger, Marco & Ruddat, Michael, 2017. "Local and socio-political acceptance of wind farms in Germany," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 56-65.
    7. Fred D. Davis & Richard P. Bagozzi & Paul R. Warshaw, 1989. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(8), pages 982-1003, August.
    8. Hemesath, Sebastian & Tepe, Markus, 2023. "Framing the approval to test self-driving cars on public roads. The effect of safety and competitiveness on citizens' agreement," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    9. Emmerich, Philip & Hülemeier, Anna-Gesina & Jendryczko, David & Baumann, Manuel Johann & Weil, Marcel & Baur, Dorothee, 2020. "Public acceptance of emerging energy technologies in context of the German energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    10. Xiao, Jingyi & Goulias, Konstadinos G., 2022. "Perceived usefulness and intentions to adopt autonomous vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 170-185.
    11. Araz Taeihagh & Hazel Si Min Lim, 2019. "Governing autonomous vehicles: emerging responses for safety, liability, privacy, cybersecurity, and industry risks," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 103-128, January.
    12. Crystal Legacy & David Ashmore & Jan Scheurer & John Stone & Carey Curtis, 2019. "Planning the driverless city," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 84-102, January.
    13. Morwitz, Vicki G. & Steckel, Joel H. & Gupta, Alok, 2007. "When do purchase intentions predict sales?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 347-364.
    14. Kenesei, Zsófia & Ásványi, Katalin & Kökény, László & Jászberényi, Melinda & Miskolczi, Márk & Gyulavári, Tamás & Syahrivar, Jhanghiz, 2022. "Trust and perceived risk: How different manifestations affect the adoption of autonomous vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 379-393.
    15. Peng Liu & Run Yang & Zhigang Xu, 2019. "Public Acceptance of Fully Automated Driving: Effects of Social Trust and Risk/Benefit Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 326-341, February.
    16. Marco Segreto & Lucas Principe & Alexandra Desormeaux & Marco Torre & Laura Tomassetti & Patrizio Tratzi & Valerio Paolini & Francesco Petracchini, 2020. "Trends in Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy Across Europe—A Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-19, December.
    17. Xing, Yingying & Zhou, Huiyu & Han, Xiao & Zhang, Meng & Lu, Jian, 2022. "What influences vulnerable road users’ perceptions of autonomous vehicles? A comparative analysis of the 2017 and 2019 Pittsburgh surveys," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    18. Tom Cohen & Clémence Cavoli, 2019. "Automated vehicles: exploring possible consequences of government (non)intervention for congestion and accessibility," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 129-151, January.
    19. Dasom Lee & David J. Hess, 2022. "Public concerns and connected and automated vehicles: safety, privacy, and data security," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    20. Chen, T. Donna & Kockelman, Kara M. & Hanna, Josiah P., 2016. "Operations of a shared, autonomous, electric vehicle fleet: Implications of vehicle & charging infrastructure decisions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 243-254.
    21. Shirley Taylor & Peter A. Todd, 1995. "Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(2), pages 144-176, June.
    22. Shapiro, Debra L. & Buttner, E. Holly & Barry, Bruce, 1994. "Explanations: What Factors Enhance Their Perceived Adequacy?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 346-368, June.
    23. Rafael H. M. Pereira & Tim Schwanen & David Banister, 2017. "Distributive justice and equity in transportation," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(2), pages 170-191, March.
    24. Wang, Yu & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Explaining local residents’ acceptance of rebuilding nuclear power plants: The roles of perceived general benefit and perceived local benefit," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    25. Jack Stilgoe & Miloš Mladenović, 2022. "The politics of autonomous vehicles," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-6, December.
    26. Dabholkar, Pratibha A, 1994. "Incorporating Choice into an Attitudinal Framework: Analyzing Models of Mental Comparison Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(1), pages 100-118, June.
    27. Nastjuk, Ilja & Herrenkind, Bernd & Marrone, Mauricio & Brendel, Alfred Benedikt & Kolbe, Lutz M., 2020. "What drives the acceptance of autonomous driving? An investigation of acceptance factors from an end-user's perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    28. Jack Stilgoe & Tom Cohen, 2021. "Rejecting acceptance: learning from public dialogue on self-driving vehicles [Crowdsourcing Moral Machines]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(6), pages 849-859.
    29. Bennett, Roger & Vijaygopal, Rohini & Kottasz, Rita, 2019. "Attitudes towards autonomous vehicles among people with physical disabilities," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 1-17.
    30. Marko Sarstedt & Jun-Hwa Cheah, 2019. "Partial least squares structural equation modeling using SmartPLS: a software review," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(3), pages 196-202, September.
    31. Aggelos Soteropoulos & Martin Berger & Francesco Ciari, 2019. "Impacts of automated vehicles on travel behaviour and land use: an international review of modelling studies," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 29-49, January.
    32. Musall, Fabian David & Kuik, Onno, 2011. "Local acceptance of renewable energy--A case study from southeast Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3252-3260, June.
