Ecb Spacereport202012 bb2038bbb6 en

Study on the payment
attitudes of consumers in
the euro area (SPACE)
December 2020
SPACE is dedicated to Hannah Schwabl (18.08.1989 – 27.07.2019), a dedicated and cheerful ECB colleague,
who was deeply involved in the initial stage of the work on this study.
Contents
Foreword 4
Executive summary 5
Introduction 8
1 Research method 9
1.1 Scope 9
1.2 Sample design 9
1.3 Data collection 12
Box 1 Payment surveys in Germany and in the Netherlands 13
1.4 Weighting 14
1.5 Validation of the data 14
Box 2 Combining telephone and online interviews to reduce bias 15
2 Payments at the point of sale and to individuals 17
2.1 Total number and value of POS and P2P payments per payment
instrument and their relative share per country 17
Box 3 Survey on the impact of the pandemic on cash trends 21
2.2 Daily average of POS and P2P payments 25
2.3 The use of contactless technology for card payments 29
2.4 Total number of POS and P2P transactions per value range and
payment instrument 30
2.5 Total number and value of POS and P2P transactions by place of
purchase and payment instrument 32
3 Remote payments 34
3.1 E-shopping, telephone and mail orders 34
3.2 Bill payments and recurring payments in the euro area 43
4 Consumers use cash (in particular high-value banknotes) as a

store of value 50
4.1 Extra cash stored 50
4.2 Possession of high-value banknotes 54
Study on the payment attitudes of consumers in the euro area – Contents 1

5 Factors influencing payment behaviour 57
5.1 Consumers’ payment preferences 57
5.2 Access and acceptance 63
5.3 Cash balances in consumers’ wallets 70
6 How consumers obtain cash 72
6.1 Topping up of consumers’ wallets 72
6.2 Receiving regular income in cash 75
7 Concluding remarks 77
Annex A 78
Diary survey questionnaire 78
Accompanying questionnaire 86
Annex B 90
Euro area 90
Austria 93
Belgium 96
Cyprus 99
Estonia 102
Spain 105
Finland 108
France 111
Greece 114
Ireland 117
Italy 120
Lithuania 123
Luxembourg 126
Latvia 129
Malta 132
Portugal 135

Slovenia 138
Slovakia 141
List of references 144

Foreword
Retail payments have to be reliable, efficient and inclusive in order to maintain

confidence in the euro. In the digital age, innovation in retail payments is influencing
the way people pay. In view of the continuing transformation towards a more digital
payment landscape, the Eurosystem is committed to carefully monitoring new trends
and the nature and extent of the changes in consumers’ payment preferences.
In 2019 the ECB launched a new survey to investigate the payment behaviour of euro
area citizens. The results are described in this report, together with provisional
findings on how consumers paid during the initial phase of the coronavirus crisis. The
survey results indicate that cash is still the most used retail payment instrument in the
euro area, but cashless means of payment are increasing their share across euro area
countries, albeit at varying speeds. The trend towards cashless payments seems to
have accelerated during the pandemic, although the consolidation of this provisional
finding is still uncertain.
The evidence presented in this report will help the Eurosystem to understand actual
consumer demand and evolving market trends and facilitate the implementation of the
Eurosystem’s cash and payment strategies. These strategies entail fostering
competitive and innovative pan-European market solutions, while guaranteeing that
efficient and resilient payment options remain available to all euro area citizens. For
cash, this commitment has been laid down in the Eurosystem’s Cash 2030 strategy,
which aims to ensure access to and the acceptance of cash in the euro area.
Guaranteeing and enhancing consumers’ freedom to choose their payment method
and the financial inclusion of all groups in society are of the utmost importance to us.
Fabio Panetta
ECB Executive Board Member
Study on the payment attitudes of consumers in the euro area – Foreword 4

Executive summary
In 2019, the European Central Bank (ECB) conducted a study on the payment
attitudes of consumers in the euro area (hereafter referred to as SPACE). This report
presents the key SPACE results and compares them, to the extent possible, with an
earlier ECB study conducted in 2016, the study on the use of cash by households in
the euro area or SUCH (Esselink and Hernández, 2017).
SPACE assesses consumers’ use of cash and non-cash payment instruments at the
level of each participating euro area country and for the euro area as a whole. The
scope of SPACE includes purchases by individuals at the physical point of sale (POS)
and person-to-person (P2P) payments, as well as payments made remotely (i.e. for
online shopping, telephone orders and mail orders, bill payments and recurring
payments). SPACE also explores the factors influencing individuals’ payment attitudes
and behaviour. Such factors are consumers’ self-reported payment preferences, as
well as consumers’ access to and merchants’ acceptance of payment instruments.
SPACE fieldwork was conducted in 2019. Between mid-March 2019 and

mid-December 2019, 41,155 respondents in 17 euro area countries reported their
transactions in one-day payment diaries. The payment diaries of 2,061 respondents in
Germany and 22,103 respondents in the Netherlands collected in the context of
national surveys in 2017 and 2019 respectively were included in the SPACE analysis
where possible (see De Nederlandsche Bank, 2020, and Deutsche Bundesbank,
2018). While payment diary data for Germany stem from 2017, the Deutsche
Bundesbank collected some survey data in 2019 (see Box 1) in parallel to the ECB
survey.
The SPACE results (including Dutch and German data) show that:
• consumers still predominantly use cash for POS and P2P payments: 73% of the
volume of POS and P2P transactions was carried out using cash as a payment
instrument and 27% using non-cash payment instruments;
• cards were the predominant payment instrument used for cashless payments
(24%);
• this compares with a cash usage of 79% in terms of the number of transactions
and a card usage of 19% reported in the previous study 1 (SUCH);
• among all card payments, 38% of the transactions were made using contactless
technology;
• in value terms, cash transactions accounted for 48% of all transactions, versus
41% for card transactions;
1 In the previous study, P2P transactions were not part of the scope and online transactions were included.
Study on the payment attitudes of consumers in the euro area – Executive summary 5
• euro area citizens made on average 1.6 POS and P2P transactions per day, with
an average transaction value of €25.6;
• 48% of the POS and P2P transactions were conducted in local shops for
day-to-day retail purchases (shops, supermarkets, street markets) and 19% in
restaurants, bars, cafés and hotels.
Excluding Germany, for which comparable data on remote payments (i.e. online and
bill payments) are not available, the SPACE results also show that:
• 96% of all online transactions were cashless, using cards (49% of the online
transactions), e-payment solutions (27%) and credit transfers (10%); cash was
used in 4% of the online transactions 2;
• euro area citizens made on average 0.16 online transactions (using the internet,
including also telephone and mail purchases) per day, with an average value of
€66.9;
• 89% of all bill payments were cashless; 41% of the bill payments were made
using direct debit and 20% using credit transfer as the payment method; 11% of
the bill payments were in cash;
• euro area citizens made on average slightly less than one bill payment per week
(0.93 transactions).
Consumers’ self-reported preferences for payment instruments contrast with the

actual high usage of cash, as there seems to be a preference for using cashless
payment instruments. Almost half (49%) of the respondents stated that they preferred
using cards or other cashless payment instruments (up from 43% in 2016 according to
SUCH), whereas 27% said that they preferred cash (down from 32% in 2016), while
the remaining 24% said that they were indifferent. Asked about the importance of
cash, 55% of the respondents stated that it is important or very important for them to
still have the option to pay with cash in the future.
The SPACE results also reveal that cash is used by respondents to top up their
wallets, as an alternative way of savings for precautionary motives (e.g. as a
safeguard against events such as electronic payment outages or crises), since 34% of
the respondents stated that they stored cash at home or in a safe place.
The SPACE results show that there are significant differences in consumers’ payment
behaviour and attitudes across the euro area countries. Not only between countries,
but also within different groups of the population, there are substantial differences in
payment behaviour (for example, access to payment instruments and preferences for
using them may depend in particular on income, education and age groups). This is
consistent with the results of SUCH and with payment surveys conducted in other
developed countries (Bagnall et al., 2016; Arango-Arango et al., 2018).
2 Cash is sometimes used to pay for purchases made online, e.g. when paying for food delivered to your
door.
Comparing the results of the SPACE survey with those of the SUCH survey carried out
three years ago, it appears that cash is still the predominant payment instrument for
POS and P2P payments, and that consumers’ payment behaviour is only changing
gradually. The share of cash usage for day-to-day transactions in the total number of
payments has declined from 79% to 73% in three years. The ongoing coronavirus
(COVID-19) pandemic appears to have accelerated this trend for at least some
consumers. This seems to be confirmed by the results of a separate survey on the
impact of the pandemic on cash trends which was carried out on behalf of the ECB in
July 2020 in all euro area countries. 40% of the respondents to this survey replied that
they have used less cash since the start of the pandemic, and almost 90% of them
stated that they would continue to pay less with cash (46% certainly and 41%
probably) after the pandemic was over.
Interestingly, the most often-mentioned reason for the change in perception was the
fact that electronic payments have been made more convenient during the pandemic,
e.g. by increasing the threshold for the contactless card holder having to enter his/her
personal identification number (PIN) for payment authorisation into the card terminal.
The decline in cash use for making payments raises the question about the availability
of cash and its acceptance as a payment instrument. The SPACE results show that a
large majority of respondents were still satisfied with their access to cash via
automated teller machines (ATMs), bank branches and post offices in 2019, but
compared with the 2016 results there has been a decline in the ease of access to them
(from 94% to 89%) in all euro area countries. Cash acceptance at the POS is still high
in most euro area countries, but in a few countries it can no longer be said that cash is
universally accepted.
With the SPACE survey, a detailed analysis of payment behaviour for online,
telephone and mail orders could also be made for the first time. The results show that
online shopping has become an important element in the retail payments landscape,
as in 2019 online transactions made up almost 7% of all payments made at the point of
interaction 3 (POI). In value terms, the share of online transactions in total POI
transactions was 17% in 2019. However, there are large differences in the relevance
of online transactions between euro area countries, ranging from an average of 1.75
transactions per week in Luxembourg to an average of 0.14 transactions in Cyprus.
For making online payments, cards were the most used payment instrument,
electronic payment solutions (such as PayPal) being the second most used option. Bill
payments were mostly done via direct debits or credit transfers, although in a few euro
area countries the use of cash, in particular when paying for utilities, was
non-negligible. Cards are also very often used for certain types of bill payments
(e.g. medical expenses).
All-in-all, the study shows that depending on the type of purchase, different payment
instruments are preferably used by consumers.
3 Point-of-interaction transactions include point-of-sale, person-to-person and online transactions.
Introduction
Innovative non-cash payment instruments have been developed and rolled out across
the euro area in recent years. At the same time, recent surveys on consumers’
payment attitudes and behaviour conducted in several countries show that the use of
cash as a means of payment appears to be declining over time. Euro area citizens’
attitudes and behaviour with regard to new payment solutions and cash need to be
understood. Moreover, the ECB and the national central banks (NCBs) have a
fundamental responsibility to ensure a smooth supply of cash and facilitate the use of
cash in payments by citizens and businesses. Cash is still the only form of public
money that is directly accessible to all citizens, ensuring autonomy, privacy and social
inclusion. As a strategic response to various developments having an impact on the
availability and acceptance of cash, the ECB adopted a 2030 strategy with the vision
to preserve euro cash as a generally available, attractive, reliable and competitive
payment instrument and a store of value of choice.
Having a reliable source of information on payment behaviour in the euro area may
help in providing the Eurosystem and the relevant payment system stakeholders with
key information for the development of their policies and strategic decisions, which
can contribute to improving the efficiency of the cash cycle and of the payment system.
For this purpose, the ECB carried out the study on the payment attitudes of consumers
in the euro area (SPACE) in 2019. SPACE covers the instruments which euro area
consumers use to make payments, including POS payments 4 and P2P payments 5,
online payments, payments by mail and on the phone, as well as bill and recurring
payments. SPACE also analyses the factors influencing individuals’ payment attitudes
and payment behaviour.
The main objectives of the study were to estimate for the euro area the number and
value of transactions carried out by consumers at POS and P2P (broken down by
payment instrument and place of purchase) and to get an indication of the way in
which payments carried out remotely (i.e. for online shopping, telephone and mail
orders, and bills) were made, split into payment instrument and category.
Further objectives of the study were to understand payment preferences and access
to the different payment instruments, the attitudes towards new payment instruments
and the influence of demographic characteristics on consumers’ payment behaviour.
4 Point-of-sale payments include those payments made at supermarkets, restaurants, bars, cafés, small
shops for day-to-day items, petrol stations, street or market selling points, shops selling durable goods,
vending or ticketing machines, venues for culture, sports or entertainment, offices of public authorities,
and hotels or similar, as well as for services outside the home (e.g. hairdressers, dry cleaning, bicycle
repair) and at other physical locations. If a respondent could not allocate the place where the transaction
had taken place, it was included under “Don’t know”.
5 Person-to-person payments include all payments made between two individuals, e.g. payments for
services in and around the house, charitable donations and other P2P payments such as pocket money,
gifts, repayments of shared restaurant bills, as well as payments at a flea market, in a church and to
street artists.
Study on the payment attitudes of consumers in the euro area – Introduction 8

1 Research method
1.1 Scope
The study on the use of cash by households (SUCH) 6 published in 2017 was the first
study of its kind, in which consumers’ payment behaviour at POS and P2P 7 was
analysed for all 19 euro area countries 8 based on a survey consisting of a payment
diary and a questionnaire. Consumers’ payment behaviour at POS and for P2P
transactions is also the focus of this second study. However, in this new survey,
questions about online payments and remote payments were included, allowing a
deeper understanding of the way these payments are carried out.
The SPACE survey was based on a payment diary and an accompanying

questionnaire (see Annex A). The payment diary was split into three modules
covering: (i) POS and P2P payments; (ii) online payments including online purchases,
and telephone and mail orders; and (iii) bill and recurring payments. The survey
respondents were requested to report their POS, P2P and online transactions in a
one-day diary 9. Respondents were also asked to report any bill payments made during
the last seven days. Furthermore, they had to answer a questionnaire with questions
about their behaviour and attitudes towards cash and other payment instruments.
The fieldwork was carried out by the market research company Kantar Public in 17 of
the 19 euro area countries (i.e. with the exception of Germany and the Netherlands).
The Deutsche Bundesbank, and De Nederlandsche Bank together with the Dutch
Payments Association, have carried out their own surveys on payment behaviour over
a period of more than a decade, and in order not to create a break in their time series,
their data have been integrated where possible (see Box 1). 10
1.2 Sample design

The sample was designed taking into account the population size of each country and
the heterogeneity across regions within each country. The sample design aimed to
achieve representativeness of the population for gender, age, education and region.
To capture payment behaviour for each day of the week, a quota was also set on the
day of the transactions recorded in the payment diary, thereby targeting
representativeness for the population for each day of the week. From an
6 Esselink and Hernandez (2017).

7 In the payment diary, the respondents could report their payment made by place of purchase. For some
categories, the meaning was unambiguous (i.e. supermarket), but for some other more generic
categories (e.g. services outside the home), it was difficult to say with certainty if the payment was made
at a POS or P2P. Therefore, the results are usually presented for these two categories together.
8 The results of the national surveys conducted in Germany and in the Netherlands were also integrated
into the analysis when possible.
9 A three-day diary in Malta and Cyprus.
10 It should be noted that the euro area data do not fully reflect the situation in 2019, since Germany has the
highest weight in the euro area results and the payment diary data included are for 2017.
Study on the payment attitudes of consumers in the euro area – Research method 9
organisational point of view, this was challenging, but generally a good representation
of the sample for each day of the week was achieved. This latter point is a significant
improvement in terms of methodology compared with SUCH. The sample was drawn
from two sampling frames. Similar to the SUCH survey, part of the sample was drawn
from a non-probabilistic frame 11, i.e. Kantar Public online panels. Demographic quotas
were used in the online panel to minimise panel bias. In addition, a probabilistic dual
sampling frame (mobile and fixed line) was used for telephone interviews, as well as in
the recruitment of respondents for face-to-face interviews in Malta and Cyprus. The
telephone survey did not apply any quotas at the recruitment stage. In countries where
the survey was conducted both in telephone and online mode, the sample size was
equal between the two modes (see Table 2).
The survey was conducted in 17 euro area countries. In 15 of those countries, it was
carried out in three waves from mid-March to mid-December 2019. In Malta and
Cyprus, interviews were conducted only in Wave 1, from March to June 2019, as these
were the only countries where the interviews were conducted face to face. For the
15 countries, the waves were spread across the year to cover various periods of the
year (see Table 1) and to also capture some seasonal patterns in people’s payment
behaviour. Each wave covered a period of six weeks, with the interviewing pace being
as homogeneous as possible within and across countries and modes. However, for
practical reasons, the pace at which the interviews were conducted could not be fully
controlled, leading to differences, which may have influenced slightly the comparability
of results between countries because of potential seasonal effects.
The number of interviews completed per wave, month and country is shown in Table 1
below.
11 Non-probability sampling is a sampling technique where the odds of any member being selected for a
sample cannot be calculated (e.g. owing to low response rates, unknown panel joiner probabilities).
Table 1
Distribution of the sample per country, wave and month
Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3
Total
12
Country March April May June September October November November December sample size
AT 3.1% 24.4% 5.7% 0.0% 16.0% 16.3% 0.6% 30.2% 3.6% 2,111
BE 4.4% 22.8% 6.3% 0.0% 19.0% 13.0% 1.2% 31.0% 2.4% 3,032
CY 45.1% 54.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 508
EE 4.7% 20.6% 7.6% 0.3% 15.2% 18.1% 0.0% 28.8% 4.7% 3,023
ES 1.2% 21.4% 10.8% 0.0% 19.5% 12.2% 0.9% 26.1% 8.0% 4,157
FI 4.8% 15.4% 12.4% 0.5% 19.8% 13.2% 0.4% 30.7% 2.8% 3,023
FR 2.2% 19.4% 12.0% 0.0% 22.9% 9.5% 0.5% 28.5% 5.1% 4,489
GR 3.2% 28.3% 2.0% 0.0% 17.7% 15.6% 0.0% 29.3% 3.9% 2,109
IE 4.6% 23.2% 5.2% 0.0% 17.8% 14.8% 0.7% 28.7% 4.9% 2,088
IT 8.1% 16.6% 8.7% 0.0% 18.3% 14.1% 0.6% 31.2% 2.4% 4,199
LT 7.4% 22.5% 2.5% 0.0% 14.0% 19.8% 0.9% 28.2% 4.6% 2,164
LU 6.4% 18.8% 5.1% 0.0% 11.9% 12.7% 2.3% 29.3% 13.5% 1,367
LV 4.5% 26.8% 2.0% 0.0% 17.1% 16.0% 0.0% 30.5% 3.1% 2,144
MT 4.9% 31.1% 64.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 450
PT 4.4% 22.0% 5.3% 1.9% 22.9% 9.2% 0.5% 28.6% 5.1% 2,127
SI 10.4% 19.8% 3.9% 0.0% 18.7% 13.8% 0.0% 31.3% 2.1% 2,075
SK 10.2% 17.3% 6.1% 0.0% 19.6% 12.8% 0.0% 31.5% 2.5% 2,089
The achieved sample 13 was distributed evenly across the waves, although a larger
share of interviews was conducted between the end of March and the end of April.
A total of 41,440 respondents aged 18 or more participated in the survey and, after the
data cleaning, 41,155 interviews remained in the dataset. These respondents reported
68,023 POS and P2P transactions, 7,371 online purchases and 43,659 bill payments
(excluding Germany and the Netherlands).
Already before the survey was carried out, it was considered that it would be difficult to
get a representative sample of all bill payments made during a year because some bill
payments are typically made at specific times of the year such as at the beginning of
the year (e.g. home insurance), or they can follow a more regular pattern as in the
case of quarterly or monthly payments. Also, as respondents would likely not know or
remember certain automatic payments made for regular expenses like rent, electricity
or telephone, an additional dedicated question on how these frequent payments are
made was included in the accompanying questionnaire.
12 The fieldwork in all modes was put on hold in the period 18-23 April 2019 (Easter holiday period).
13 The target was to reach a certain minimum number of transactions to be recorded at POS and P2P per
country, taking into account population size and the variance in the estimates of the transactions to be
recorded per interviewee (based on the data from SUCH). The number of targeted transactions varied
between 6,000 and 8,000 for France, Italy and Spain, and between 2,500 and 4,000 for the other
countries.
1.3 Data collection
The same questionnaire was used in all countries and translated from English into the
main languages of each country by Kantar Public, with the help of NCB experts.
Special attention was paid to ensuring that interviewees understood the terms in their
own language well, and for this reason, examples were adjusted to the national
context.
The survey process consisted of three parts: a recruitment interview, the recording
period and the main interview (follow-up interview). The data collection encompassed
a period of three days. The main interview was conducted with a certain tolerance in
the timing. When respondents were not immediately available for the main interview
on the day after the recording period, interviewers could make an appointment for a
date up to three days after the recording period in order to conduct the main interview.
In order to prevent panel bias, the interviews were conducted both online
(computer-assisted web interviewing ‒ CAWI) and over the telephone
(computer-assisted telephone interviewing ‒ CATI) using a mix of mobile and fixed
lines. Because representative online panels are not available in Malta and Cyprus,
respondents from those countries were interviewed face to face (F2F).
Table 2
Distribution of the sample per country and mode
Country CATI CAWI F2F
AT 1,059 1,052 .
BE 1,513 1,519 .
CY . . 508
EE 1,500 1,523 .
ES 2,097 2,060 .
FI 1,509 1,514 .
FR 2,277 2,212 .
GR 1,055 1,054 .
IE 1,046 1,042 .
IT 2,100 2,099 .
LT 1,056 1,108 .
LU 615 752 .
LV 1,059 1,085 .
MT . . 450
PT 1,052 1,075 .
SI 1,049 1,026 .
SK 1,052 1,037 .
Total 20,039 20,158 958
The results were collected using Kantar Public online panels, which include some
simple demographic quotas to minimise panel bias. For the telephone interviews, a
random sample from the 18+ population was used and this sample had been
independently drawn from the online panel sample. A difference in payment behaviour
between online and telephone respondents has been identified and measured by
comparing the results of the two samples (see Box 2).
For the SPACE survey, all respondents filled in the diary modules as well as the
questionnaire, and the two interview modes were used in all waves. Compared with
the SUCH survey, where telephone interviews were conducted only for the 55+
population and responses to the questionnaire were collected from a sub-set of
respondents in the first wave, which were mainly approached online, the sampling
design and the survey conduct for SPACE should have ensured a better
representativeness of the results. In this respect, it should be noted that a balance has
been reached for all quotas set on the sample, with a slight caveat with regard to
certain education categories 14 in some countries, although they were fulfilled within an
agreed tolerance.
Box 1
Payment surveys in Germany and in the Netherlands
Germany
Since 2008, the Deutsche Bundesbank (DBB) has been conducting household surveys on payment
behaviour in Germany at three-year intervals.
The latest payment survey was carried out between May and August 2017. The survey was
addressed to the German-speaking population over the age of 18 and residing in Germany.
Interviews were conducted face to face (computer-assisted personal interview – CAPI). The
respondents completed a pencil-and-paper payment diary in the seven days following the interview.
In total, 2,061 individuals completed the diary, reporting 21,361 payment transactions. The payment
diary results of the DBB were integrated into the results of the SPACE POS and P2P module. All
results referring to the payment diary are therefore for 2017 for Germany, and hence euro area results
related to the payment diary do not fully reflect the 2019 situation, also considering the relatively high
weight of Germany in the euro area totals.
In order to have data from the same year related to the questionnaire, the DBB conducted a survey
based on the SPACE accompanying questionnaire, interviewing 3,122 respondents using CATI
(1,510 respondents) and CAWI (1,611 respondents) interview modes in May and June 2019. These
results have been integrated into the analysis.
The Netherlands
The survey was commissioned by De Nederlandsche Bank and the Dutch Payments Association. 15 It
included the same payment diary and almost the same accompanying questionnaire as for SPACE.
The payment diary was kept throughout the year 2019, whereas the bill payments module was
administered in the third quarter of 2019; the accompanying questionnaire was completed during the
last quarter of 2019. The population aged over 12 was interviewed, but the results were filtered for the
population aged 18+ for integration into SPACE. Given the high internet usage in the Netherlands, the
14 In comparison to the 2018 European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) survey
data.
15 For more information on the survey, see Jonker et al. (2018).
interviews were mainly conducted using CAWI and, to a lesser extent, CATI. A total of 22,103
respondents participated in the survey and reported 83,623 transactions. The results were integrated
into the analysis.
Data integration and weighting
It should be noted that part of the weighting procedure used on the 17 countries could not be
reproduced for the German and the Dutch diary data as the interview modes are different in these two
countries and the countries used their own weighting procedure. Therefore, the euro area averages
have been calculated using the population shares of these countries applied to country results to
gross their weights to the euro area size.
1.4 Weighting
The sample was weighted to minimise the observable bias of survey estimates and to
enable solid inferences to be made about the sample based on the demographic
characteristics of each country. The weighting process involved three steps. In the first
step, the net sample of offline respondents was weighted using known population
benchmarks for gender within age bands, educational attainment, employment,
household size, region and internet access as calibration benchmarks. In the second
step, the online sample was matched to the weighted probabilistic sample of
respondents with internet access using a selection of balancing variables. The
balancing variables included the sociodemographic information used in the first step,
as well as a selection of non-demographic topic-specific questions where significant
differences between the (weighted) offline and online samples were observed. The
questionnaire contained questions that were used to mitigate this bias, for example,
questions making it possible to create a financial index and a technology index. In the
final step, the two samples were combined, with the weights from step 1 and step 2
being applied to each sample as a pre-weight before the combined sample was
calibrated to the sociodemographic population targets used in the first step.
This weighting procedure has reduced the differences observed in the key outcomes
of the online and telephone samples (the incidence, number and amount of cash and
non-cash payments), but did not completely eradicate them. Much of the remaining
differences between the samples are likely to be attributable to modal differences
relating to the presence of an interviewer (virtual versus oral experience). It is likely
that some differences still relate to unobserved differences in the sample profiles.
1.5 Validation of the data

Fieldwork progress was continuously monitored in terms of the quotas across all
survey modes and in all countries. At the end of the fieldwork of each wave, the
responses were checked for completeness, consistency and plausibility on the basis
of multiple criteria, including sociodemographic information, outliers, contradicting and
unusual answers, balance in the diary part, payment instrument ownership, and
consistency between respondent characteristics and payment made. Based on a
predefined set of rules, inconsistent results were marked with a flag. Such flags
indicated the individual case and denoted the rule that was violated and constituted a
basis to operate further data cleaning and spot outliers. A total of 285 interviews were
removed from the dataset, which represents 0.7% of the total number of interviews.
Due to high levels of missing data on the amount of purchases in the remote payment
module (12% in the online module and 10% in the bill module – no amount was
missing in the POS and P2P module), as well as the importance of calculating the
survey outcomes across all purchase categories and payment methods, missing data
for the exact amount of purchases have been imputed using standard methods of
imputation (Ghosh and Vogt, 2012; Templ et al., 2019). The predictor variables for the
imputation model were determined on the basis of a regression model that looked at
the main effects and country interaction terms for the mode of data collection,
seasonality effects, the location and method of payment, household size, gender and
age (see Filzmoser et al., 2016). The specific categories in the predictor variables
where sample sizes were low they have been regrouped. The country and type of
payment (e.g. online shopping or bill payment) were controlled by running the
imputation model on a per module and country basis.
Finally, the overall aggregates calculated from the answers were compared with the
results of the previous study (i.e. SUCH), with payment data collected at the ECB 16
and with national datasets, when available. Three main items of payment statistics
were used from the ECB’s Statistical Data Warehouse to validate the survey results:
(i) the value of cash withdrawals; (ii) statistics on domestic card payments initiated at
the POS; and (iii) the value of card payments. In addition, the Household Finance and
Consumption Survey was used to validate the results of the bill payments module on
the amount spent on rent and mortgages and utilities.
Box 2
Combining telephone and online interviews to reduce bias
Online panels may be sensitive to bias when having access to the internet, or not, influences the
behaviour of the interviewed (Bethlehem, 2010). The assumption is that people using a computer
may be “tech-savvy” and more inclined to use innovative payment methods. Hayashi and Klee (2003)
showed that consumers using new technology or computers were more likely to use electronic forms
of payment, such as debit cards and electronic bill payments; more recently, Stavins (2017)
investigated how technology influences consumers’ payment behaviour. Therefore, a mixed-mode
survey approach was applied, combining online and telephone (CATI) interviews to avoid
under-coverage of non-internet users. The sample size in each country was equally spread over the
two methods.
A technology index combining three variables – the frequency of internet usage with personal
computers, tablets and smartphones, respectively – was set up to identify technology-heavy users.
Overall, online panels showed more technology-heavy users (79.8%) than the telephone interviews
16 Payment statistics dataset in the Statistical Data Warehouse (reference year: 2019); aggregates
calculated for the Household Finance and Consumption Survey (reference year: 2017).
(70.2%). The comparison between the percentage of technology-heavy users in each of the samples
and the annual European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) 17 shows that the differences are even more
pronounced for countries with lower innovation (see Chart A). Moreover, these countries have more
technology-heavy users in the online panel than in the telephone sample, which may be due to the
self-selection of respondents in the web surveys. Therefore, the mere usage of an online survey could
lead to biased results on payment behaviour. On the other hand, the CATI survey, which uses random
digit dialling (RDD), is useful to reach non-internet users and to reduce the bias due to
under-coverage and self-selection of the online panel. To mitigate the bias and produce
representative statistics on payment behaviour, a weighting procedure was applied, making the
online and telephone samples representative of the entire population. After the weighting procedure,
an analysis of the SPACE results indicates that the online panel does not show a higher propensity to
use cashless instruments than those interviewed by telephone.
Chart A
Technology-heavy users for the interview modes and the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS)
(left-hand scale: percentages; right-hand scale: EIS)
Telephone (left-hand scale)

On-line (left-hand scale)
EIS (right-hand scale)
90% 160
80% 140
70%
120
60%
100
50%
80
40%
60
30%
40
20%
10% 20
0% 0
FI LU BE AT IE FR EE PT ES SI IT LT GR SK LV
Sources: ECB (SPACE) and European Commission.
17 Every year the European Commission produces the annual European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS), an
indicator of innovation. The EIS, based on 27 different indicators, provides a comparative assessment of
the research and innovation performance of EU Member States and selected third countries, and the
relative strengths and weaknesses of their research and innovation systems.
2 Payments at the point of sale and to
individuals
The survey respondents were requested to record in a diary all the purchases they
made during the day, giving information on the amount spent and on the place where
they made their purchase. In this section, details of the results for payments made at
the POS or to a person (P2P) are given. Respondents were asked to report which
payment instrument or payment method (device) they used to make the payment.
With this information, estimates of the number and value of the POS and P2P
payments were produced, per payment instrument and place of purchase. Because
the characteristics of each respondent were known, payment behaviour could also be
investigated from a sociodemographic perspective. To give insights into the
motivations for choosing a certain payment instrument (e.g. constraints because of a
lack of acceptance), information on the amount of cash (banknotes and coins)
available in the respondent’s wallet at the beginning of the day and any cash
replenishment was also collected. Respondents were also requested to report
whether payment instruments other than those they used would have been accepted,
if they had wanted to use them.
2.1 Total number and value of POS and P2P payments per
payment instrument and their relative share per country
The following section presents the results of the payment diary for the payments made
by consumers at the POS and P2P extrapolated to the full year 2019 and the entire
euro area population aged 18 years and above. It is estimated that in 2019 consumers
made 160 billion POS and P2P payments, amounting to €4,082 billion (see Table 3).
At the POS, euro area citizens made 109 billion cash payments worth €1,722 billion
and 38 billion card payments with a value of €1,633 billion. For P2P payments, there
were 8 billion cash payments with a value of €249 billion and 0.5 billion card payments
worth €34 billion.
Consumers also used non-cash payment instruments other than cards, such as bank
cheques, credit transfers and direct debits, for paying at the POS. Usage of these
instruments was comparably low in terms of volume (5 billion) and value (€445 billion).
Study on the payment attitudes of consumers in the euro area – Payments at the point of sale
and to individuals 17
Table 3
Number and value of POS and P2P payments in the euro area in 2019
Number of transactions Value of transactions
(in billions) (in € billions)
All payment instruments 160 4,082
POS 151 3,686
P2P 9 397
Cash 116 1,971
POS 109 1,722
P2P 8 249
Cards 38 1,667
POS 38 1,633
P2P 0.5 34
Others 5 445
POS 4 331
P2P 1 114
Sources: ECB (2019), De Nederlandsche Bank and Dutch Payments Association (2019) and Deutsche Bundesbank (2017).
Notes: Data are for the euro area (all 19 countries). The category “Cards” includes credit and debit cards. The category “Others” refers to
payments made with mobile phones, bank cheques, credit transfers, direct debits and other (unidentified) payment instruments, and
includes the answer “Don't know”. Due to their low frequency of use, these instruments have been grouped into a single category. P2P
transactions are calculated for the categories “Services inside or around the house”, “Charity” and “Other P2P payments”. Totals may not
add up due to rounding.
Cash remained the means of payment the most used for paying at the POS and for
making P2P payments in the euro area in 2019, both in terms of number and value
(see Chart 1). At the same time, the share of cash in overall turnover decreased by
6 percentage points compared with the SUCH results.
In 2019, slightly less than three-quarters (73%) of all POS and P2P payments were
made using banknotes and coins. As regards non-cash payment instruments, cards
were used substantially. Their share was 24% of all payments, with debit cards
accounting for 18.4% and credit cards for 5.3%. Non-cash payments made using
mobile phones as an access device (regardless of the underlying payment method,
e.g. an application) and payments made by cheques, credit transfers, direct debits
and other (unidentified) payment instruments accounted each for less than 1% of the
total number of transactions. This low percentage might be due to the unavailability of
some of these instruments in some countries, to the low ownership among the
respondents (for instance, only 28% of the respondents said that they had access to
mobile payments) or to the non-acceptance of certain payment instruments at the
POS (e.g. credit transfers or direct debits).
In terms of value, cash accounts for 48% of POS and P2P payments. Cards accounted
for 41% of the value of the overall payments turnover. More specifically, debit cards
accounted for 30.2% and credit cards for 10.5%. Credit transfers accounted for 4.6%,
cheques for 2.4%, and mobile phone, direct debit and other payment instruments for
less than 4% of the total payments turnover.
When comparing cash and card transactions in terms of number and value, it can be
inferred that cash transactions were generally lower in value than those made using a
card. Indeed, although cash accounted for 73% of the total number of transactions, it
represented a much lower percentage in terms of total transaction value (48%).
Conversely, debit and credit cards accounted for less of the total transactions but a
higher total value, meaning that as the value of the transaction increases cards were
more likely to be used.
Chart 1
Share of payment instruments used at the POS and P2P (in terms of the number and
value of transactions)
Cash
Cards
Others
Number 73% 24% 3%
Value 48% 41% 11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Notes: Data are for the euro area (all 19 countries). The category “Cards” includes credit and debit cards. The category “Others” refers to
payments with mobile phones, bank cheques, credit transfers, direct debits and other (unidentified) payment instruments, and includes
the answer “Don't know”. Due to their low frequency of use, these instruments have been grouped into a single category.
At the euro area country level, in terms of the number of transactions at the POS and
P2P, in all but two countries, cash was the most used payment instrument, with the
highest proportions in Malta (88%), Spain and Cyprus (83% each). In contrast, in
Finland and the Netherlands respectively only 35% and 34% of the payments were
made in cash (see Figure 1). 18 In these countries, debit cards were the most used
payment instrument. In Estonia, cards (47%) and cash (48%) have an almost equal
share in the total number of transactions.
The proportion of cash in relation to the total value of POS and P2P payments varied
considerably across countries, from 73% in Cyprus and Malta and 66% in Spain, to
33% in Belgium, 27% in Finland, 25% in France, 24% in Luxembourg and 22% in the
Netherlands. In Estonia, cash and debit cards accounted for 41% each.
18 Note that cash usage figures published by De Nederlandsche Bank and the Dutch Payments Association
are slightly lower (i.e. 32% for the share of cash in the total number of POS payments and 21% for its
share of the total value) than presented here because they are based on consumers aged 12 and above
and include POS payments only (De Nederlandsche Bank, 2020).
Figure 1
Cash payments – number and value of transactions
a) Number of transactions b) Value of transactions
FI FI
35% 27%
EE EE
48% 41%
LV LV
68% 63%
LT
NL LT
68% NL
IE
34% IE 62%
22%
70%
DE 57% DE
BE BE
77% 51%
58% LU 33% LU
SK
SK
54% AT 24% AT
74%
63%
FR 79% FR 58%
59% SI 25% SI
IT IT
73% 63%
82% 58%
PT PT
ES ES
GR GR
81% 54%
83% 66%
80% 62%
MT MT
CY CY
88% 73%
83% 73%
As shown in Chart 2, compared with the SUCH study conducted in 2016, in terms of
the number, the cash usage for making POS and P2P payments decreased the most
in Finland 19 (-19 percentage points (p.p.)), followed by the Netherlands 20 (-11 p.p.),
Ireland and Luxembourg (-10 p.p.), France (-9 p.p.) and Greece (-8 p.p.).
In terms of the value of transactions, the biggest drops in cash usage for making POS
and P2P payments were in Greece (-13 p.p.), Italy (-11 p.p.), Austria (-9 p.p.) and
Finland (-7 p.p.).
The relative share of cash payments in overall turnover increased notably in Estonia
(+10 p.p.), Latvia (+9 p.p.) and Ireland (+8 p.p.).
19 In Finland and France, the noteworthy declines are at least partially due to the change in the SPACE
methodology. The SPACE study reached a better representativeness of the population in these two
countries than the SUCH study, especially as regards the regional coverage of the online sample.
20 In SUCH the Dutch results covered consumers aged 12 and older, whereas SPACE covered consumers
aged 18 and older.
Chart 2
Difference in cash transactions between SUCH (2016) and SPACE (2019)
(percentage points)
Number of transactions
Value of transactions
15
10
-5
-10
-15
-20
AT BE CY DE EE ES FI FR GR IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PT SI SK EA
Sources: Calculation based on data from ECB (2019), ECB (2016), De Nederlandsche Bank and Dutch Payments Association (2019)
and Deutsche Bundesbank (2017).
Notes: “EA” refers to the euro area (all 19 countries). The SUCH values only include POS payments, while the SPACE values include
both POS and P2P payments. Since P2P payments are mostly made in cash according to the SPACE results, values might slightly
underestimate the difference between SUCH and SPACE. For Germany, data for the SUCH study were for 2014. Consequently, Chart 2
compares the cash shares in Germany measured in 2017 with those measured in 2014. The German retail sector data in 2019 (i.e. with
measurement made directly at retailers’ cash registers) showed that cash was used for 73% of transactions, representing 47% of the
transaction value. These results need to be viewed with caution, however, as the methodology of the German retail sector survey cannot
be compared with that of the Deutsche Bundesbank, but they do give an indication that the decline in cash usage in Germany in 2018
and 2019 was likely not very pronounced (EHI Retail Institute, 2020).
Box 3
Survey on the impact of the pandemic on cash trends
Objective and survey methodology
In July 2020, an ECB survey was rolled out in all euro area countries in order to measure the impact of
the pandemic on cash trends (IMPACT survey). The survey was prompted by concerns among the
general public and retailers about the risks of being contaminated with the coronavirus via cash, and
by the visibly higher card use, as many retailers asked their clients to pay (contactless) by card. It
would also provide an update on the attitudes towards cash and give an indication to what extent
cash use might have declined as a result of the pandemic.
The outcomes of the two surveys (SPACE and IMPACT) cannot be directly compared as the type of
survey (payment diary in SPACE vs. questionnaire in IMPACT) and the methodologies (i.e. IMPACT
was an online survey in most countries and interviews were not spread evenly over the days of the
week) differ. In addition, it cannot be predicted how the changes in the methodology influence the
results in terms of an over- or underestimation of cash usage.
Nevertheless, IMPACT gives a view of possible changes in the payment attitude of consumers and
their payment behaviour in the euro area countries. The survey was conducted online, except in
Cyprus and Malta where the survey was conducted over the telephone. The target for the sample size
was to achieve 1,000 interviews in each country, except in Malta, Cyprus and Luxembourg where it
was 500. A total of 17,779 persons were interviewed in the last two weeks of July. The weighting
model elaborated for SPACE was applied to the online sample of the IMPACT survey.
Results for the euro area as a whole
Respondents were asked how they made their most recent payment. Looking at the most recent
payment made at the three POS and P2P locations where most transactions were carried out, cash
was used to settle 38% of the transactions at supermarkets, 57% of the transactions in small shops
for day-to-day items, and 63% of the transactions at restaurants, bars and cafés.
Respondents were also asked if other instruments were accepted when they paid by cash, and if cash
was accepted when they had not paid with cash. In total, 84% of the respondents who paid with cash
responded that other payment instruments, such as cards, were also accepted at the POS and when
making P2P payments. Of those who paid with cards, 9% declared that cash was usually not
accepted where they had paid, and 7% said that cash was temporarily not accepted because of the
coronavirus pandemic. Respondents were also asked if they had experienced a situation in which
they could not pay with cash since the start of the pandemic. 8% of the respondents stated that they
had not paid with cash since the start of the pandemic, but of those who had been paying with cash,
slightly over 35% said that they had experienced a situation in which cash was not accepted (17%
rarely, 13% sometimes and 5% often).
Almost half of the respondents reported that they used cards and cash in a similar way as they did
before the start of the pandemic. However, 40% said they were using contactless payment cards
more often, and an equal percentage said they used cash much less often or somewhat less often.
Results at the country level
Great variation exists at the country level: in Ireland, Belgium and Spain, more than half of the
respondents said that they were paying less with cash since the pandemic, whereas in Estonia,
Latvia and Malta less than 25% said the same. Finally, payments with a mobile device (e.g. a phone
or a smart watch) did not show a breakthrough, because over half (53%) of the respondents said that
they did not have such a payment instrument (see Chart A).
Chart A
Use of payment methods during the pandemic
Mobile device Card with PIN/signature
Card contactless Cash
Much more often
Somewhat more often
The same as before
Somewhat less often
Much less often
Other
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Source: ECB (2020).