    33. Wadud, Zia, 2017. "Fully automated vehicles: A cost of ownership analysis to inform early adoption," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 163-176.
    34. Jun, Wang Ki & An, Myung Ho & Choi, Jae Young, 2022. "Impact of the connected & autonomous vehicle industry on the Korean national economy using input-output analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    35. Roddis, Philippa & Carver, Stephen & Dallimer, Martin & Norman, Paul & Ziv, Guy, 2018. "The role of community acceptance in planning outcomes for onshore wind and solar farms: An energy justice analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 226(C), pages 353-364.
    36. Banister, David, 2008. "The sustainable mobility paradigm," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 73-80, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Waltermann, Juliana & Henkel, Sven, 2025. "The human element in autonomous driving: Motivations, expectations, and behavioral change," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    2. Qian, Lixian & Yin, Juelin & Huang, Youlin & Liang, Ya, 2023. "The role of values and ethics in influencing consumers’ intention to use autonomous vehicle hailing services," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    3. Hübner, Gundula & Leschinger, Valentin & Müller, Florian J.Y. & Pohl, Johannes, 2023. "Broadening the social acceptance of wind energy – An Integrated Acceptance Model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    4. Devon McAslan & Farah Najar Arevalo & David A. King & Thaddeus R. Miller, 2021. "Pilot project purgatory? Assessing automated vehicle pilot projects in U.S. cities," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-16, December.
    5. Li, Dun & Huang, Youlin & Qian, Lixian, 2022. "Potential adoption of robotaxi service: The roles of perceived benefits to multiple stakeholders and environmental awareness," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 120-135.
    6. Guo, Yuntao & Souders, Dustin & Labi, Samuel & Peeta, Srinivas & Benedyk, Irina & Li, Yujie, 2021. "Paving the way for autonomous Vehicles: Understanding autonomous vehicle adoption and vehicle fuel choice under user heterogeneity," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 364-398.
    7. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Beyond the triangle of renewable energy acceptance: The five dimensions of domestic hydrogen acceptance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    8. Pan, Yuchen & Wu, Yu & Xu, Lu & Xia, Chengyi & Olson, David L., 2024. "The impacts of connected autonomous vehicles on mixed traffic flow: A comprehensive review," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 635(C).
    9. Jing, Peng & Wang, Baihui & Cai, Yunhao & Wang, Bichen & Huang, Jiahui & Yang, Chenglu & Jiang, Chengxi, 2023. "What is the public really concerned about the AV crash? Insights from a combined analysis of social media and questionnaire survey," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    10. Busse, Maria & Siebert, Rosemarie, 2018. "Acceptance studies in the field of land use—A critical and systematic review to advance the conceptualization of acceptance and acceptability," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 235-245.
    11. Yang, Kiseol, 2012. "Consumer technology traits in determining mobile shopping adoption: An application of the extended theory of planned behavior," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 484-491.
    12. Mohammadreza Zolfagharian & Bob Walrave & A. Georges L. Romme & Rob Raven, 2020. "Toward the Dynamic Modeling of Transition Problems: The Case of Electric Mobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-23, December.
    13. Xing, Yingying & Li, Lun & Sheng, Xiaolu & Zhou, Huiyu & Han, Xiao, 2025. "Understanding public perceptions of autonomous vehicles: A structural model to urban-rural differences and psychological factors," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 70-84.
    14. Olin, Janne J. & Mladenović, Miloš N., 2024. "Unpacking the cultural aspects of transport automation governance in Finland: An interview study," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    15. Xinghua Li & Jieru Zou & Shubham Agrawal & Yuntao Guo & Tianpei Tang & Xi Feng, 2026. "Role of policy and consumer attitudes in people’s intention to use autonomous vehicles: a comparative study in China and the USA," Transportation, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 603-650, April.
    16. Nastjuk, Ilja & Herrenkind, Bernd & Marrone, Mauricio & Brendel, Alfred Benedikt & Kolbe, Lutz M., 2020. "What drives the acceptance of autonomous driving? An investigation of acceptance factors from an end-user's perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    17. Eccarius, Timo & Leung, Abraham & Chen, Ching-Fu, 2026. "Love at first sight? Segmenting tourists’ attitudes toward autonomous boats in Kaohsiung’s Love River," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    18. Mohammed Akhmaaj, Asmaeil Ali & Sharif, Mohamed Omar, 2024. "The effects of planned behavior model constructs and technology acceptance model constructs on online purchasing behavior: An empirical study on internet users in the Libya city of Tripoli," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    19. Hasan, Rajibul & Lowe, Ben & Petrovici, Dan, 2020. "Consumer adoption of pro-poor service innovations in subsistence marketplaces," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 461-475.
    20. Zhang, Kaihan & Liu, Xiang & Cui, Qinyu & Gao, Xing & Cao, Mengqiu & Kim, Inhi, 2026. "Social-psychological determinants and nonlinear thresholds: behavioral insights into urban air mobility adoption as an airport shuttle," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:209:y:2026:i:c:s0965856426001655. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.