Notes: Data are for the euro area (all 19 countries). Question: Now, think about how you have been paying recently, after certain restrictions have been lifted,
without considering the frequency of your purchases, compared to the situation before the coronavirus crisis started, are you using the following payment
instruments more or less often? The answer option “Other” includes “I do not have this payment instrument” and “Don’t know / Prefer not to say”.
Respondents paying less with cash since the start of the pandemic were asked to indicate the
reasons why they paid less with cash. From a given pre-defined list (see Chart B), the most often
mentioned reason was the fact that paying electronically had been made more convenient (45% of
respondents mentioned this reason). The respondents were not asked in which way the convenience
had increased, but it is likely that the better possibilities to pay contactless and the increase in the
limits for contactless payments have contributed to this. For example, in most of the euro area
countries the limit for contactless payment was raised to €50. 21 The second most mentioned reason
for the change in payment behaviour with respect to cash was the fear that there is a risk of infection
from banknotes, which was mentioned by 38% of the respondents. This share was particularly high in
Spain and Portugal (above 50%). Moreover, concerns about hand contact with the cashier were also
mentioned frequently (33%). One-third of the respondents said that they followed the government
recommendation to pay less with cash. Meanwhile, the Eurosystem has made it clear that the risk of
getting infected by handling banknotes is not significant if compared with other objects people touch
in daily life. 22
Chart B
Main reasons for changing payment behaviour during the pandemic
Paying electronically has been made more convenient 45%
There is a risk of being infected by the virus via the banknotes

38%
themselves
The government recommended to pay cashless as much as possible 35%
There is a risk of being infected by the virus via hand contact or the
33%
proximity to the cashier
The places where you buy goods or services no longer accept cash or
20%
strongly advise not to pay with cash
You could not withdraw cash as easily as before the crisis 9%
You discovered other means of payment 5%
Other reasons 4%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Source: ECB (2020).

Note: Data are for the euro area (all 19 countries).
Nevertheless, when asked about concerns about becoming infected while handling cash, 55% of the
respondents declared that they were not concerned about the risk of getting COVID-19 from
banknotes (here again, Portugal and Spain were the countries in which people were the most
concerned).
21 During the coronavirus crisis, the European Banking Authority called on traders to make use of the
exemption for strong customer authentication up to €50 as allowed under Commission Delegated
Regulation (EU) 2018/389.
22 See, for example, the blog post by Fabio Panetta, member of the Executive Board of the ECB, “Beyond
monetary policy – protecting the continuity and safety of payments during the coronavirus crisis”, 28 April
2020.
Chart C
Concerns about getting COVID-19 when touching banknotes or coins
Concerned
Not concerned
I typically don't use cash / don't know
100% 4% 3% 4% 1% 3% 3% 4% 2% 4% 2%
8% 5% 4% 8% 7% 7% 7% 9% 7%
13%
90%
26%
80% 35%
41%
70% 55% 55% 55%
49% 54% 56% 59%
58% 62% 67%
60% 67% 69% 67% 70% 73% 77%
50% 74%
40%
70%
30% 62%
55%
20% 44% 44% 42% 41% 41% 39% 37% 34% 32% 31% 27%
10% 25% 24% 23% 23% 22%
14%
0%
PT ES IE BE IT MT EA FR GR CY NL FI DE SK LU LT LV SI AT EE
Source: ECB (2020).

Notes: “EA” refers to the euro area (all 19 countries). Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
87% of the respondents who stated that they had paid less in cash (i.e. 40%; see Chart A) said that
they would continue to do so when the coronavirus crisis is over, of which 46% said that they were
certain that they would continue to do so (see Chart D). Although the impact of the change in payment
behaviour caused by the pandemic cannot be estimated in terms of the decline in the share of cash
for POS and P2P payments based on these survey data, the results do suggest that the pandemic
has accelerated the decline in cash usage in all euro area countries. The magnitude of the effects
varies from country to country and is likely to depend on the severity of the pandemic-related
restriction measures, the existing payment infrastructure, government policies and
recommendations, the ease of access to cash and the acceptance of cash, as well as preferences
and habits.
The findings of the 2020 national payment diary survey conducted in the Netherlands support the
view that the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the shift from the use of cash to the use of
non-cash payment instruments for payments at the POS and for P2P payments (De Nederlandsche
Bank, 2020).
Chart D
Payment behaviour expected after the pandemic
Certainly continue to pay less with cash
Probably continue to pay less with cash
Will revert to your payment behaviour before the crisis
46% 41% 13%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Source: ECB (2020).

Note: Data are for the euro area (all 19 countries).
2.2 Daily average of POS and P2P payments
2.2.1 Average number of POS and P2P transactions per person per day
In 2019, euro area citizens made 1.48 POS and 0.09 P2P transactions per day on
average, which is equivalent to 11 transactions per person per week (see Chart 3). 23
At the country level, the average number of POS and P2P transactions per day ranged
from 1.2 transactions in Estonia to slightly more than 1.9 transactions in Portugal and
Greece.
The average number of POS and P2P transactions per day is almost the same as the
one reported in SUCH. 24
When splitting the euro area average of 1.6 POS and P2P transactions per person per
day by payment instrument, it can be estimated that on average in the euro area
consumers made 1.1 cash transactions and 0.4 card transactions per person per day.
The Greeks, Italians and Portuguese made on average 1.6 cash transactions per day,
while the Dutch, the Estonians and the Finnish made only 0.6, 0.5 and 0.5 cash
transactions, respectively.
In the countries with a relatively low average number of cash transactions per person
per day, the number of card transactions was relatively high. Indeed, this was the case
for the Netherlands, Finland and Luxembourg, but less so for Estonia, since this is the
country with the lowest number of transactions overall. Countries with a particularly
low average number of card transactions per person per day were Malta and Spain,
but also Portugal, Germany, Italy, Cyprus and Austria were below the euro area
average.
In no country did other payment instruments (other than cash or cards) play a
significant role in terms of the average number of transactions per person per day.
23 72% of the respondents reported at least one POS and P2P payment in the diary, and 16% of the
respondents reported at least one online, mail or telephone purchase.
24 In SUCH, POS and P2P transactions were presented separately, with 1.57 POS payments and 0.06 P2P
payments. However, in SUCH, POS payments included internet payments (although they were
negligible), while in SPACE internet payments were not part of POS payments, but were recorded
separately.
Chart 3
Average number of POS and P2P transactions per person per day, per country and
per payment instrument
Cash
Cards
Others
2.5
0.02 0.06 0.03

2.0 0.07 0.00
0.04
0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.16 0.12 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.05
0.5 0.3 0.05 0.02
1.5 0.2 0.09 0.08
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.08 0.02
0.6 0.4 0.3 0.06
0.1
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.4
0.8
1.6 1.6 1.6 0.5
1.5
1.3 1.4 1.3
1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1
0.5 0.9 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.5 0.5
0.0
GR PT IT IE CY AT NL LU LV ES SI SK EA LT DE FI BE FR MT EE
Sources: Calculation based on data from ECB (2019), De Nederlandsche Bank and Dutch Payments Association (2019) and Deutsche
Bundesbank (2017).
Notes: “EA” refers to the euro area (all 19 countries).The category “Others” includes direct debits, credit transfers, bank cheques, mobile
phones (e.g. parking app), crypto-assets and other and the answer option “Don’t know”.
The consumer characteristics, such as gender, age and level of education, may
influence the choice of a particular payment instrument for settling POS and P2P
transactions. No significant differences in the number of transactions (using cash and
cards) were observed between male and female consumers. The number of
transactions made using cash increased with age, for instance consumers aged 65
and older were using cards the least (they made on average 0.29 card payments per
day). Respondents with a higher education level were more likely to use cards for
payments.
Chart 4
Average number of cash POS and P2P transactions
1.4
1.18 1.19 1.22
1.14 1.16 1.13 1.16 1.13 1.16
1.2
1.05
0.96
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Male
65+
Upper/post-
Female
PhD/research
18-24
25-39
40-54
55-64
Primary/lower
secondary
University/
secondary
Average Gender Age Education
Sources: Authors’ calculation based on data from ECB (2019), De Nederlandsche Bank and Dutch Payments Association (2019) and
Deutsche Bundesbank (2017).
Chart 5
Average number of POS and P2P transactions made using cards
0.5 0.45
0.43 0.42
0.38 0.39 0.38
0.4 0.36 0.37
0.34
0.29
0.3 0.25
0.2
0.1
0.0 Male
65+
Upper/post-
PhD/research
Female
18-24
25-39
40-54
55-64
Primary/lower
secondary
University/
secondary
Deutsche Bundesbank (2017).
2.2.2 Average value of POS and P2P payments per person
Taking cash and non-cash payments together, the average value of one payment was
€25.55 (€24.48 for a POS payment and €42.91 for a P2P payment), (see Chart 6). 11
of the 19 euro area countries had an average transaction value between €20 and €30,
but there were extremes on either side of this bandwidth. The average value of a
transaction across all means of payment varied, from €15.31 in Portugal, €17.44 in
Latvia and €18.52 in Spain to €32.49 in Belgium, €38.34 in Austria and even €53.77 in
Luxembourg.
As regards cash payments, Austria was the country with on average the highest value
of a cash transaction (€28.48), followed by Ireland (€25.59) and Luxembourg (€24.15),
while on the other side of the spectrum the average cash transactions were lowest in
Portugal (€10.17), France 25 (€12.95) and Spain (€14.56).
For card transactions, the difference in the average value between countries was
much larger than for cash, with Luxembourg (€78.33) having by far the largest
average card payment, followed at some distance by Austria (€57.07) and Malta
(€56.71). Latvia (€16.35), Estonia (€21.95) and Lithuania (€22.92) had the lowest
average value of card payments.
The average value of a transaction has been corrected for purchasing power parity
(PPP) in the euro area (see Chart 7). The results show that proportionally to the cost of
living in their country, the Luxembourgish, the Greeks and the Lithuanians spent the
most on POS and P2P single transactions (irrespective of the payment instrument
used). The Portuguese and Spanish were at the other end of the spectrum. The
Lithuanians also spent the highest amounts per transaction using cash, whereas the
Dutch used it the least, followed by the Portuguese and the French. Regarding card
25 See Bounie D. et al. (2018).
payments, the Maltese, the Greeks and the Luxembourgish had the highest average
value of a single transaction (the Maltese were also those with the smallest number of
card transactions per day, which means that cards are used less but for higher value
purchases).
The number of transactions and average value of a transaction resulted in an average

total of €40 spent per person per day for all POS and P2P transactions in the euro
area.
Chart 6
Average value of one POS and P2P transaction before adjusting for purchasing power
parity
All payment instruments
Cash
Cards
€ 90
€ 80
€ 70
€ 60
€ 50
€ 40
€ 30
€ 20
€ 10
€0
LU AT BE IE FR GR DE FI MT SI EA CY SK NL IT LT EE ES LV PT
Bundesbank (2017).
Notes: “EA” refers to the euro area (all 19 countries). The category “Others” is not shown because of the low frequency and high
heterogeneity of the amounts reported.
Chart 7
Average value of one POS and P2P transaction adjusted for purchasing power parity
All payment instruments in PPP
Cash in PPP
Cards in PPP
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
LU GR LT AT SK MT SI BE FR DE CY EE LV IE IT FI NL ES PT
Bundesbank (2017).
Note: The category “Others” is not shown because of the low frequency and high heterogeneity of the amounts reported.
2.3 The use of contactless technology for card payments
Card payments have increased in all euro area countries between 2016 and 2019 (see
Sub-sections 2.1 and 2.2). Since the introduction of cards that can be used
contactless, i.e. without having to insert them into a payment terminal, card payments
have in principle been made more convenient, which may have contributed to their
increased use, separately from the general increase in card acceptance by merchants
at the POS and for making P2P payments. With contactless technology one can pay
with a debit card, credit card or an electronic device (e.g. smart watch, smart phone,
etc.) by holding the card or device within a few centimetres of a payment terminal
enabled with contactless technology. When paying contactless with cards, above a
certain threshold amount, the personal identification number (PIN) is required.
Additionally, the PIN can be required after a certain number of transactions per day or
when a total amount is reached (e.g. after five transactions or when several
transactions in a row equal a certain amount). 26 As the PIN still has to be entered
manually into the payment terminal, there are still constraints on using contactless
cards.
Physical contactless card payments represented 38% of all card payments (including
contactless with or without a PIN 27), with substantial differences among euro area
countries, which may be the result of a different pace for rolling out
contactless-enabled cards and terminals. The share of contactless payments in total
card payments was the highest in Slovakia, with 77% of all card payments being
contactless, followed by Greece (73%). In both countries, also in terms of value, the
shares of contactless card payments in total card payments were the highest (74% in
Greece and 68% in Slovakia). The share of contactless card payments in total card
payments was the lowest in Belgium (16%). 28 In this country, contactless card
payments also had the lowest value, with 12% of the total value of card payments,
followed by France (18%). As shown in Charts 8 and 9, the occurrence of payments
with the insertion of the card in the terminal increases with the value of payments to be
made.
26 See Article 11 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389 of 27 November 2017

supplementing Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to
regulatory technical standards for strong customer authentication and common and secure open
standards of communication.
27 Excluding Germany, in the 18 other euro area countries contactless card payments accounted for 50% of
all card payments.
28 It should be recalled that the German results are for 2017. Data of the leading debit card scheme in
Germany show that in 2019 this share is increasing rapidly and that around 27% of the debit card
transactions for this specific card scheme were carried out contactless.
Chart 8
Card payments (number of transactions)
Inserting a card in a terminal
Contactless
Don't know
100%
90% 23% 27%

28%
33% 35%
80% 38% 38% 39% 42%
45% 45% 45% 49%
70% 61% 61% 62% 65%
60% 76%
84%
50% 97%
40% 77% 73% 71%

66% 65%
30% 62% 62% 60% 57%
55% 54% 54% 51%
20% 39% 38% 38% 35%
10% 24%
16%
0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3%
SK GR SI ES CY NL AT FI IE LV IT LT LU MT EA FR EE PT BE DE
Chart 9
Card payments (value of transactions)
Inserting a card in a terminal
Contactless
Don't know
100%
90%
26%
32% 36% 36% 36%
80%
51% 54% 55%
70% 58% 60%
64% 65%
71% 72% 74% 72%
60% 77% 82%
87%
50% 97%
40%
74%
68% 64% 63% 57%
30%
49% 46% 45%
20% 42% 40%
36% 33%
29% 27% 26% 26%
10% 23% 18%
12%
7% 3%
0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1%
GR SK CY ES SI AT IT LU LV NL FI LT IE EA EE MT PT FR BE DE
2.4 Total number of POS and P2P transactions per value

range and payment instrument
In the study, 60% of the POS and P2P transactions were made for a value below €15.
High-value payments (above €100) accounted for only 3% of all transactions.
Chart 10
POS and P2P payments per value range
Value range
< €5 30%
€5-€10 18%
€10-€15 11%
€15-€20 9%
€20-€25 6%
€25-€30 5%
€30-€35 3%
€35-€40 3%
€40-€45 2%
€45-€50 3%
€50-€100 7%
> €100 3%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Notes: Data are for the euro area (all 19 countries). Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
As shown in Chart 11, payments in cash decrease relative to cashless payments as

the payment amount increases. These results are consistent with predictions from
theoretical models and empirical evidence from other developed countries (Whitesell,
1989; Klee, 2008; Bouhdaoui and Bounie, 2012; Arango, Huynh and Sabetti, 2015;
Bagnall et al., 2016). As Moracci (2020) has already observed for SUCH data, cash
payments in the euro area seem to be slightly convex with regard to the payment
amount. An explanation for the discontinuity observed for amounts between €45 and
€50 might be the influence on payment behaviour of the denominational structure of
euro banknotes, together with the common banking practice of using certain
denominations for ATM withdrawals (Shy, 2020; Van Hove, 2020). For high-value
payments, credit transfers were also used quite often (6% of the transactions of a
value above €100).
Chart 11
Number of transactions per value range and payment instrument
Cash
Cards
Others
< €5 92% 7% 2%
€5-€10 83% 15% 2%
€10-€15 75% 23% 2%
€15-€20 71% 27% 3%
€20-€25 62% 35% 3%
€25-€30 59% 37% 4%
€30-€35 53% 44% 3%
€35-€40 51% 45% 4%
€40-€45 47% 48% 5%
€45-€50 53% 43% 4%
€50-€100 38% 55% 7%
> €100 33% 52% 15%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Notes: Data are for the euro area (all 19 countries). The category “Others” includes the following payment instruments: mobile phone,
bank cheque, credit transfer, direct debit, other and “Don't know”. Due to their low frequency of use, these instruments have been
grouped into a single category. Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
2.5 Total number and value of POS and P2P transactions by
place of purchase and payment instrument
In 2019, euro area consumers went shopping primarily to local shops for day-to-day
retail purchases (48%). This sector includes supermarkets, drugstores, small shops
for day-to-day items, pharmacies and purchases made on the street or at a market
(see Chart 12 left-panel). Transactions in restaurants, bars and cafés and hotels and
accommodation came second (19%). Other physical locations (11%) and petrol
stations (7%) also had a non-negligible share of the total number of transactions.
Three out of the four most popular locations are the same as those of the 2016 study
(i.e. other physical locations had a lower share in the total number of transactions).
In all euro area countries, most of the transactions were carried out in local shops for
day-to-day retail purchases. However, large differences were observed among
countries as regards visits to restaurants, bars and cafés: these accounted for 9% of
all POS and P2P transactions in Lithuania, 10% in Latvia and in Slovakia, compared
with 22% in Italy, 26% in Spain and 34% in Portugal. This illustrates the different
lifestyles across Europe.
Although SPACE shows that, in relation to total turnover, cash was used most to pay at
the POS and for making P2P payments, the picture by place of purchase varies
considerably: 83% of the transactions in restaurants, bars and cafés and for hotels
and accommodation were made using cash, whereas this share was only 48% in
shops selling durable goods (there, the share of cards was higher than that of cash)
(see Chart 12 right-panel).
Chart 12
Payments by place of purchase (left-panel) and by place of purchase and payment
instrument (right-panel)
(number of transactions)
Market share Cash

Cards
Others
Restaurant, bar or café and

19% 83% 14% 3%
hotel or accommodation
Vending or ticketing
3% 80% 16% 4%
machine
Charity and other P2P
5% 78% 14% 8%
payments
Local shop for day-to-day
48% 73% 23% 4%
retail items and pharmacy
Venue for culture, sport or
2% 71% 21% 8%
entertainment
Other physical location 11% 70% 21% 8%
Petrol station 7% 51% 47% 2%
Shop selling durable goods 6% 48% 49% 3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Comparing the total value with the total number of transactions shows that some
places of purchase had a higher per-transaction value: for example, shops selling
durable goods accounted for 6% of the number of transactions and 12% of their total
value. In almost all sectors, the share of cards is larger in terms of value than in terms
of transactions. Within the category “Other payment instruments”, bank cheques were
the most used payment instrument when paying at a venue for culture, sport or
entertainment. This might point to an erroneous understanding of what the payment
instrument is (see Chart 13 right-panel).
Chart 13
Purchases by sector (left-panel) and by sector and payment instrument (right-panel)
(value of transactions)
Market share Cash

Cards
Others
Charity and other P2P

8% 68% 6% 25%
payments
Restaurant, bar or café and
11% 64% 31% 5%
hotel or accommodation
1% 64% 26% 10%
machine
2% 55% 29% 16%
entertainment
38% 52% 43% 5%
retail items and pharmacy
Other physical location 20% 47% 27% 26%
Petrol station 9% 38% 59% 3%
Shop selling durable goods 12% 26% 65% 9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
3 Remote payments
After having recorded their POS and P2P payments in the diary, the survey
respondents were asked to register all online (i.e. using the internet), telephone and
mail order purchases made during the day, the type of product or service they paid for
and the payment instrument or payment method they used for paying. 29 With this
information, estimates of the number and value of the online payments were
produced, per payment instrument and product type. The results are detailed in
Sub-section 3.1.
In a following section of the diary, respondents were requested to report the bill
payments (i.e. recurring payments such as utility or invoice payments) made during
the last seven days. Information on the bill type, the amount and the payment
instrument or payment method used was collected. The results were used to give an
overview of the payment instruments and methods mostly used to carry out these
payments. The detailed results are given in Sub-section 3.2.
The figures in this section include all euro area countries except for Germany owing to
a lack of data comparability.
3.1 E-shopping, telephone and mail orders
3.1.1 Total number and value of online, telephone and mail purchases per
payment instrument and their relative share per country
In 2019, euro area consumers made 12 billion online purchases amounting to

€834 billion (see Table 5). Taking POS and P2P payments (see Section 2) and online
purchases (Sub-section 3.1) together, which are commonly referred to as payments
made at the point of interaction (POI), the share of online purchases in payments at
the POI was 7% in terms of volume and 17% in terms of value.
The most commonly used payment instrument for making online purchases was
payment cards. Euro area consumers made 6 billion card payments worth
€396 billion. This was followed by 3 billion payments using an e-payment solution
(e.g. PayPal, Sofort, Afterpay) worth €194 billion and 1 billion payments using credit
transfers with a value of €143 billion. Other payment instruments used by consumers
for making online purchases, which include direct debits, cash, bank cheques, gift
29 Although the SPACE survey included online, telephone and mail orders as one category of remote
purchases, the lion’s share of such purchases is accounted for by online purchases. Therefore, the
remainder of this section only refers to online purchases, but these also include telephone and mail
orders.
Study on the payment attitudes of consumers in the euro area – Remote payments 34
cards and crypto-assets, accounted for 2 billion payments with a value of
€100 billion. 30
Table 4
Total number and value of online purchases
Number Value
(in billions) (in € billions)
All payment instruments 12 834
Cards (debit/credit) 6 396
E-payment solutions 3 194
Credit transfers 1 143
Cash 0 22
Others 1 78
Sources: ECB (2019) and De Nederlandsche Bank and Dutch Payments Association (2019).
Notes: Data are for the euro area excluding Germany because of the lack of comparability of the 2017 Deutsche Bundesbank payment
behaviour study results with the SPACE results. Totals may not add up due to rounding.
The SPACE results show that in terms of the number of transactions, card payments
represented 49% of all online payments, followed by e-payment solutions, which
accounted for 27% of all online payments. As regards e-payment solutions, PayPal
was used most often in all countries but Estonia, Lithuania, Finland and the
Netherlands. Credit transfers were used in 10% of the payments related to online
purchases (see Chart 14). Payment instruments which require physical contact to be
enabled (such as cards requiring card readers for paying online, cards using
contactless technology or cash) were sometimes used when the payment was made,
e.g. upon delivery of online purchases or for takeouts.
Contrary to POS and P2P payments, which show a large difference in the share of
each payment instrument depending on the number or value of the payment, for online
purchases the payment instrument usage in terms of total value shows similar results
to the volume figures: cards accounted for 48% of the total value of payments, while
e-payment solutions accounted for 24%. The share of credit transfers in the total value
of online payments was 14%; credit transfers appear to be used for higher value
purchases.
30 Due to their low frequency of use, these instruments have been grouped into a single category together
with “Don’t know / no answer”.
Chart 14
Online purchases per payment instrument (in terms of the number and value of
transactions)
Cash Credit transfers
Cards Others
E-payment solutions
Number 4% 49% 27% 10% 10%
Value 3% 48% 24% 14% 11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Notes: The data are for the euro area excluding Germany because of the lack of comparability of the 2017 Deutsche Bundesbank
payment behaviour study results with the SPACE results. The category “Others” includes gift cards or vouchers/loyalty points,
crypto-assets, bank cheques, direct debits and the answer options “Other” and “Don't know”.
At the country level, results show substantial variations as regards the most used
payment instruments (see Charts 15 and 16). Cards accounted for more than half of
all payments in Ireland, Luxembourg, Spain, Greece, Malta, Slovakia, Italy and Latvia.
In two countries, e-payment solutions accounted for the largest part of payments:
Cyprus (47%) and Portugal (46%). The lowest use of e-payment solutions was
reported in Latvia (12%), Estonia (16%) and the Netherlands (17%). The share of
credit transfers in online payments was noticeably high in the Netherlands (64%). Also
in Estonia, Latvia and Finland, credit transfers were used more often than in any other
country covered by SPACE. It should be recalled that online banking solutions that rely
on credit transfers for making online payments are popular in these countries, like
banklink in Latvia, Estonia and Finland or iDEAL (which are accounted as credit
transfers in the Dutch national survey).
Chart 15
Online purchases per payment instrument and country (number of transactions)
Cards Others
E-payment solutions
100% 4%
7% 5% 6% 6% 6% 4% 6% 7%
10% 9% 11% 10% 8% 5% 9%
16% 4% 13%
90% 7% 9% 8% 17%
5% 6% 4% 7% 7%
6% 11% 10% 9%
80% 4% 8% 29%
29% 17% 28% 19%
23% 25% 31% 35% 6%
70% 21% 28% 47% 18%
18%
60% 27% 27% 46% 64%
20%
12% 16% 24% 29%
50% 27%
28%
40%
30% 62% 61% 59% 58% 57% 57%

54% 50%
49% 49% 49% 47% 46%
20% 42% 41% 38%
36% 33% 17%
10%
11%
0%
IE LU ES GR MT SK IT LV FR BE EA18 EE CY LT SI PT FI AT NL
behaviour study results with the SPACE results. Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Chart 16
Online purchases per payment instrument and country (value of transactions)
Cards Others
E-payment solutions
100% 4%
6% 4% 5% 7% 8% 5% 8% 5% 8% 5%
4% 11% 15% 4% 12% 16%
90% 8% 4% 5% 15% 17% 4%
8% 19%
5% 10% 28% 4%
80% 21% 18% 10% 26% 5%
34% 14%
12% 28% 36%
25% 30% 10%
70% 24% 28%
13% 16% 26% 34%
60% 5% 17% 19% 24% 18% 46%
26% 37%
50%
29%
24%
40% 25% 23%
72%
30% 61% 61% 60% 59% 58% 58% 15%
56% 53% 51%
50% 48%
20% 45% 40%
31% 31% 27% 27%
10% 23%
0%
MT PT SK IE IT ES LV LU GR BE SI EA18 FR CY LT FI NL AT EE
3.1.2 Average number and value of online purchases per person per day
In 2019, euro area consumers made 0.16 online purchases per day on average
(i.e. slightly more than one purchase per week). Comparing online payments with
POS and P2P payments (see Section 2), it can thus be concluded that in 2019
respondents made ten times fewer online transactions than POS and P2P
transactions (1.57). The results for online purchases (see Chart 17) show substantial
disparities in payment behaviour across euro area countries: the number of purchases
per day ranged from 0.25 in Luxembourg and Austria, 0.23 in Lithuania and Estonia
(i.e. almost one transaction every four days), to 0.02 in Cyprus (i.e. one transaction
every 50 days) and 0.06 in Malta (i.e. one transaction every sixteen days). In these
two countries, the total number of transactions reported is very small, thus the results
have to be interpreted with caution.
Chart 17
Average number of online transactions per person per day, per country and per
payment instrument
Cards
E-payment solutions
Others
0.30
0.25
0.04
0.20 0.10 0.03

0.06 0.08 0.08
0.06
0.05 0.06 0.05 0.04
0.15
0.04 0.03 0.01
0.04 0.03 0.05 0.02
0.07 0.05 0.04
0.05 0.05
0.10 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.02
0.11 0.04
0.15 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.00
0.14
0.05 0.11 0.10 0.11
0.08 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.00
0.06 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.01
0.02 0.01
0.00
LU AT LT EE IE BE SI SK FR EA18 GR ES FI NL IT LV PT MT CY
Note: Data are for the euro area excluding Germany because of the lack of comparability of the 2017 Deutsche Bundesbank payment
behaviour study results with the SPACE results.
A look at sociodemographic variables shows that male respondents, younger

respondents and highly educated respondents made most online purchases (see
Chart 18).
Chart 18
Average number of online transactions and sociodemographic variables
0.25 0.23 0.24
0.20
0.20 0.18
0.17
0.16 0.16
0.15
0.15
0.12 0.12
0.10 0.08
0.05
0.00
Male
65+
Upper/post-
Female
PhD/research
18-24
25-39
40-54
55-64
Primary/lower
secondary
University/
secondary
In the euro area, online payments had an average value of €66.86 in 2019. The
average value of online payments was thus two to three times higher than the average
value of POS and P2P payments in the same period. Considering that respondents
reported on average 0.16 online payments per day, this means that they spent on
average €10.86 per day on online transactions.
There are also great variations between countries in terms of the average value of
online transactions. The average value of an online payment ranged from €111.29 in
Austria, €109.72 in Luxembourg and €101.25 in Belgium to €39.51 in Latvia, €46.16 in
Slovakia and €46.51 in Greece (see Chart 19).
As part of the differences in the value of online transactions could be the result of
differences in purchasing power between euro area countries, the average value of an
online purchase has also been calculated taking into account these differences (see
Chart 20). The results show that Austria is the country with the highest average value
for online payments (e.g. considering all payment instruments), followed by Malta. The
correction for purchasing power also has a relatively strong effect on the average
value of an online transaction in Lithuania, making it one of the countries with the
highest average values for online payments and giving Luxembourg and Ireland a
lower average value.
Chart 19
Average value of online payments per country and payment instrument before
adjusting for purchasing power parity
All instruments not in PPP
Cards not in PPP
E-payment solutions not in PPP
€ 160
€ 140
€ 120
€ 100
€ 80
€ 60
€ 40
€ 20
€0
AT LU BE FI IE MT NL EA18 FR IT EE SI LT CY PT ES GR SK LV
Chart 20
Average value of online payments per country and payment instrument adjusting for
purchasing power parity
All instruments in PPP
Cards in PPP
E-payment solutions in PPP
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
AT MT BE LT EE LU FI SI IT IE SK NL PT FR CY GR LV ES
Eurostat.
3.1.3 Total number of online purchases per payment instrument and value
range
The share of online payments with a low value is considerably lower than for payments
at the POS and P2P transactions (see Section 2). Payments for online purchases
below €15 accounted for 31% of all transactions, compared with 60% for POS and
P2P transactions. Online purchases above €50 accounted for 30% of all online
transactions, compared with slightly more than 10% for POS and P2P transactions
above €50 (see Chart 21).
Chart 21
Number of payments for online purchases per value range
Percentage of payments
< €5 9%
€5-€10 12%
€10-€15 10%
€15-€20 9%
€20-€25 6%
€25-€30 6%
€30-€35 5%
€35-€40 5%
€40-€45 3%
€45-€50 4%
€50-€100 15%
> €100 14%
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%
Chart 22
Payments for online purchases per payment instrument and value range
Cards Credit transfers
E-payment solutions Others
< €5 42% 30% 9% 19%

€5-€10 44% 32% 9% 15%
€10-€15 51% 24% 8% 16%
€15-€20 50% 26% 8% 17%
€20-€25 48% 25% 9% 18%
€25-€30 54% 24% 9% 13%
€30-€35 42% 31% 8% 19%
€35-€40 54% 28% 10% 8%
€40-€45 48% 25% 11% 16%
€45-€50 48% 29% 13% 10%
€50-€100 51% 27% 10% 12%
> €100 49% 25% 14% 11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
The way people pay online is less influenced by the price of the product than for POS
and P2P transactions. While the share of using credit transfers slightly increased with
the value of the product that was purchased, there was no clear pattern for the use of
cards or e-payment solutions.
3.1.4 Total number and value of online purchases per payment instrument
and product type
Just over one in five online transactions were for fashion or sports goods (22%), while
electronic goods or household appliances and food and daily supplies each accounted
for 11%. Another 10% of all online payments were for media, games or entertainment.
None of the remaining categories with defined product types accounted for more than
5% of the total number of transactions. The category “Other” accounted for 26% of the
number of payments made (see Chart 23).
Looking at the payment instruments used to pay for products purchased online, it
appears that cards are in general the most used payment instrument for all types of
products that consumers purchased and paid for online in 2019, except for charitable
donations which were typically made using e-payment solutions (see Chart 24). Credit
transfers were comparatively used the most for charitable donations and to pay for
“Other” products. Crypto-assets (included in the chart under “Other” payment
instruments) were used in less than 1% of the total transactions and represented less
than 1% of their total value.
Chart 23
Number of online transactions per product type
Market share
Other 26%
Fashion or sports goods 22%
Electronic goods or household appliances 11%
Food and daily supplies 11%
Media, games or entertainment 10%
Travel and accommodation 5%
Medicine 5%
Tickets for events and attractions 4%
Furniture and other household items 4%
Charitable donations 1%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Chart 24
Number of online purchases per product type and payment instrument used
Travel and accommodation 64% 18% 10% 7%
Food and daily supplies 61% 16% 8% 15%
Tickets for events and attractions 59% 25% 11% 5%
Medicine 56% 19% 11% 14%
Furniture and other household items 53% 23% 12% 12%
Fashion or sports goods 51% 31% 8% 10%
Media, games or entertainment 49% 30% 8% 13%
Electronic goods or household appliances 42% 37% 9% 12%
Other 41% 27% 14% 17%
Charitable donations 15% 35% 18% 32%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
As shown in Chart 25, also in value terms the largest shares in the total value of online
payments related to electronic goods or household appliances (19%) and fashion or
sports goods (18%). In general, as some products are by nature more expensive, this
had an impact on the value spent on these goods: for example, electronic goods or
household appliances accounted for 19% of the total value of transactions, but only
represented 11% of all purchases. The opposite is true for food and daily supplies. For
example, the home delivery of food is done relatively frequently, but the value of these
transactions is comparatively low.
Chart 25
Value of online transactions per product type
Market share
Other 24%
Electronic goods or household appliances 19%
Fashion or sports goods 18%
Travel and accommodation 12%
Food and daily supplies 7%
Furniture and other household items 6%
Tickets for events and attractions 5%
Media, games or entertainment 4%
Medicine 3%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Chart 26
Value of online purchases per product type and payment instrument used
Tickets for events and attractions 67% 20% 10% 3%
Travel and accommodation 66% 16% 13% 6%
Food and daily supplies 59% 15% 12% 14%
Furniture and other household items 59% 13% 19% 9%
Fashion or sports goods 50% 29% 10% 10%
Media, games or entertainment 49% 27% 11% 12%
Electronic goods or household appliances 40% 35% 10% 15%
Medicine 39% 20% 30% 11%
Other 34% 20% 33% 13%
Charitable donations 11% 30% 23% 36%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
3.2 Bill payments and recurring payments in the euro area
3.2.1 Total number of bill payments per payment instrument and their
relative share per country
Respondents were asked to report any bill payment and recurring payment in the
week prior to taking part in the survey. Bill payments and recurring payments relate to
any type of payment for which a bill is issued, but generally refer to utility bills,
telephone bills, medical bills and other similar types of bills. The figures below include
all euro area countries except Germany, for which data are unavailable.
Chart 27 shows that consumers most often used direct debits to make bill payments
(41%), followed by credit transfers (20%), cards (18%) and cash (11%). Other
payment instruments accounted for 10% of all bill payments. It appears that credit
transfers were used for higher value payments, as their share increases from 20% in
terms of the number of bill payments to 29% in value terms. 31
Chart 27
Number and value of bill payments per payment instrument
Cards Others
Direct debits
Number 11% 18% 41% 20% 10%
Value 6% 12% 37% 29% 15%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Notes: The category “Others” includes bank cheques and the answer options “Other” and “Don’t know”. Data are for the euro area
excluding Germany, for which data are unavailable. Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Chart 28 shows considerable variations in the country-level results. Direct debits were
used in more than 50% of all bill and recurring payments in Spain (65%), the
Netherlands (60%) and France (54%), and credit transfers in 50% or more of the
payments in Finland (88%), Estonia (81%), Latvia (71%) and Belgium (50%). The
wide use of credit transfers in the Baltics and in Finland can be explained by the high
use of electronic invoicing in these countries. Moreover, the use of direct debits in
general could be under-reported as, contrary to the other payment instruments which
require an action from the payer, direct debits are passive, are automated and do not
need to be pushed by the payer.
In two countries, cards accounted for more than one in three bill and recurring
payments: Greece (44%) and Portugal (35%). At the other end of the scale, only 6% of
such transactions in the Netherlands and 8% in Finland were settled using cards. As
already observed in the SUCH study of 2016, cash is widely used for bill payments
and recurring payments in a few countries: it represents 43% of the number of all bill
and recurring payments in Cyprus, 41% in Malta, 30% in Italy and 24% in Greece, but
just 1% in Finland and in the Netherlands.
31 Because the frequency of the bill payments was not reported by respondents, it is not possible to
extrapolate the survey data into annual expenditure.
Chart 28
Number of bill payments per payment instrument and per country
Cards Others
Direct debits
100%
6% 7% 8% 5% 5% 9% 5% 6% 6%
10% 10% 14% 10%
90% 18% 19% 10% 11% 8%
5%
24% 16% 14% 11% 12%
80% 8% 26%
7% 30% 43% 19%
15% 7%
70% 13% 41% 20%
50% 39%
19% 46%
60% 17% 38%
9%
50% 10% 29% 43%
7% 71% 81% 88%
43% 54% 65%
40% 28% 15% 41%
25% 60%
34%
30% 26% 26% 37%
13% 27%
20% 44%
35%
28% 26% 23% 23%
10% 21% 18% 16% 16%
15% 15% 14% 13% 13% 11%
10% 8% 6%
0%
GR PT IE IT CY LT MT EA18 FR SI BE SK LV LU ES AT EE FI NL
Notes: Data are for the euro area excluding Germany, for which data are unavailable. Percentages may not add up to 100% due to
rounding.
3.2.2 Average number and value of bill payments
In 2019, euro area consumers paid slightly less than one bill per week on average
(0.93), ranging from 1.8 in the Netherlands and 1.6 in Luxembourg to 0.6 in Italy and
Spain and 0.7 in Malta. The use of credit transfers or direct debits for paying bills
differs significantly among countries. On average in the euro area, 0.4 bills were paid
by means of direct debit per week and 0.2 by means of credit transfer. The average
number of cash bill payments (included in the category “Others”) was 0.10 on average.
Chart 29
Average number of bill payments per person per week and per payment instrument
Direct debits
Credit transfers
Others
2.0
1.8
0.25
1.6
1.4 0.43
0.48 0.17
1.2 0.33
0.31
0.70 0.21
1.0 0.34
0.40
0.64 0.42
0.8 0.73 0.63 0.52 0.35
0.70 0.50
0.6 0.23 1.21 0.08 0.65
1.09 0.42 0.52 0.16
0.93 0.08 0.19 0.50
0.4 0.83 0.14 0.05 0.35
0.48 0.47 0.49 0.57
0.2 0.42 0.36 0.46 0.39 0.18 0.05 0.38
0.29 0.32 0.11 0.05
0.10 0.19 0.15
0.0 0.09
NL LU SI BE FI AT LV EE LT SK PT FR IE EA18 GR CY MT ES IT
Note: Data are for the euro area excluding Germany, for which data are unavailable.
The average amount of a single bill payment in the euro area countries included in
SPACE was €160.83. It should be noted that bills covered a wide range of expenses
(from rent to telephone bills). Because respondents were not asked to report the
frequency of the bill payments (e.g. annual, monthly or quarterly), the average value in
actual terms in 2019 might be different from the figures reported by consumers in the
survey.
3.2.3 Total number of bill payments per type
The largest number of transactions reported was for paying bills for utilities (22%),
telephone and internet (18%) or other services (17%), i.e. services that are usually
paid for regularly (often weekly or monthly). Categories accounting for lower shares
were rent or mortgage (8%), insurance (8%), medical expenses (6%) and taxes and
public charges (6%), (see Chart 30). Looking at all bill payments reported per country,
Cyprus, Estonia and Malta reported the lowest number of tax and public charge bills,
and Finland, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg and the Netherlands the lowest number
of tuition fee bills.
As regards the payment instrument used, cash had its highest usage for paying for
services in and around the house and for charitable donations. Part of these expenses
might also have been reported in the POS/P2P module. The high share of card
payments for settling medical expenses (41%) suggests that these invoices are often
paid at the medical practice (see Chart 31).
The sociodemographic variables show that 18-24 year-olds account for a higher
proportion of transactions for telephone and internet bills than older age groups.
Students and the unemployed also have a higher share of transactions for telephone
and internet bills than other groups. Urban respondents account for a larger proportion
of transactions for utility bills than consumers living in rural areas.
Chart 30
Shares of the main types of bill
Market share
Utilities 22%
Telephone and internet bills 18%
Other services 17%
Insurance 8%
Rent or mortgage 8%
Medical expenses 6%
Taxes and public charges 6%
Subscriptions 5%
Don't know 3%
Tuition fees 3%
Services in and around the house 2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Notes: Data are for the euro area excluding Germany, for which data are unavailable. Utilities (e.g. gas, electricity, water); insurance
(e.g. health, car, home); taxes and public charges (e.g. paid to local authorities); subscriptions (e.g. magazines, sport clubs, streaming
TV); services in and around the house (e.g. plumbing, painting, decorating); charitable donations (e.g. to the church, Red Cross).
Percentages may not add up due to rounding.
Chart 31
Number of bill payments per type and payment instrument used
Cards Others
Direct debits
Medical expenses 41% 6% 16% 18% 19%

Other services 28% 20% 20% 14% 19%
Services in and around the house 19% 15% 24% 23% 18%
Tuition fees 18% 21% 32% 13% 16%
Utilities 18% 49% 16% 12% 5%
Subscriptions 17% 49% 20% 7% 7%
Taxes and public charges 16% 47% 21% 9% 8%
Telephone and internet bills 14% 57% 19% 7% 3%
Don't know 12% 16% 8% 12% 52%
Insurance 9% 62% 19% 5% 4%
Rent or mortgage 7% 46% 32% 9% 7%
Charitable donations 6% 37% 18% 29% 10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Notes: Data are for the euro area excluding Germany, for which data are unavailable. Utilities (e.g. gas, electricity, water); insurance
(e.g. health, car, home); taxes and public charges (e.g. paid to local authorities); subscriptions (e.g. magazines, sport clubs, streaming
TV); services in and around the house (e.g. plumbing, painting, decorating); charitable donations (e.g. to the church, Red Cross).
Percentages may not add up due to rounding.
3.2.4 Payment instruments used for specific bill payments
Respondents were also asked to state which payment instrument they use most often
when paying for certain categories of bills (i.e. rent or mortgage, electricity and
telephone), and if they were actually making the bill payment for themselves or rather
for the household. This question attempted to cover possible gaps, as respondents
might have found it difficult to recall bill payments made in the week before they
reported and because some bills may be typically paid at a certain period of the year
outside the period covered by the survey. The results presented here are not directly
comparable with those of the payment diary presented in Sub-sections 3.2.1 to 3.2.3,
as the euro area average figures include Germany and as direct debits and standing
orders have both been put in the category “Automatically” (even though a standing
order is a credit transfer).
The results of the questionnaire are in the same range as those of the bill module of
the payment diary: in the questionnaire 43% of the respondents reported that they pay
their rent or mortgage automatically, while in the payment diary 46% reported using
direct debits; the share for telephone bills was 69% in the questionnaire, as against
57% in the payment diary (see Charts 32 to 34).
In 2019, the three countries using mostly cash to pay for their rent or mortgage and
electricity and telephone bills were Malta, Cyprus and Greece, which is consistent with
the results of the SUCH study. The share of cash for paying rent or mortgages has
substantially decreased in Slovakia (down from 15% in SUCH to 8% in SPACE) and in
Latvia (down from 13% in SUCH to 7% in SPACE). The share of cash usage also
declined significantly for paying telephone bills in Italy (down from 35% in SUCH to
16% in SPACE) and in Slovenia (down from 26% in SUCH to 16% in SPACE).
The high share of respondents stating that they did not make the rent or mortgage
payment can be explained by the nature of the bill, which is made by only one person
in the household (in comparison, all persons of the household may pay their own
telephone bill) or is not paid at all if the property is owned.
Chart 32
Rent or mortgage ‒ payment instrument and country
Cards Others
Automatically You do not make this payment
100%
13%
90% 23%
25% 25% 26%
6% 32% 34% 32%
80% 38% 39% 38%
44% 47% 49%
70% 60% 60% 59% 55%
4% 63%
14% 14% 72%
60% 15%
4% 8% 34% 4% 4%
12% 15%
50% 12% 12% 4% 8% 4%
8% 4%
40% 7% 8% 26% 7%
79% 6% 5%
9% 6% 4% 4%
30% 59% 57% 11% 6% 17%
54% 50% 10% 9%
47% 43% 43% 13% 8% 28%
20% 41% 40% 39% 4%
29% 27% 8% 12%
10% 22% 20% 18%
12% 11% 10% 8%
0%
NL LU DE AT FR BE EA SK FI ES IE PT EE MT IT SI CY LT LV GR
Notes: “EA” refers to the euro area average (all 19 countries). The category “Automatically” refers to direct debits or standing orders and
the category “Others” includes the answer options “Other” and “Don’t know”. Percentages may not add up due to rounding.
Chart 33
Electricity – payment instrument and country
Cards Others
100%
8% 9% 8% 7% 8% 9% 9% 10% 11% 14% 9%
15% 12% 16% 10% 14%
90% 5% 4% 18% 21% 20%
4% 4% 5% 4% 4% 25%
4% 12% 7%
80% 9% 18% 6% 11%
9% 5%
17% 13% 12% 7% 5%
11% 24% 8% 30%
70% 38% 11%
12% 20% 8%
9%
60% 17%
7% 34% 17% 57% 23%
4% 8% 38%
50%
31% 23%
86% 15%
40% 80% 78% 76% 51%
72% 26%
67%
30% 60%
55% 51% 51% 50% 16%
49% 26%
20% 40% 36%
30% 29%
10% 21% 19%
13% 9%
0%
NL ES DE FR AT EA LU IE IT PT SK BE EE SI CY FI LT GR LV MT
Chart 34
Telephone – payment instrument and country
Cards Others
100% 4%
7% 8% 8% 6% 6% 9% 7% 8% 8%
4% 4% 14% 16% 14% 12% 13% 11% 14% 15%
90% 4% 5% 5% 4%
7% 9% 14% 6% 4% 5%
5% 4% 4% 13% 10% 5%
80% 21% 14% 8%
9% 12% 7%
9% 10%
70% 28% 15% 8%
10% 40% 38%
16% 34% 16% 18%
60% 6% 33% 59% 29%
10%
50% 26%
91% 15%
85% 83% 80% 10% 25% 52%
40% 77% 22%
69% 68% 24%
30% 57%
51% 47%
45% 15%
20% 40% 39% 39% 38%
31% 29%
10% 21%
16% 14%
0%
NL ES FR DE AT EA LU IE IT BE EE CY PT SI SK FI LT MT LV GR
4 Consumers use cash (in particular
high-value banknotes) as a store of
value
Despite the shortcomings of using interview surveys to trace the use of cash as a store
of value by households, they can still be used to show that people store cash at home
or in safety deposit boxes and to give an indication of the differences in hoarding
behaviour between countries or population groups. To this end, survey respondents
were asked whether they keep cash at home or somewhere else for various reasons
and to give an approximate indication of the amount. The results are detailed in
Sub-section 4.1.
As the possession of high-value banknotes is often associated with the use of cash for
saving purposes, the survey respondents were asked to report on their possession of
high-value banknotes in the last twelve months. The results are detailed in
Sub-section 4.2.
4.1 Extra cash stored

Cash can be used as a store of value without requiring the involvement of financial
intermediaries and payment systems. It also has the advantage of being the most
liquid asset and widely accepted by merchants.
Respondents were asked if they kept cash reserves at home or somewhere else for
various reasons, e.g. to top up their wallet, as a precautionary reserve or as an
alternative way of saving (hereinafter referred to as “extra cash”). It is assumed that
answers to these questions are to some extent biased and possibly resulted in
underreporting of actual values, because information about the amount or pattern of
cash reserves may be seen as sensitive by at least some survey respondents.
Answers given by interviewees might also be dependent on the survey mode
(i.e. whether questions were asked via telephone, online or in face-to-face interviews),
as each mode might have a different impact on the perceived anonymity of the
respondent and on the relationship of trust with the interviewer. The SPACE results
show that the number of refusals to answer these questions and the number of “Don’t
know” answers were sometimes higher when the survey was conducted by phone. In
some countries, this tendency was more pronounced. Cultural differences might also
have had a bearing (e.g. in countries where banking secrecy is strong) as might
societal developments (e.g. actual or perceived levels of crime). 32
32 For example, a telephone fraud was widely reported in Austrian media at the time the SPACE survey was
being conducted. While it was explained to the interviewees that the survey was being conducted on
behalf of the ECB, the publicity about ongoing fraud could be one explanation for the high refusal rate
among Austrian citizens when asked to answer these questions.
Study on the payment attitudes of consumers in the euro area – Consumers use cash (in
particular high-value banknotes) as a store of value 50
The SPACE results show that 34% of respondents reported keeping cash reserves at
home (broken down by survey mode, the results were 37% for the online sample and
31% for the telephone sample). The countries in which most respondents answered
that they kept extra cash were Malta and Cyprus, where face-to-face interviews were
conducted and where, respectively, 51% and 49% of respondents stated that they kept
extra cash. At the other end of the spectrum were Belgium and France, where less
than a third of respondents acknowledged keeping extra cash. Although survey results
also suggest that Austrian consumers store slightly less cash (29%) than the euro
area average (34%), it is noted that there was a high level of non-response to this
question in Austria.
Chart 35
Extra cash reserves, by country
Yes
No
Refusal or don't know
100% 4%
9% 8%
90%
80% 39%
48% 50% 52%
70% 53% 56% 58%
61% 62% 62% 61% 63% 64%
65% 65% 68%
57% 57% 62% 74%
60%
50%
31%
40%
30%
51% 49% 48%
46% 44% 41%
20% 39% 38% 38% 37% 36% 36% 35% 34% 34% 34% 34%
31% 29%
10% 25%
0%
MT CY SK EE LV PT ES LU FI LT IT IE DE GR NL EA SI BE AT FR
Sources: ECB (2019), De Nederlandsche Bank and the Dutch Payments Association (2019) and Deutsche Bundesbank (2019).
Note: The data are for the euro area (19 countries). Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
The SPACE results show that those aged between 18 and 24 were more likely to
report keeping cash reserves than those above 25 years of age. While respondents
were not asked for specific reasons, there could be a link to lower access to bank
accounts, pocket money paid in cash and gifts received in cash. Level of education
does not seem to have any particular influence on keeping extra cash. Finally,
respondents living in urban areas reported hoarding cash slightly more often than
those living in rural areas.
Chart 36
Extra cash reserves, by demographic
50%
44%
40% 36% 36% 35%

34% 34% 34% 33% 33% 33%
33% 32% 32%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Male
65+
Upper/post-
Female
PhD/research
18-24
25-39
40-54
55-64
Primary/lower
Rural
Urban
secondary
University/
secondary
Average Gender Age Education Urban/rural
Note: The data are for the euro area (19 countries).
The share of respondents keeping amounts of extra cash decreases as the amounts
themselves increase. In the 2016 SUCH study 33, 24% of respondents stated that they
stored cash. Of these, 78% stated that they kept less than €1,000 in total, 12% that
they kept more than €1,000 and 10% refused to answer. In 2019 (based on SPACE),
out of the 34% who responded that they put cash aside outside a bank, 85% kept less
than €1,000, 6% kept between €1,000 and €5,000, 1% kept between €5,000 and
€10,000, and 1% kept over €10,000. Despite their relatively small number,
respondents hoarding more than €10,000 have a noticeable impact on the calculation
of the average amount of cash stored outside a bank. 7% of the respondents who
reported keeping cash at home refused to disclose how much cash they store in this
way. 34
There were variations at country level: some countries had higher proportions of
respondents storing smaller amounts of extra cash (e.g. Portugal, Greece, Ireland and
France), while others had higher proportions of respondents storing larger amounts of
cash (e.g. Austria, Slovenia and Lithuania, which had the highest proportion of
respondents reporting cash reserves at home above €1,000). Respondents were not
asked why they stored extra cash. However, factors could include access to bank
accounts, national tax regimes or experiences with previous banking crises.
33 The question was worded slightly differently in the SPACE survey than it was in the 2016 SUCH study.
The example “to top up your wallet” is an addition that could explain to some extent the increase in the
share of respondents saying that they do keep extra cash.
34 The share of respondents refusing to disclose the size of their holding is largely attributable to Germany
and the Netherlands, for which national survey data were integrated into the analysis (see Box 1).
Chart 37
Amount of extra cash held by those who reported storing cash, by country
< €100 €5,000 - €10,000

€100 - €1,000 > €10,000
€1,000 - €5,000 Don't know / refusal
100% 4%
4% 7% 7% 5% 8%
4% 6% 5% 7% 6% 12% 5%
90% 4% 8% 16% 4%
6% 11% 11% 11% 9%
5%
80% 13%
8%
70% 45% 50% 50% 47% 55%
52% 52% 52%
60% 44% 53% 60% 58% 78%
53% 60% 57%
50% 61% 63%
49%
55%
40%
30%
46% 45% 44% 44% 42%
20% 40% 39% 38% 38%
33% 32% 30% 28%
26% 24% 24% 22%
10% 20% 20% 18%
0%
PT GR IE FR CY SK FI BE NL EA ES IT SI LV EE DE AT LU MT LT
Notes: The data are for the euro area (19 countries). Percentages may not add up due to rounding.
A separate study by the Deutsche Bundesbank (Deutsche Bundesbank, 2020), shows

that older people in particular tend to hold more extra cash outside their wallets. The
authors observed that the average cash holding increased up to the age of 65, before
declining again, and suggested that this could indicate that cash reserves are
accumulated until shortly before retirement. Students and trainees usually have very
low cash holdings. In the Deutsche Bundesbank study, a significant relationship was
also identified between income and the amount of cash held. According to the study,
the average amount of cash reserves that individuals hold in addition to the cash they
keep in their wallets for purchases rises in line with income.
The results of the SPACE study show that small cash reserves are held in higher
proportions by respondents with lower incomes (see Chart 38). The
socio-demographic variables show that males are more likely to hold larger amounts
of cash reserves than females and that cash reserves increase with age up to the age
of 65 and then decline again. Consumers with higher levels of education also keep
higher cash reserves (see Chart 39).
Chart 38
Amount of extra cash held, by income group
< €100 €5,000 - €10,000
€100 - €250 > €10,000
€250 - €500 Refusal
€500 - €1,000 Don't know
€1,000 - €5,000
100%
4% 4%
7%
90% 6% 8%
6% 7%
80% 12% 10%
13% 17% 15%
70% 10%
19%
60% 18% 18%
27%
30%
50%
26%
40% 24%
24%
30%
20% 44%
38%
31% 28%
10% 25%
0%
€750 or less €750 - €1,500 €1,500 - €2,500 €2,500 - €4,000 €4,000 and above
Notes: The data are for the euro area excluding the Netherlands (18 countries). The chart shows the percentage of respondents in each
income group (monthly net household income after taxes and social security) with each level of cash reserves.
Chart 39
Amount of extra cash held (€1,000 and above), by demographic
€1,000 - €5,000
€5,000 - €10,000
> €10,000
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Male
65+
Upper/post-
PhD/research
Female
18-24
25-39
40-54
55-64
Primary/lower
Rural
Urban
secondary
University/
secondary
Although, as already emphasised, survey results on hoarding should be interpreted

with caution, they show that a significant share of the population uses cash as a store
of value and that the sums involved are significant. Consumers are not the only ones
using cash for this purpose; as the Deutsche Bundesbank study suggests, firms’
savings are very likely to represent a (high) share of cash hoarding in some countries.
4.2 Possession of high-value banknotes

In the SPACE survey, respondents were also asked whether they had had at least one
of the higher-denomination banknotes (€500, €200 or €100) in their possession in the
twelve months prior to taking the survey. Results show that 7% of all respondents
reported having at least one €500 banknote in the last 12 months, 11% reported
having at least one €200 banknote and 38% reported having at least one €100
banknote.
The possession of high-value banknotes is often associated with the use of cash for
saving purposes. The survey results show that the likelihood of having €500 or €200
banknotes increases for respondents with the highest amounts of cash kept at home.
The use of high-value notes is, however, not restricted to storing cash. A proportion of
these banknotes could also be used for making payments. In the SUCH study, 40% of
those possessing €500 or €200 banknotes reported using them to pay for goods and
services at the point of sale.
At country level, the possession of high-value banknotes varies widely: the

Netherlands, France and Ireland had the lowest proportions of respondents reporting
possession of high-value banknotes, while Austria, Slovakia and Luxembourg had the
highest proportions (see Chart 40). It is notable that in every country, the possession
of €200 and €500 banknotes is less common than the possession of €100 banknotes
(this denomination can sometimes be withdrawn at ATMs).
Chart 40
Possession of high-value banknotes, by country
€500
€200
€100
100%
90%
79%
80% 70%
70% 64%
61% 63%
57%
60%
48%
50%
41%
38%
40% 34%
29% 31% 31% 28% 31% 25%
30% 22% 20% 25% 23%
18% 20% 22% 21% 20%
20% 16% 16% 20%
12% 12% 11% 11% 11% 13%11% 12% 11%
9% 9% 7% 10% 7% 7%
6% 6% 6% 9% 5% 7% 6%
10% 4% 4% 5% 6% 5% 5% 4%
2% 2% 3%
0%
NL FR IE EE MT FI GR ES LV PT BE EA IT CY DE SI LT LU SK AT
Notes: The data are for the euro area (19 countries). Respondents were allowed to give multiple answers.
In the 2016 SUCH study, respondents were asked to report whether they had had
either a €500 or a €200 in their possession during the past twelve months, so separate
information on each denomination was not available. In addition, the SUCH results did
not cover Germany. The results of the 2016 SUCH study showed that 19% of
respondents reported having had a €200 or €500 euro banknote in their possession.
Adapting the scope and the methodology of SPACE to compare the SPACE results
with the SUCH study (by taking out Germany and grouping the answers for the €500
and €200 banknotes) gives a 10% share of respondents who reported having had at
least one €500 or €200 banknote in their possession. Whether the decline may be
explained in part by the decision of the ECB to stop the production and issuance of
€500 banknotes was not analysed. 35 Although they are still circulating and are legal
35
See “ECB ends production and issuance of €500 banknote”, press release, ECB, 4 May 2016.
tender in the euro area, no new €500 banknotes have been put into circulation since
May 2019. Therefore, opportunities to encounter €500 banknotes in circulation are
diminishing.
The socio-demographic breakdown shows that possession of high-value banknotes

seems in some way to be related to income. 36 The survey results show that the
possession of high-denomination banknotes is higher in higher income categories:
only 27% of respondents with a monthly income below or equal to €750 had any of the
high-value banknotes in their possession in the twelve months prior to the survey; this
share increases to 38% for respondents with a monthly income above €4,000.
Chart 41
Possession of high-value banknotes, by income group
€500 €100
€200 Any of the three
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
€750 or less €750 - €1,500 €1,500 - €2,500 €2,500 - €4,000 €4,000 and above
Sources: ECB (2019) and Deutsche Bundesbank (2019).

Note: The data are for the euro area excluding the Netherlands (18 countries). The chart shows the percentage of respondents in each
income group (monthly net household income after taxes and social security) with each level of banknote possession per denomination.
36 Excluding the Netherlands, for which results are not comparable.
5 Factors influencing payment behaviour
Payment behaviour is influenced by several factors, such as payment preferences,

consumers’ access to and merchants’ acceptance of payment instruments, and the
amount people have in their wallets. Demographic factors also play a role, not only in
actual behaviour, but also in preferences. In this section, these factors are analysed on
the basis of the survey data and, where possible, comparisons are made with earlier
survey results.
5.1 Consumers’ payment preferences
5.1.1 Payment instrument preference
The high use of cash for paying at the point of sale and for making P2P payments (see
Section 2) contrasts with the self-reported preference for cashless payment
instruments among euro area citizens in 2019. When asked which means of payment
they would prefer to use in a shop if they could choose, only 27% of respondents in the
euro area answered that they would prefer cash, while 49% answered that they would
prefer a cashless means of payment, such as cards. Another 24% said they were
indifferent as regards the preferred payment instrument.
Chart 42 shows respondents’ payment instrument preferences by euro area country in

2019. The share of respondents who reported a preference for cash over cashless
means of payment exceeds one third of respondents in only four countries – Malta
(37% cash against 33% cashless), Austria (42% against 35%), Germany (43% against
31%) and Cyprus (48% against 16%).
Chart 42
Preferred payment instrument by country
Cash You have no clear preference
Card or other cashless Don't know
100%
13% 13%
90% 22% 17% 20% 17% 18% 18% 23% 26%
28% 24% 27% 27% 24% 25% 25% 24%
29%
80% 37%
70%
60% 35% 31%

51% 16%
70% 61% 49% 47% 46% 45% 33%
50%
72%
75%
67% 69% 48% 51% 47% 46%
69%
40%
30%
48%
20% 42% 43%
37%
29% 30% 30%
24% 25% 25% 26% 27% 28%
10%
13% 13% 13% 17% 21%
9% 10%
0%
FR BE FI LU EE NL SK SI PT GR ES EA IT LV LT IE MT AT DE CY
Notes: The data are for the euro area (19 countries). Percentages may not add up due to rounding.
Study on the payment attitudes of consumers in the euro area – Factors influencing payment
behaviour 57
As shown in Chart 43, the stated preference for cashless means of payment and
actual payment behaviour differ at country level, although a higher stated preference
for cash is generally associated with a higher share of cash transactions in terms of
value. Three clusters of countries can be distinguished in Chart 43: countries with a
low reported preference for cash (where the share of cash transactions in value terms
is relatively low, ranging from 20% to 36%), countries close to the average preference
for cash (where the share of cash transactions ranges from 53% to 65%), and
countries with a relatively high reported preference for cash (where the share of cash
transactions ranges from 51% to 75%).
Chart 43
Payment behaviour and self-reported preference for cash
80%
MT CY
70%
Share of cash transactions (by value)
ES
LV
SK SI GR LT
60%
AT
IT
PT IE
50% DE
40% EE
BE
30%
FR FI
LU
NL
20%
10%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Self-reported preference for cash
In spite of this, even in countries where a large majority of respondents reported a

preference for cards 37 or other cashless payment instruments – thereby showing a
low preference for cash – cash was the payment instrument most used at the point of
sale and for P2P transactions in 2019 (see also Sub-section 2.1). As already observed
in the SUCH study, this again demonstrates that opinions and perceptions can deviate
significantly from actual behaviour. The question is why there is such a discrepancy
between stated payment preferences and actual payment behaviour. Potential
reasons for this discrepancy have been investigated in the literature. For example, Van
der Cruijsen et al. (2017) note that, in the Netherlands, the strong habit of paying in
cash explains this gap to a considerable extent, which is corroborated by the fact that
the gap increases for older consumers (presumably with stronger cash habits) and for
37 In the SUCH study, consumers declared a preference for cashless means of payment because they are
easy to use, fast and there is no need to collect cash, e.g. from an ATM.
behaviour 58
low-value transactions (which are more often settled in cash than higher-value
payments). 38
Since the SUCH study was conducted, the self-reported preference for cash in the
euro area has dropped from an average of 32% in 2016 to 27% in 2019. This coincides
with an increase in the stated preference for cards and other cashless payment
instruments (from 43% to 49%) and a slight decrease in indifference (from 25% to
24%). The greater preference for cashless means of payment seems to have
continued during the pandemic in 2020. Although, owing to methodological
differences, the results of the ad hoc 2020 IMPACT survey and SPACE are not entirely
comparable (see Box 3), during the pandemic the stated preferences for cash and the
indifference towards payment instruments have decreased to 25% (down from 27% in
the SPACE survey) and 21% (down from 24%), respectively. The stated preference for
cashless means of payment has increased by 5 p.p. to 54% (up from 49%).
At national level, the survey results for 2019 indicate that in all countries the
self-reported preference for cash has declined since the 2016 SUCH study, with the
strongest declines observed in Slovenia (down 20 p.p.), Greece (down 18 p.p.), Spain
(down 16 p.p.) and Ireland (down 16 p.p.). The share of respondents who expressed a
preference for cash exceeded the share who preferred cards or other cashless means
of payment in only four countries – Cyprus, Germany, Austria and Malta. At the other
end of the spectrum, in Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Estonia, France and
Luxembourg, well over two-thirds of respondents said they preferred cards or another
cashless means of payment, with only a relatively small share expressing a
preference for cash as a means of payment.
Self-reported preferences vary across demographic categories, as shown in

Charts 44 and 45. It appears that, on average, there is very little gender difference,
with 26% of males and 28% of females preferring cash and 51% of males and 48% of
females preferring cards or another cashless means of payment. Age plays a role not
only in actual behaviour, but also in stated preferences. The age groups 18-24 years
38 There are other potential reasons for the discrepancy between stated preferences and payment
behaviour. It should be noted that, even though self-reported consumer preferences have in some
instances been found to be a good proxy for real tastes (Fernández-Blanco et al., 2009), reported and
actual preferences are not identical. Part of the discrepancy may thus also be explained by the gap
between real and stated preferences. For example, when expressing preferences, some people may
simply forget about their preferences in relation to small-value payments and mainly remember the large
payments they make. This might explain the fact that when preferences are compared with the share of
cash payments at point of sale and for P2P transactions in value terms (48%), the discrepancy between
actual behaviour and stated preference (27%) is smaller than when making the same comparison in
terms of number of transactions (73%). In addition, declaring indifference with regard to payment options
may hide implicit tastes in favour of cash or cards; i.e. when consumers report that they are indifferent,
there may be hidden factors explaining why they ultimately pay more in cash than with cards. Beshears et
al. (2008) have shown that the factors explaining the mismatch between stated and revealed preferences
are passive choice (accepting the default option instead of actively making a choice) or limited personal
experience (having little or no experience of alternative options). These factors could potentially be
present in the payment choice, e.g. payment instrument acceptance or limited experience of cashless
means of payment may explain why some indifferent individuals ultimately pay with cash. In this regard,
the literature on payment behaviour has identified that merchant card acceptance (Arango, Huynh and
Kosse, 2015; Arango, Hogg and Lee, 2015; Bagnall et al., 2016; Wakamori and Welte, 2017) and
consumers’ cash balances (Alvarez and Lippi, 2017; Arango-Arango et al., 2018) are circumstantial
determinants of payment behaviour, which may not be adequately captured in the question on
self-reported preference. Van der Cruijsen et al. (2017) show that in the Netherlands the gap widens in
traditionally cash-intensive sectors and for consumers carrying more cash. Further research is needed to
determine whether these factors also explain the gap between stated preferences and real behaviour
across euro area countries in the SPACE results.
behaviour 59
(28%), 55-64 years (29%) and 65+ years (33%) have a greater preference for cash
than those aged 25-54 (22-23%). The opposite can be seen for card preference in
Chart 45. On average, rural respondents (29%) and those with a lower level of
education (36%) reported a stronger preference for using cash than respondents living
in urban areas (24%) and those with a higher level of education (19%).
Chart 44
Preference for using cash to pay, by demographic
Cash
40% 36%
33%
28% 28% 29% 29%

30% 27% 26%
26%
23% 24%
22%
19%
20%
10%
0%
Male
65+
Upper/post-
Female
PhD/research
18-24
25-39
40-54
55-64
Primary/lower
Rural
Urban
secondary
University/
secondary
Chart 45
Preference for using cards to pay, by demographic
Card
70%
59%
60% 55% 53%
51% 52%
49% 48% 48% 49%
50% 46% 46%
44%
40%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Male
65+
Upper/post-
Female
18-24
25-39
40-54
55-64
Primary/lower
PhD/4esearch
Rural
Urban
secondary
secondary
University/
5.1.2 The importance of having cash as a payment option
Consumers’ perception of the importance of having cash as a payment option is also

an important factor in payment preferences. Although the literature suggests that
using a single payment instrument is common for some consumers – a practice known
as “single-homing” (Cohen and Rysman, 2013; Rysman and Schuh, 2016; Stavins,
behaviour 60
2017) – many others may still consider it important to have a wider range of payment
options, including cash. In order to supplement the findings on most-preferred
payment instruments (see Sub-section 5.1.1), respondents were asked to rate the
importance of having cash as a payment option on a scale of 1 to 10. 39 Chart 46
shows euro area averages of these scores grouped into five categories. Although, as
seen above, only 27% of respondents declared that their most preferred payment
instrument is cash, more than half of euro area citizens deemed it important (22%) or
very important (32%) to have cash as a payment option, while one fifth of respondents
considered cash neutral (21%) and the remainder considered cash not important
(11%) or not important at all (13%). Given that 55% of euro area citizens consider cash
important or very important, this suggests that not having cash as the most-preferred
payment instrument is not necessarily equivalent to consumers deeming cash
unimportant. A majority of euro area citizens would still like to have the choice of
paying with cash, even if they pay less with cash over time and generally have a
preference for cashless means of payment.
Chart 46
The importance of having the option to pay with cash, by country
Very important (9-10) Not important (3-4)
Important (7-8) Not important at all (1-2)
Neutral (5-6) Don't know
100%
5% 5% 9% 7%
14% 14% 13% 13% 15% 11% 12%
90%
10%
7%
7%
6% 18% 21% 21% 19% 20% 16% 16% 21%
29%
13% 9% 11% 13% 13% 9%
80% 12% 12%
13% 19%
15% 9% 10% 14% 14%
70%
11% 15% 13% 13%
18% 19% 22% 21% 16% 24% 30% 13%
60% 18% 23% 20%
21% 28% 27% 25%
23% 22% 22% 23%
50%
23% 22% 22% 29% 27%
40% 15% 25% 23%
16% 17%
30%
68% 19% 22% 21% 25% 31%
56% 53% 25%
9%
47%
20%
34% 33% 33% 32%
29% 28% 28% 27% 26%
10% 23% 23% 22% 22% 19% 19%
16%
0%
CY DE AT MT LT IE GR EA FI SI LV IT PT EE LU SK ES FR NL BE
Notes: The data are for the euro area (19 countries). Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
The same question was asked in the 2020 IMPACT survey. The distribution of scores
was similar to the 2019 SPACE survey, except for the two top categories (important
and very important). Although the combined level of these two categories was still
almost the same as in 2019 (52%), during the pandemic there was a shift of
respondents from “very important” (scores 9-10) to “important” (scores 7-8). Thus, the
share of respondents considering a cash payment option important increased from
22% in SPACE to 29% in the 2020 IMPACT survey, while the share considering the
cash payment option very important declined from 32% in SPACE to 23% in the
IMPACT survey.
The SPACE results show that in all euro area countries except Slovakia (31%), at least
40% of respondents considered it important or very important to have cash as a
payment option (see Chart 46). More specifically, in eight countries more than half of
39 This question was not included in the 2016 SUCH survey.
behaviour 61
respondents assigned a high or very high importance to having cash as a payment
option. Conversely, the share of respondents deeming it unimportant to be able to pay
in cash (scores 1-4) is generally rather low across all euro area countries. Only in three
countries does this share exceed one-third of respondents – Estonia (35%), Belgium
(35%) and Slovakia (41%) – although some other countries are close to this
threshold – Slovenia (32%) and Luxemburg (33%). For Slovenia and Slovakia in
particular, this is a rather surprising result, given the level of cash use in these
countries as described in Section 2.
Looking at the demographic breakdown of respondents who consider having cash as

a payment option important or very important (see Chart 47), the results are consistent
with the survey questions on cash use and stated preference for cash. There are
virtually no gender differences, with females (55%) and males (54%) assigning more
or less the same importance to having a cash payment option. As for age, combining
scores for those who deem the option to pay with cash important or very important
(scores 7-10) yields a similar pattern to that observed in the self-reported preferences
for cash (see Chart 44). In general, assigned importance increases with age, except
for the 18 to 24 age group, in which, in line with their preference for using cash, a
relatively high share of respondents assign importance to being able to pay with cash
(54%). The share of respondents believing that having cash as a payment option is
important or very important tends to decrease with level of education (from 60% of
respondents with primary or lower secondary education to 48% of respondents with a
university degree or higher level of education 40) and is higher for respondents in rural
areas (58%) than in urban areas (50%).
Chart 47
The importance of having the option to pay in cash, by demographic
Very important (9-10)
Important (7-8)
70%
60%
50% 18% 22%

22% 21%
22% 23% 21% 21% 23%
40% 30% 24% 23%
22%
30%
20% 39% 38% 37%

32% 31% 34% 33% 35% 33%
24% 26% 26% 27%
10%
0%
Male
65+
Upper/post-
Female
PhD/research
18-24
25-39
40-54
55-64
Primary/lower
Rural
Urban
secondary
University/
secondary
Average Gender Age Education Urban/eural
40 The share of respondents holding a PhD includes data from all euro area countries except the
Netherlands. However, the effect of excluding the Netherlands in this particular category is considered
negligible.
behaviour 62
5.2 Access and acceptance
5.2.1 Consumers’ access to non-cash payment instruments and methods
Consumers’ access to, or possession of, a payment instrument is a key determinant

for the use of that payment instrument. Access to payment instruments, usually
included under the wider concept of financial inclusion, is becoming less of a
constraint worldwide, especially in developed countries (Demirguc-Kunt and Klapper,
2012; Demirguc-Kunt et al., 2018). In the euro area, access to bank payment services
(such as payment cards, credit transfers, direct debit and other electronic payment
instruments) is widespread, although some heterogeneity exists between
socio-demographic groups and between countries.
On average, 94% of respondents in the euro area reported having access to a

payment card (see Chart 48). The share of those in possession of a payment card is
almost the same as that recorded in the 2016 SUCH study (93%), but the share of
respondents in possession of a card with contactless payment technology has
increased sharply. In 2016 less than 10% of respondents reported having a card with
contactless technology. In the 2019 SPACE survey, this share had increased to 63%.
Consumers are also increasingly gaining access to other payment methods. In 2019,
58% of respondents reported having access to e-payment solutions, such as PayPal.
28% of respondents also reported having one or more mobile payment apps
(e.g. Apple Pay) installed on their phones. Shares were higher for the younger
respondents, both for internet payment methods (66% of respondents in the 18-24 age
group) and mobile payments (43% of respondents in the 18-24 age group). Level of
education also seems to play a major role in access to cashless payment instruments
and cashless payment methods; respondents with only primary education had much
less access (18% for e-payment solutions and 8% for mobile payments) than those
with a higher level of education (above 60% for e-payment solutions and 25% for
mobile payments).
Only 3.6% of respondents reported having access to crypto assets, such as Bitcoin or
Ethereum. The share is highest in Germany (7%) and Cyprus (7%). As with e-payment
solutions and mobile payments, crypto assets are more popular among respondents
between 18 and 39 years old (6% of respondents in these age groups own crypto
assets). Whereas for e-payment solutions and mobile payments, there is no great
difference in access between men and women, for crypto assets the gender difference
is rather striking, as 73% of the respondents who said they have access to them are
men.
On average 27% of respondents said that they have access to bank cheques, even
though in several countries there is no access at all. Access to cheques is high in
France, with 84% of respondents saying they have access to bank cheques, while
significant shares were also recorded in Malta (57%), Italy (44%) and Ireland (33%). In
contrast with new payment methods, the share of respondents with access cheques is
relatively high among the older age groups.
behaviour 63
Chart 48
Access to non-cash payment instruments
Cards (all types) 94%
Credit transfer 76%
Direct debit 75%
Internet payment methods 58%
Mobile phone 28%
Bank cheque 27%
Crypto assets 4%
Other 3%
None 2%
Don't know 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Overall, just below 2% of respondents reported having no access to any of the

payment instruments and payment methods mentioned in Chart 48. However, there
are large differences between countries, as shown in Chart 49. In many countries,
nearly all respondents reported having access to at least one payment instrument or
payment method other than cash, but in Cyprus, Greece, and Malta between 9.6%
and 11.4% of respondents reported having no access to any non-cash payment
instrument or payment method, while in Italy, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia, between
4% and 5% of respondents reported having no access to any non-cash payment
instrument or payment method. Thus, these respondents rely entirely on cash or on
other persons with access to cashless means of payment.
Chart 49
Percentage of population that only has access to cash, by country
MT 11%
CY 11%
GR 10%
IT 4%
LV 4%
LT 4%
SK 4%
PT 3%
IE 2%
ES 2%
EA 2%
EE 1%
SI 1%
AT 1%
NL 1%
LU 0%
FR 0%
BE 0%
FI 0%
DE 0%
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%
Regarding level of education, Chart 50 shows that in the euro area, on average, 4% of
respondents with primary and lower secondary education have no access to cards or
any other cashless payment instrument or payment method. Furthermore, although on
behaviour 64
average in the euro area only 3% of respondents aged 65 or over reported having no
access to any payment method or payment instrument other than cash, for Cyprus,
Malta, Greece, Lithuania, Slovakia and Latvia over 10% of this age group reported
having no access to other means of payment. In Cyprus and Malta, as many as one in
five respondents in this age group said they only had access to cash.
Chart 50
Percentage of population that only has access to cash, by demographic
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2% 2%
2% 2% 2%
2%
1% 1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
Male
65+
Upper/post-
Female
PhD/research
18-24
25-39
40-54
55-64
Primary/lower
Rural
Urban
secondary
University/
secondary
5.2.2 Consumer’s access to cash
Facilitating access to cash is an important part of the work of central banks (Jiménez
and Tejero, 2018; Banque de France, 2019; European Central Bank, 2019; Banque de
France, 2020; Sveriges Riksbank, 2020; Lagarde, 2020). Access to cash is necessary
to satisfy the preference or need of consumers to pay in cash and thus also influences
the actual payment behaviour of consumers. The relative costs of accessing cash are
also an important factor influencing payment behaviour (Arango-Arango et al., 2018).
Access to cash can be obtained through various sources, such as cash withdrawals in
banks, at ATMs and, more recently, at retailers when paying with cashless payment
instruments, specifically cards (cashback). Respondents’ preferred location for
withdrawing cash was at ATMs (see Sub-section 6.1), but ATMs are becoming scarce
in certain regions. Owing to pressure on commercial banks to cut costs and their
limited ability to charge for cash services, the downward trend in the availability of
ATMs and branches offering cash services may spread beyond rural areas and may
begin to affect the availability of cash in more urban areas. According to ECB data,
between the second half of 2016 and the first half of 2019, the number of bank
branches offering cash services in the euro area decreased by 19,830, from 165,056
to 145,226. In the same period, the number of ATMs in the euro area decreased by
13,921, from 324,650 to 310,729.
However, a downward trend in the number of ATMs and bank branches does not
necessarily imply a deterioration in access to cash (Jiménez and Tejero, 2018); in
behaviour 65
some locations where several ATMs were previously available, but not being used to
their full capacity, banks have agreed to pool resources and replace their own ATMs
with a single “white label” ATM. This does not necessarily mean that access to cash is
more difficult in those areas. For this reason, people’s perception of access to cash
was measured by asking respondents to rate the ease of access to cash from an ATM
or a bank. Chart 51 shows that most respondents found it very easy (50%) or fairly
easy (39%) to obtain cash from an ATM, while almost one in ten respondents
considered that access to an ATM was fairly difficult (7%) or very difficult (2%). This is
4 p.p. higher than in the 2016 SUCH study (where the shares for fairly difficult and very
difficult were 4% and 1%, respectively).
Chart 51
Ease of access to cash withdrawals at an ATM or a bank in the euro area
Fairly easy Fairly difficult

39% 7%
Very difficult
2%
Don't know /
no answer
2%
Very easy
50%
At national level, Chart 52 shows that the countries with the highest share of
respondents who deemed access to cash to be fairly difficult or very difficult were
Malta (21%), Greece (17%), Lithuania (16%) and Belgium (15%). In total, in ten euro
area countries, at least 10% of respondents reported finding access to cash fairly
difficult or very difficult. Comparing the results obtained in the 2016 SUCH study and
the 2019 SPACE survey, Chart 52 shows that the share of respondents perceiving
access to ATMs to be fairly difficult or very difficult has increased in all countries, but
this increase was particularly pronounced in Malta and Greece and, to a lesser extent,
in Belgium and Spain. A similar trend was observed (both for the euro area as a whole
and for the aforementioned countries) when considering the share of respondents
deeming access very difficult.
behaviour 66
Chart 52
Share of respondents perceiving access to ATM withdrawals as fairly difficult or very
difficult, by country
SPACE
SUCH
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
MT GR LT BE ES LV NL SK EE SI EA DE IE FR PT FI LU IT AT CY
Sources: Authors’ calculations based on the 2016 SUCH study, ECB (2019), De Nederlandsche Bank and the Dutch Payments
Association (2019) and Deutsche Bundesbank (2019).
On average in the euro area, respondents in rural and urban areas had similar
perceptions of the ease of access to cash through ATMs. This suggests that, at least
on average, there is not a significant rural-urban gap with regard to access to cash.
However, although for a country as a whole access to cash may be perceived as
generally good, at regional level there may be relatively large parts of the population
who are not satisfied with their access to cash. Indeed, survey results show that,
especially in some rural and mountainous areas, a relatively high share of
respondents said that access to cash was very difficult.
The 2019 SPACE survey does not include information on cash access channels other
than ATMs, such as, for example, cashback. Cashback is a service provided by some
retailers whereby customers pay for their purchase by card but ask the retailer to
increase the card payment by a certain amount, which the retailer then returns to the
customer in the form of cash from the till. More information on cashback across the
euro area can be found in Sub-section 6.1.
5.2.3 Acceptance of cash and non-cash payment instruments and

methods
Another important factor influencing the choice of payment method is merchant

acceptance (Arango, Huynh and Kosse, 2015; Arango, Hogg and Lee, 2015; Bagnall
et al., 2016; Wakamori and Welte, 2017), i.e. whether the merchant accepts cards or
other non-cash means of payment or has a cash-only policy. In the survey,
respondents were asked to indicate for each payment whether any other payment
option than the one they used would have been accepted.
In general, it can be said that cash is still widely accepted in all countries, as shown in
Chart 53. Owing to a lack of data for Germany, conclusions can only be drawn for the
other 18 euro area countries. On average, in these 18 countries, 98% of the reported
behaviour 67
transactions could have been made using cash, with the lowest share of cash
acceptance in Latvia (93%), Estonia (94%), Belgium (94%), Finland (94%) and France
(95%). Apart from Latvia, these are also the countries with the lowest share of cash
payments in total payments and where respondents indicated the highest preference
for non-cash means of payment.
Chart 53
Share of reported POS transactions where cash was accepted, by country
Acceptance of cash
100%
100% 100% 99% 99% 99% 99% 98% 98% 98% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 95% 94% 94% 94% 93%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
CY MT GR IT SI ES PT EA18 AT IE SK LT LU NL FR FI BE EE LV
Sources: ECB (2019) and Panteia for the Netherlands (2019).

Note: The data are for the euro area excluding Germany (18 countries).
The locations where cash payments were most often not accepted in the euro area
(excluding Germany) 41 were petrol stations (9%) and culture, sports and
entertainment venues (8%). 42 This could be due to the fact that many petrol stations
are unattended either 24 hours a day or at night and it is becoming more common for
sports and entertainment venues to use reloadable cards or tokens which have to be
bought in advance. The cash acceptance rate in other locations was reasonably high,
as shown in Chart 54.
41 Data for 17 euro area countries (excluding Germany and the Netherlands) were made comparable to De
Nederlandsche Bank’s survey data for the Netherlands by grouping some of the locations into categories.
Data on cash acceptance are not available for Germany.
42 More disaggregated data (excluding Germany and the Netherlands) indicate that cash was not accepted
in hotels (and similar establishments) in an even higher share of transactions (14.2%).
behaviour 68
Chart 54
Share of reported POS transactions where cash was accepted, by location type
Acceptance of cash
99% 99% 98% 98% 97% 97% 95% 94% 92% 91%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
goods (e.g. clothing, toys,
Other physical location
Petrol station
market (e.g. newspaper,
Restaurant, bar or café &

Supermarket
Average POS
Hotel or accommodation

retail items & Pharmacy
On the street or at a
Shop selling durable
machine
entertainment
electronics)
florist)
Sources: ECB (2019) and De Nederlandsche Bank and the Dutch Payments Association (2019).
Note: The data are for the euro area excluding Germany (18 countries).
As regards options to use cashless payment methods, Chart 55 shows that, on

average in the euro area, it was possible to pay with non-cash payment instruments in
79% of reported transactions. This means that in slightly more than one in five
transactions only cash was accepted. The reported acceptance of other payment
instruments/methods exceeds 90% of transactions in only two countries – Finland
(96%) and the Netherlands (92%). Conversely, in four euro area countries (Slovakia,
Portugal, Germany and Malta) it was possible to use a cashless means of payment in
less than three-quarters of transactions.
Chart 55
Share of reported POS transactions where cards and other means of payment were
accepted, by country
Acceptance of cards and other means of payment
100% 96%
92%
89% 89% 88% 87%
90% 86% 85%
83% 82% 81%
81% 79% 79%
78% 77%
80%
72% 71% 71%
69%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
FI NL LU EE FR CY GR IE BE LT LV SI ES EA AT IT SK PT DE MT
As shown in Chart 56, cashless means of payment were most often accepted by
merchants in petrol stations and shops selling durable goods (both 95% of the number
of reported transactions). The share of transactions where cashless payment
instruments were accepted is slightly higher than the euro area average in local shops
behaviour 69
for day-to-day items and pharmacies (82%), but lower than average in restaurants,
bars, cafés and accommodation establishments (69%), culture, sports or
entertainment venues (68%) and vending or ticketing machines (49%).
Chart 56
Share of reported POS transactions where cards and other means of payment were
accepted, by location type
Acceptance of cards and other means of payment
95% 95%
100%
82% 79%
80% 72% 69% 68%
60% 49%
40%
20%
0%
Petrol station
Other physical location

Restaurant, bar or café &

Average POS
Hotel or accommodation
Shop selling durable goods

retail items & Pharmacy
machine
entertainment
These results reflect the share of transactions where it was reportedly possible to pay
in cash or with a cashless means of payment, which does not necessarily coincide
with the share of places where one can pay in cash or with a cashless means of
payment, even though it is likely to be a good proxy. P2P payments are not part of this
analysis, as the focus is on the customer-to-business relationship. Although P2P
transactions were mainly carried out using cash in 2019, it is clear that these
transactions can also increasingly be carried out using payment instruments other
than cash and new payment methods, such as mobile payment apps.
5.3 Cash balances in consumers’ wallets

According to the literature, the amount of cash in the wallet is also one of the
determinants of the decision to pay in cash (Bouhdaoui and Bounie, 2012; Arango,
Huynh and Sabetti, 2015; Bagnall et al., 2016; Alvarez and Lippi, 2017;
Arango-Arango et al., 2018). SPACE survey respondents were requested to report the
amount of cash available in their wallet (i.e. not serving as a cash reserve) at the
beginning of the day when they started to fill in their payment diary (see Chart 57). On
average, respondents had €76.5 in their wallet, with high variability across countries.
In 2019, the average amount of cash held by respondents in their wallets was more
than €100 in Austria (€121), Cyprus (€114), Germany (€107) and Ireland (€103). In
these countries, the average values of cash POS or P2P transactions were also
among the highest. In contrast, the average amount held in wallets was only €45 in
France and the Netherlands and €46 in Portugal. These countries are also among
those with the smallest average cash transaction value.
behaviour 70
Chart 57
Average amount of cash in the wallet at the beginning of the day, by country
Cash in wallet
€140
€121
€114
€120
€107 €103
€99
€100
€86 €85
€80 €77 €77 €74 €73
€80 €72 €71
€67 €65 €61
€60
€46 €45 €45
€40
€20
€0
AT CY DE IE LU MT GR FI ES EA SK IT SI LT LV BE EE PT NL FR
behaviour 71
6 How consumers obtain cash
Given the high usage of cash for making POS and P2P payments, consumers’ cash
withdrawal behaviour is an important dimension of general payment behaviour. To
gain some insight into cash withdrawals, respondents were asked about the manner in
which they added cash to their wallet during the day (see Sub-section 6.1). As one
source of replenishment is to receive some income in cash, the respondents were
asked to indicate what proportion of their regular income they receive in cash (see
Sub-section 6.2).
6.1 Topping up of consumers’ wallets

Chart 58 shows in relative terms how often different sources of cash were used by
consumers to add cash to their wallets (taking into account only the first addition of
cash to the wallet each day). 43 The figures are for the euro area countries excluding
Germany. On average, the source most often used by consumers was ATMs: 51% of
all cash additions to the consumer’s wallet came from an ATM. Other important
sources in terms of number of transactions were respondents’ family, friends and
colleagues (together 17%) and cash reserves (16%). Cash income (5%) and
over-the-counter withdrawals at banks (4%) were used less frequently.
Roughly similar patterns are observed at country level. In all of the 18 countries in this
part of the SPACE study, ATM withdrawals were the most common source of cash for
respondents’ wallets, although they accounted for more than half of cash additions in
only six countries.
The second most popular source of cash varied between countries, but it was always
either cash reserves or family, friends and colleagues. Results also indicate that
cashback was not used in Malta and Latvia and was more prevalent in some
countries, such as Ireland (7%), Belgium (6%) and Finland (6%).
43 The source of the cash addition and its amount was only recorded for the first cash addition made during
the day (see Annex 1).
Study on the payment attitudes of consumers in the euro area – How consumers obtain cash 72
Chart 58
Sources of cash additions to wallets, by frequency of use and by country
ATM Family, friends or colleagues
Bank counter Income received in cash
Cashback Other source
Your cash reserves Don't know
100% 4%
5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 7% 6% 7% 7% 8% 9%
8% 5% 13% 5% 11%
90% 6% 9% 6% 11% 6%
14%
12% 16% 12% 10% 7% 12%
16% 21% 17% 18% 11% 18%
80%
11% 19% 22% 15% 21% 15%
13% 22% 21% 41% 23%
70% 10% 24%
12% 22% 21%
7% 10% 16% 20% 15% 10% 12%
60% 5% 15% 25%
8%
4% 14% 6% 6%
4% 6% 5% 6% 7% 19%
50% 4% 6% 15%
40%
30% 59% 58% 57% 57%
53% 51% 51% 50% 49% 49% 48% 50% 48%
47% 46% 44% 45%
20% 39% 38%
10%
0%
FR AT NL PT SI EE EA - LU IT LV ES MT GR BE IE FI CY SK LT
18
Notes: Data are for the euro area excluding Germany as data on cash additions by source are not available for this country. The data are
based on answers to the question “Did you add any cash during the day?” and do not take into account any further cash additions made
during the same day.
The overall picture changes when analysing the same answers in terms of value (see
Chart 59). On average for the 18 countries, ATMs were the source from which
respondents obtained most cash in terms of value (58% of the total value of cash
additions to wallets came from ATM withdrawals), while over-the-counter withdrawals
at banks were the second most important (12%), which is not surprising as
higher-value withdrawals are usually made over-the-counter. Less important sources
were cash reserves (9%), family, friends and colleagues (together 10%) and cash
income (7%). On average, cashback represented only 2% of the total value of cash
additions.
There are also strong variations between countries. For two countries (i.e. Lithuania
and Austria), ATMs were not the main source of cash in terms of value. Instead, in
Austria over-the-counter withdrawals were the largest source of cash, with 48% of the
total value of cash additions to wallets. Cash income was the most important source in
Lithuania (38%) and also important in Portugal (16%). Finally, cashback was more
prevalent in Belgium (6%) and Ireland (5%) in value terms, but not generally
widespread across the 18 countries in this part of the SPACE study.
Chart 59
Sources of cash additions to wallets, by value and by country
ATM Family, friends or colleagues
Bank counter Income received in cash
Cashback Other source
Your cash reserves Don't know
100% 4%
7% 6% 7% 8% 6% 7% 6% 9% 7%
6% 11% 7% 13% 6% 4%
90% 8% 6% 10% 8% 6%
5% 16% 12% 27% 11% 16% 10% 7% 25%
16% 10% 23% 12% 9%
80% 5% 15% 6%
7% 16% 9% 9% 20%
7% 9% 5% 8% 9% 38%
70% 8% 4% 5% 9%
4% 12% 12% 8% 5% 4% 7%
9% 9% 12% 14% 48%
60% 5% 5% 32% 14% 9%
13%
50% 6%
9%
22%
40%
68% 67% 67% 32%
30% 62% 61% 58% 60% 59% 59% 58% 58% 58% 8%
56%
49% 44%
20% 42% 40%
10% 23%
17%
0%
LV GR IT PT LU MT FR FI EE IE ES EA CY SI BE SK AT LT NL
Notes: Data are for the euro area excluding Germany as data on cash additions by source are not available for this country. The data are
based on answers to the question “Did you add any cash during the day?” and do not take into account any further cash additions made
during the day.
Chart 60 shows the average value of an individual ATM withdrawal per country (€88
on average for the 18 countries covered). Average withdrawals were largest in Ireland
(€124), Greece (€121) and Cyprus (€119). The lowest average ATM withdrawals were
in France (€62) and Portugal (€55). The wide variation between countries can be
explained partly by the fact that only the first withdrawal recorded during the day was
taken into account. In some countries, consumers tend to withdraw small amounts of
cash for immediate use, while in other countries or regions it is more common to
withdraw large amounts of cash for immediate and future use (partly depending on the
distance to the nearest ATM). As a consequence, small withdrawal amounts in some
countries may be due to consumers withdrawing cash more often but in smaller
amounts. 44 Another related factor explaining country variations is the different fees for
ATM withdrawals across euro area countries. In some countries average surcharge
fees are lower than in other countries, or commercial banks offer a certain number of
free withdrawals, which may influence consumers’ withdrawal patterns.
44 Survey data do not include information on the total number of withdrawals. This makes it difficult to make
direct comparisons with other results in the report, such the value of an average cash transaction or
average cash in wallet.
Chart 60
Average value of an ATM withdrawal
ATM withdrawal
€140
€124 €121
€119 €116 €116
€120
€107 €104
€100 €92
€88 €88
€84 €84 €81
€76 €73
€80 €71 €68
€62
€55
€60
€40
€20
€0
IE GR CY IT AT NL MT LU FI EA18 SK BE ES SI LV LT EE FR PT
Notes: “EA18” is the euro area excluding Germany. The data are based on answers to the question “Did you add any cash during the
day?” and do not take into account any further cash additions made during the day.
6.2 Receiving regular income in cash

While euro area employees generally had their regular income paid into their bank
accounts in 2019, there are some euro area countries and occupational groups where
a non-negligible share of employees still received a substantial part of their regular
income in cash. In order to gather more information on the share of income regularly
received in cash, respondents were asked a specific question on what proportion of
their regular income was received in cash.
The survey results show that the vast majority of euro area consumers (87%) did not
receive any regular income in cash (see Chart 61). Around one in ten respondents
received up to a half (7%) or more than half (4%) of their income in cash and the
remainder answered “Don’t know”. The share of respondents receiving part of their
income in cash is slightly lower than the results reported in the 2016 SUCH study,
which found that 84% of respondents did not receive any regular income in cash and
16% received at least a quarter of it in cash, of which around half received more than
half of their income in cash.
Countries in which a higher share of individuals receive a large proportion of their

income in cash are expected to also have a higher share of people using this cash
income (or cash reserves resulting from such cash income) as a source of cash:
indeed, at country level, the average share of individuals receiving more than half of
their income in cash is positively correlated with the share of individuals using cash
income or cash reserves as a source of cash. However, there is no similar correlation
when considering individuals receiving less than half of their income in cash.
Chart 61
Share of regular income received in cash
None More than half
Up to half Don't know
100%
4% 5% 4% 4% 4% 5% 6% 5% 8% 6%
9% 9% 11% 13% 15% 12%
90% 7% 9% 7% 11% 8%
6% 7% 6% 10%
10% 9%
80% 11%
12%
20%
70%
60%
50% 96% 95% 94% 94% 94% 94%

87% 87% 87% 86% 86% 86% 84% 84%
40% 82% 80% 78%
76%
71%
30% 65%
20%
10%
0%
FI EE FR SI NL BE EA AT IT LU DE ES MT PT LV IE LT SK CY GR
Notes: The data are for the euro area (19 countries).
As identified in the 2016 SUCH study, for most countries the results indicate a positive
correlation between cash usage and cash received as part of income (Chart 62). At
country level, a higher share of respondents receiving part of their income in cash is
associated with a higher share of cash transactions. In general, the share of
respondents who reported having received regular income in cash was highest in the
countries which had the highest share of cash usage for making POS and P2P
payments, and vice versa.
Chart 62
Cash income and cash payment behaviour
100%
90% MT
Share of cash transactions (by number)
ES
IT
80% CY GR
DE PT
SI AT SK
70%
LV LT
IE
60% FR
BE LU
50%
EE
40%
FI
NL
30%
20%
10%
0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Share of respondents receiving part of their income in cash
Socio-demographic variables reveal that younger respondents (18-24 years old) and
those with a lower level of education (primary or lower secondary education) reported
receiving cash as part of their regular income in higher proportions than other age
groups and education categories. The type of occupation might explain why some
individuals receive more cash income than others. For example, the proportion of
respondents who reported receiving at least a quarter of their income in cash was
higher for the self-employed than for other occupational groups.
7 Concluding remarks
The 2016 study on the use of cash by households (SUCH), published in 2017, was the
first study that analysed consumers’ payment behaviour in POS and P2P transactions
for all 19 euro area countries. With the 2019 study on the payment attitudes of
consumers in the euro area (SPACE) it is now possible to compare consumers’
payment behaviour for all 19 euro area countries over time. The results of both studies
confirm significant variations in payment behaviour and attitude both between euro
area countries and between socio-demographic groups within individual countries.
Overall the study shows that 73% of all transactions in the euro area were carried out
using cash and that these represented 48% of the total value of all payments made by
consumers. This compares with 79% of transactions in cash, representing 54% of total
value in 2016, as reported in the SUCH study. Cards continue to be the second most
used payment instrument. Contactless technology was used for more than one in
three card transactions.
Although the use of cash for POS and P2P payments has declined since the 2016
SUCH study, cash is still the main payment instrument used by consumers in the euro
area both in terms of the total number of payments and in terms of the total value. The
results of an additional ECB survey conducted in July 2020 to better understand the
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on payment behaviour show that the pandemic has
influenced consumers’ payment behaviour (40% of respondents reported paying less
with cash since the start of the pandemic and 40% reported paying more with
contactless cards). The convenience of cashless means of payments, in particular the
increasing number of contactless cards and terminals as well as increases in the
payment limit for contactless payments, were reported to be the main reasons for a
shift in payment behaviour induced by the pandemic.
The study also provides an insight into consumers’ preferences for payment
instruments and new payment methods, as well as their perception of accessibility,
acceptance and use of different payment instruments and new payment methods. In
this regard, consumers reported that generally they still have good access to cash
(89% of respondents). They also reported that cash was generally readily accepted at
retailers (98%) and that cards and other means of payment were accepted in only 79%
of cases.
In a world facing continuous change in the retail payment landscape and consumer
preferences, the SUCH and SPACE surveys provide snapshots of payment behaviour
and payment attitudes, making an important contribution to the debate on the
importance of different payment instruments and their coexistence. When analysing
the evolution of consumers’ payment behaviour and payment preferences over time, it
becomes evident that that these are only changing gradually. To monitor these
changes and enable the ECB to take appropriate policy measures, it is important to
repeat the study, applying the same methodology, at regular intervals.
Study on the payment attitudes of consumers in the euro area – Concluding remarks 77
Annex A
Diary survey questionnaire
Diary Module A
Point-of-sale and person-to-person payments
QA_1. How much cash did you have – e.g. in your wallet, purse or
pockets – at the beginning of [INSERT DAY]?
Please report the value of all the cash you had in your wallet, purse or pockets,
including the small change.
€ ___ ___. __ __
Don’t know/Prefer not to say
QA_2a. How much cash, if any, did you add to this amount during the
day?
This includes cash you withdrew from an automated teller machine (ATM), money
taken from your cash reserves at home, and any cash you may have received on
[INSERT DAY], such as a reimbursement or a gift.
If you added cash more than once during the day, please tell us about the amount you
added the first time.
€ ___ ___. __ __
No cash added
Don’t know
If reported an amount in QA_2a, ask QA_3a. Otherwise, move to QA_4.
QA_3a. Where did this € [insert amount from QA_2a] come from?
1. An ATM
2. Bank counter
3. Cash back obtained from using a card at the supermarket, shop or petrol station
4. Your cash reserves, e.g. cash jar or cash reserves at home
Study on the payment attitudes of consumers in the euro area – Annex A 78

5. Family, friends or colleagues
6. Income received in cash
7. Other source
8. Don’t know
QA_2b. How much MORE cash in total, excluding the € [insert amount
from QA_2a] you have already mentioned, did you add to this amount
on [INSERT DAY]?
€ ___ ___. __ __
No MORE cash added
Don’t know
If reported an amount in QA_2b, ask QA_3b. Otherwise, move to QA_4.
QA_3b. Where did you get the € [insert amount from QA_2b]?
1. An ATM
2. Bank counter
3. Cash back obtained from using a card at the supermarket, shop or petrol station
4. Your cash reserves, e.g. cash jar or cash reserves at home
5. Family, friends or colleagues
6. Income received in cash
7. Other source
8. Don’t know
QA_4. From the CASH you had in your wallet, purse, or pockets, how
much did you put aside on [INSERT DAY]?
€ ___ ___. __ __
None
Don’t know
The following questions are about payments you made at a physical location or to a
person on [INSERT DAY]. Physical locations include shops, restaurants, petrol

stations or hairdressers. Payments to a person include payments to friends or pocket
money given to children.
When answering, also take into consideration any small payments you may have
made.
QA_5a. What was the amount of the first payment, if any?
€ ___ ___. __ __
No payments made on [INSERT DAY]
Don’t know
If reported an amount in QA_5a, ask QA_6a. Otherwise, move to QA_9a.
QA_6a. Where or for what was the payment made?
1. Supermarket
2. Small shop for day-to-day items (e.g. bakery, drugstore)
3. On the street or at a market (e.g. newspaper stand, florist)
4. Shop selling durable goods (e.g. clothing, toys, electronics)
5. Petrol station
6. Restaurant, bar, cafe
7. Hotel or similar
8. A venue for culture, sports or entertainment (e.g. museum, swimming pool,

amusement park)
9. Vending or ticketing machine
10. Services outside the home (e.g. hairdresser, dry cleaning, car maintenance,
doctor)
11. Services inside or around the home (e.g. cleaning, babysitting, home repairs)
12. Office of a public authority or post office
13. Charity
14. Other person-to-person payment
15. Other physical location
16. Don’t know

If reported an amount in QA_5a, ask QA_7a. Otherwise, move to QA_9a.
QA_7a. How did you make the payment?
1. Cash
2. Debit card
3. Credit card
4. Mobile phone
5. Bank cheque [only in countries that have bank cheques]
6. Credit transfer (also via online banking)
7. Direct debit (i.e. a payment made automatically from your bank account)
8. Other
9. Don’t know
If answer to QA_7a is option 2 or 3, ask QA_7ai.
QA_7ai. How was the card transaction carried out?
1. By inserting the card into a terminal with PIN/signature
2. Using contactless technology and PIN
3. Using contactless technology without PIN
4. Don’t know
If answer to QA_7a is option 4, ask QA_7aii.
QA_7aii. How was the mobile phone payment carried out?
1. Contactless using a mobile phone at a payment terminal
2. Mobile payment using an App
3. Don’t know
If answer to QA_7a is option 1, ask QA_8a.
QA_8a. Were other payment methods such as cards accepted?
1. Yes

2. No
3. Don’t know
If answer to QA_7a is an option between 2 and 8, ask QA_8ai.
QA_8ai. Was cash accepted?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don’t know
If reported an amount in QA_5a, ask again all the questions from QA_5a to
QA_8ai for the seven remaining payment methods. Otherwise, move to QA_9a.
QA_9a. Based on all your cash transactions, at the end of the day you
should have had € [INSERT AMOUNT]. Is this the amount you had at the
end of the day?
1. Yes, exactly
2. Yes, but it differs by a few cents
3. Yes, but it differs by a few euros
4. No
5. Don’t know
If answer to QA_9a is option 4, ask QA_9b.
QA_9b. What was the amount you had at the end of the day?
€ ___ ___. __ __
Don’t know
Diary Module B
Online payments
Please report any online payments you made on [INSERT DAY]. If you made any
telephone or mail order payments, please also report them here.

QB_1. Did you make any purchases via the internet, over the telephone,
or by mail order on [INSERT DAY]? Examples include purchases of
electronic goods, clothes, hotel bookings or tickets.
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don’t know
If answer to QB_1 is option 1, ask QB_2. Otherwise, move to Module C:

Recurring Payments.
QB_2. What was your first purchase on [INSERT DAY]?
1. Fashion or sports goods (e.g. clothes, sports gear)
2. Electronic goods or household appliances (e.g. laptop, washing machine)
3. Food and daily supplies (e.g. pizza delivery, supermarket delivery)
4. Medicine
5. Media, games or entertainment (e.g. e-books, games, music)
6. Charitable donations (e.g. church, Red Cross, crowdfunding platforms)
7. Travel and accommodation
8. Furniture and other household items
9. Tickets for events and attractions (e.g. concerts, theme parks)
10. Other
11. Don’t know
QB_3. What was the amount of this first payment in euro?
€ ___ ___. __ __
Don’t know
QB_4. How did you pay for this purchase?
1. Credit card
2. Debit card
3. PayPal

4. Other online payment method (e.g. Sofort, iDEAL, Klarna, Afterpay)
5. Direct debit
6. Credit transfer
7. Cash
8. A gift card or voucher / loyalty points (e.g. Amazon or iTunes gift card)
10. Crypto-assets (virtual currencies, e.g. Bitcoin, Ethereum)
11. Other
12. Don’t know
All the questions in module B are repeated for seven more online payments.
Diary Module C
Bill payments
Now we would like to ask you about bill payments you have made in the last seven
days. By bill payments we mean recurring payments (e.g. rent, utilities, subscriptions)
or payments of invoices (e.g. medical bills or plumbing bills). For most bill payments
there is an accompanying paper or digital invoice.
QC_1. Did you PERSONALLY make a bill payment in the last seven
days?
1. Yes, and in your household you normally make all of these payments
2. Yes, and in your household you make some of these payments
3. No
4. Don’t know
If answer to QC_1 is option 3 or 4, ask QQ_A2.
QC_2. What was this payment for?
1. Rent or mortgage
2. Utilities (e.g. gas, electricity, water)
3. Insurance (e.g. health, car, home)

4. Telephone and internet bills
5. Taxes and public charges (e.g. to local authorities)
6. Subscriptions (e.g. magazines, sports club, streaming TV)
7. Medical expenses
8. Tuition fees
9. Services in and around the house (e.g. plumbing, painting or decorating)
10. Charitable donations (e.g. church, Red Cross)
11. Other services
12. Don’t know
QC_3. How much did you pay?
€ ___ ___. __ __
Don’t know
QC_4. How did you pay?
1. Debit card
2. Credit card
3. Direct debit
4. Credit transfer
6. Cash
7. Other
8. Don’t know
All the questions in module C are repeated for seven more bill payments.

Accompanying questionnaire
QQ_a1. Which of the following payment methods do you currently have

access to?
1. Debit or credit card without contactless technology
2. Debit or credit card with contactless technology
4. Credit transfer (i.e. a payment made by you, when visiting a bank branch or using
your online banking)
5. Direct debit (i.e. payment automatically deducted from your bank account)
6. Internet payment methods (e.g. PayPal)
7. Mobile payment app (e.g. Apple Pay)
8. Crypto-assets (e.g. virtual currencies, such as Bitcoin, Ethereum)
9. Other
10. None
11. Don’t know
QQ_a2. When you need to withdraw cash, how easy or difficult do you
usually find it to get to an ATM or a bank?
1. Very easy
2. Fairly easy
3. Fairly difficult
4. Very difficult
5. Don’t know
QQ_a3. If you were offered various payment methods in a shop, what

would be your preference?
1. Cash
2. Card or other cashless payment
3. You have no clear preference between a cash and a non-cash payment

4. Don’t know
QQ_a4. How important is it for you to have the option of using cash?
Give your answer on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means not important at all and 10
means very important.
___ ___
Don’t know
QQ_a5. How do you make each of the following recurring payments?
If you use more than one payment method for a category, please select the one you
use most often.
Rent or mortgage:
1. Cash
2. Payment card
3. Automatically via direct debit or standing order
4. Credit transfer
5. Other (e.g. PayPal)
6. You do not make this payment
7. Don’t know
Electricity bill:
1. Cash
2. Payment card
4. Credit transfer
7. Don’t know

Telephone bill:
1. Cash
2. Payment card
4. Credit transfer
7. Don’t know
QQ_a6. In the last month, have you withdrawn a larger than usual
amount from an ATM or bank counter, for example to make an
expensive purchase or to put aside for later?
If you have withdrawn a larger than usual amount more than once, please report the
total value.
1. Yes, €250 or less
2. Yes, between €250 and €500
3. Yes, between €500 and €1,000
4. Yes, between €1,000 and €2,500
5. Yes, between €2,500 and €5,000
6. Yes, more than €5,000
7. No
8. Don’t know
QQ_a7. In the last 12 months, have you had a €500, €200 or €100
banknote in your possession?
1. Yes, a €500 banknote
4. No
5. Don’t know

QQ_a8. How much of your regular income (e.g. wages, pensions or
allowances) do you receive in cash?
1. None
2. Up to one-quarter
3. Between one-quarter and one-half
4. Half of your regular income is in cash
5. Between one-half and three-quarters
6. More than three-quarters
7. Don’t know
QQ_a9. Do you personally keep extra cash (e.g. to top up your wallet, as
a precautionary reserve or as an alternative way of saving) that is not in
your wallet, purse or pocket?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Prefer not to say
4. Don’t know
If answer to QQ_a9 is option 1, ask QQ_a10.
QQ_a10. Roughly how much cash do you keep at home or somewhere

else that is not in your wallet, purse or pocket?
1. €100 or less
2. Between €100 and €250
3. Between €250 and €500
4. Between €500 and €1,000
5. Between €1,000 and €5,000
6. Between €5,000 and €10,000
7. More than €10,000
8. Prefer not to say
9. Don’t know

Annex B
Euro area
Table B.1.1
General SPACE study info (without DE and NL)
Sample size 41,155
via telephone 20,039
via internet 20,158
via face to face interview 958
Reported payments Number Value
Payment transactions in sample 119,053 €9,149,958
of which POS and P2P 68,023 €1,780,543
of which online purchases 7,371 €519,595
of which bill payments 43,659 €6,849,820
Chart B.1.1
Access to payment instruments other than cash
Credit transfer 76%
Direct debit 75%
Internet payment methods 58%
Mobile phone 28%
Bank cheque 27%
Crypto assets 4%
Other 3%
None 2%
Don't know 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
POS (Point of Sale): is the place in which goods and services are sold and paid for, such as shops and restaurants as well as services
outside the home.
P2P (Person-to-person): includes all the payments made from a private individual to another private individual without intermediaries.
Remote payments: include payments made online, mail and telephone orders and bill payments. For these payments, Germany is
excluded from the calculation of the EA averages. Also, the value of bill payments is not included because the frequency at which the bill
has been paid is unknown, and therefore the value of the bill can refer to a single payment, a weekly, monthly or annual one.
Study on the payment attitudes of consumers in the euro area – Annex B 90

Table B.1.2
General SPACE study info
Average number and value of transaction
Euro area Euro area value of Euro area

Payment type number per day one transaction value per day
Payments at POS and P2P (EA19) 1.57 €25.55 €40.12
Cash 1.14 €16.92 €19.33
Non-cash 0.43 €48.56 €20.80
Online purchases (EA18 – without DE) 0.16 €66.86 €10.86
Bill payments (EA18 – without DE) 0.13 €160.83 €21.45
Average payments 1.87 €38.82 €72.43
Chart B.1.2
Share of payment instruments for POS and P2P transactions
Euro area (DE data from 2017)
Cash 73% Cash 48%
Cards 24% Cards 41%
Others 3% Others 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
outside the home.
Remote payments: include payments made online, mail and telephone orders and bill payments. For these payments, Germany is
excluded from the calculation of the EA averages. Also, the value of bill payments is not included because the frequency at which the bill
has been paid is unknown, and therefore the value of the bill can refer to a single payment, a weekly, monthly or annual one.

Chart B.1.3
Remote payments (left-panels) and opinions on payment instruments (right-panels)
Share of payment instruments Preferred payment instrument
for online transactions
(number)
Cash You have no clear preference
Cash 4% Card or other cashless Don't know
Euro area 26.6% 49.4% 23.7%

Gender
Other 10% Male 25.6% 50.7% 23.4%
Female 27.6% 48.1% 23.9%
Age
Credit transfer 10%
18-24 28.3% 48.3% 23.1%
25-39 22.2% 55.0% 22.6%
E-payment 40-54 23.4% 51.8% 24.6%
27%
solutions
55-64 28.5% 45.6% 25.7%
65+ 32.6% 44.2% 22.7%
Cards 49% Urban/Rural
Urban 23.9% 53.0% 22.9%
0% 50% 100% Rural 28.6% 46.5% 24.4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Share of payment instruments Importance of having the option to pay with cash
for online transactions (value)
Euro area (excluding Very important Relatively unimportant
Germany – 18 countries) Important Not important
Neutral Don't know
Euro area 32% 22% 21% 11% 13%

Cash 3%
Gender
Male 31% 23% 20% 12% 14%
Other 11% Female 34% 21% 22% 10% 12% 0.3%
Age
18-24 24% 30% 23% 12% 11%
Credit transfer 14% 25-39 26% 24% 23% 13% 14%
40-54 33% 21% 21% 11% 14%
E-payment 55-64 35% 22% 20% 10% 12%
24%
solutions
65+ 39% 18% 21% 9% 12% 0.5%
Urban/Rural
Cards 48% Urban 27% 23% 23% 11% 15%
Rural 37% 21% 20% 10% 11% 0.1%
0% 50% 100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Share of payment instruments Ease of access to cash withdrawals at an ATM or a bank

for bill payments (number)
Euro area (excluding Very easy Very difficult
Germany – 18 countries) Fairly easy Don't know/NA
Fairly difficult
Cash 11% Euro area 50% 39% 7%
Urban/Rural
Cards 18%
Urban 49% 40% 7%

Direct debit 41%
Rural 52% 38% 7%

Credit transfer 20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Others 10%
0% 50% 100%
See note from previous page.

Austria
Table B.2.1
General Information
Sample size 2,111
via internet 1,052
via telephone 1,059
Payment transaction in sample 6,898 €920,125
via POS and P2P 3,672 €140,799
via online purchases 525 €58,389
via bill payments 2,701 €720,937
Chart B.2.1

Credit transfer 91%
Direct debit 72%
Debit/credit card with contactless 70%
Internet payments methods 64%
Debit/credit card without contactless 58%
Mobile payment app 19%
Bank cheque 4%
Other 3%
Crypto assets 3%
None 1%
Don't know 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
outside the home.
Remote payments: include payments made online via internet, mail and telephone orders and bill payments. For these payments,
Germany is excluded from the calculation of the EA averages. Also, the value of bill payments is not included because the frequency at
which the bill has been paid is unknown, and therefore the value of the bill can refer to a single payment, a weekly, monthly or annual one.

Table B.2.2
Transaction per payment type per country
Country Euro area

Country value of one Country Euro area value of one Euro area
Payment type number per day transaction value per day number per day transaction value per day
Payments at
POS and P2P 1.74 €38.34 €66.70 1.57 €25.55 €40.12
Cash 1.37 €28.48 €38.96 1.14 €16.92 €19.33
Non-cash 0.37 €74.63 €27.74 0.43 €48.56 €20.80
Online
purchases 0.25 €111.29 €27.66 0.16 €66.86 €10.86
Bill payments 0.18 €266.88 €48.79 0.13 €160.83 €21.45
Average
payments 2.17 €65.94 €143.14 1.87 €38.82 €72.43
Chart B.2.2
Share of payment instruments at POS and P2P (number; left-panel; value; right-panel)
Austria
Euro area
19% 28%
Card Card
24% 41%
79% 58%
Cash Cash
73% 48%
2% 13%
Other Other
3% 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
outside the home.

Chart B.2.3
(number)
Austria Cash No clear preference
Euro area Card or other cashless payment Don't know
33% Euro area 27% 49% 24%

Card Austria 42% 35% 23%
49%
Gender
9% Male 39% 39% 22%
Cash
4% Female 46% 31% 24%
Age
18% 18-24 45% 38% 16%
Credit transfer
10% 25-39 40% 45% 16%
40-54 39% 35% 26%
E-payment 28% 55-64 45% 29% 26%
solutions 27% +65 47% 26% 27%
Urban/rural
13%
Other Urban 45% 31% 23%
10%
Rural 38% 40% 22%
0% 50% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Share of payment instruments Importance to have the option to pay in cash

Austria Very important Relatively unimportant
Euro area Important Not important
Neutral Don't know
27%
Card Euro area 32% 22% 21% 11% 13%
48%
Austria 53% 18% 13% 7% 9%
4% Gender
Cash Male 49% 21% 13% 7% 10%
3%
Female 58% 14% 13% 7% 7%
34% Age
Credit transfer
14% 18-24 32% 30% 18% 10% 10%
25-39 45% 21% 11% 11% 13%
E-payment 23% 40-54 57% 17% 13% 6% 7%
solutions 24% 55-64 61% 14% 13% 6% 6%
+65 61% 11% 13% 5% 9%
12% Urban/rural
Other
11% Rural 57% 18% 12% 8% 6%
Urban 49% 17% 14% 7% 13%
0% 50% 100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Share of payment instruments Ease to withdraw cash from an ATM or a bank

for bill transactions (number)
Austria Very easy Fairly difficult
Euro area Fairly easy Very difficult
Euro area 50% 39% 7%2%

11%
Card Austria 67% 26% 1%
5%
18%
Gender
8% Male 69% 26% 0%
4%
Cash
11% Female 66% 26% 6%1%
Age
39% 18-24 59% 34% 1%
5%
Credit transfer
20% 25-39 64% 29% 5%2%
40-54 67% 28% 0%
4%
37% 55-64 74% 21% 1%
4%
Direct debit
41% +65 70% 21% 7%1%
Urban/rural
5%
Other Rural 69% 27% 0%
3%
10%
Urban 65% 25% 7%2%
0% 25% 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Belgium
Table B.3.1
General Information
Sample size 3,032
via internet 1,519
via telephone 1,513
via POS and P2P 3,965 €128,818
Chart B.3.1

Credit transfer 90%
Direct debit 81%
Bank cheque 5%
Crypto assets 3%
Other 2%
None 0%
Don't know 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
outside the home.

Table B.3.2
Country Euro area

Payments at
POS and P2P 1.31 €32.49 €42.49 1.57 €25.55 €40.12
Cash 0.76 €18.66 €14.13 1.14 €16.92 €19.33
Non-cash 0.55 €51.50 €28.36 0.43 €48.56 €20.80
Online
purchases 0.20 €101.25 €20.68 0.16 €66.86 €10.86
Bill payments 0.20 €187.61 €37.39 0.13 €160.83 €21.45
Average
payments 1.71 €58.76 €100.56 1.87 €38.82 €72.43
Chart B.3.2
Belgium
Euro area
36% 52%
Card Card
24% 41%
58% 33%
Cash Cash
73% 48%
6% 15%
Other Other
3% 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
outside the home.

Chart B.3.3
(number)
Belgium Cash No clear preference
49% Euro area 27% 49% 24%

Card Belgium 10% 72% 17%
49%
Gender
3% Male 11% 72% 16%
Cash
4% Female 10% 73% 17%
Age
17% 18-24 16% 67% 16%
Credit transfer
10% 25-39 9% 74% 16%
40-54 7% 79% 13%
E-payment 20% 55-64 8% 72% 18%
solutions 27% +65 14% 65% 20%
Urban/rural
11%
10%
Rural 11% 72% 17%
0% 50% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Belgium Very important Relatively unimportant
Neutral Don't know
51%
Card Euro area 32% 22% 21% 11% 13%
48%
Belgium 16% 25% 23% 13% 21%
0% Gender
Cash Male 16% 28% 22% 12% 21%
3%
Female 16% 23% 24% 14% 22%
26% Age
Credit transfer
14% 18-24 16% 32% 23% 16% 12%
25-39 13% 22% 26% 13% 26%
E-payment 17% 40-54 13% 26% 21% 15% 25%
solutions 24% 55-64 17% 27% 22% 13% 21%
+65 23% 25% 23% 11% 17%
5% Urban/rural
Other
11% Urban 17% 25% 23% 14% 20%
Rural 16% 26% 23% 13% 22%
0% 50% 100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Belgium Very easy Fairly difficult
Euro area 50% 39% 7%2%

15%
Card Belgium 47% 38% 11% 4%
18%
Gender
3% Male 51% 38% 8% 2%
Cash
11% Female 43% 38% 14% 5%
Age
50% 18-24 37% 51% 11% 1%
Credit transfer
20% 25-39 42% 40% 14% 4%
40-54 48% 38% 11% 4%
26% 55-64 48% 33% 13% 5%
Direct debit
41% +65 54% 34% 7% 5%
Urban/rural
5%
Other Urban 46% 39% 10% 4%
10%
Rural 47% 37% 11% 4%
0% 50% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Cyprus
Table B.4.1
General Information
Sample size 508
face to face 508
via POS and P2P (3 days) 2,795 €68,593
via online purchases (3 days) 37 €1,992
via bill payments 387 €51,617
Chart B.4.1

Direct debit 38%
Other 19%
Bank cheque 14%
Credit transfer 12%
None 11%
Crypto assets 7%
Don't know 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
outside the home.

Table B.4.2
Country Euro area

Payments at
POS and P2P 1.83 €24.54 €45.01 1.57 €25.55 €40.12
Cash 1.52 €21.53 €32.72 1.14 €16.92 €19.33
Non-cash 0.31 €39.12 €12.28 0.43 €48.56 €20.80
Online
purchases 0.02 €53.20 €1.31 0.16 €66.86 €10.86
Bill payments 0.11 €133.52 €14.52 0.13 €160.83 €21.45
Average
payments 1.97 €30.92 €60.83 1.87 €38.82 €72.43
Chart B.4.2
Cyprus
Euro area
17% 27%
Card Card
24% 41%
83% 73%
Cash Cash
73% 48%
0% 0%
Other Other
3% 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
outside the home.
Chart B.4.3
(number)
Cyprus Cash No clear preference
46% Euro area 27% 49% 24%

Card Cyprus 48% 16% 37%
49%
Gender
5% Male 44% 14% 42%
Cash
4% Female 51% 17% 32%
Age
0% 18-24 47% 7% 46%
Credit transfer
10% 25-39 40% 17% 42%
40-54 38% 21% 41%
E-payment 47% 55-64 48% 21% 31%
solutions 27% +65 70% 9% 22%
Urban/rural
3%
10%
Rural 42% 27% 32%
0% 50% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Cyprus Very important Relatively unimportant
Neutral Don't know
40%
Card Euro area 32% 22% 21% 11% 13%
48%
Cyprus 68% 15% 10% 5%2%
19% Gender
Cash Male 69% 14% 12% 4%
1%
3%
Female 67% 16% 9% 5%2%
0% Age
Credit transfer
14% 18-24 64% 14% 22% 0%
1%
25-39 63% 19% 9% 7%2%
E-payment 37% 40-54 70% 12% 10% 5%3%
solutions 24% 55-64 73% 12% 7% 7%2%
+65 74% 14% 9% 3%
0%
4% Urban/rural
Other
11% Urban 48% 24% 15% 9% 3%
Rural 77% 10% 8% 3%
1%
0% 50% 100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Cyprus Very easy Fairly difficult
Euro area 50% 39% 7%2%

23%
Card Cyprus 72% 2%
11% 3%
18%
Gender
43% Male 75% 1%
12% 1%
Cash
11% Female 69% 10% 4%2%
Age
7% 18-24 66% 7% 7% 5%
Credit transfer
20% 25-39 83% 0%
12% 2%
40-54 74% 2%
10% 1%
25% 55-64 62% 16% 0%
2%
Direct debit
41% +65 62% 9% 2%4%
Urban/rural
1%
Other Urban 76% 1%
11% 2%
10%
Rural 69% 11% 3%3%
0% 25% 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Estonia
Table B.5.1
General Information
Sample size 3,023
via internet 1,523
via telephone 1,500
via POS and P2P 3,491 €73,946
Chart B.5.1

Credit transfer 87%
Other 3%
Bank cheque 1%
Crypto assets 1%
None 1%
Don't know 0%
Direct debit 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
outside the home.
Table B.5.2
Country Euro area

Payments at
POS and P2P 1.15 €21.18 €24.46 1.57 €25.55 €40.12
Cash 0.55 €18.33 €10.08 1.14 €16.92 €19.33
Non-cash 0.61 €23.77 €14.39 0.43 €48.56 €20.80
Online
purchases 0.23 €63.93 €14.44 0.16 €66.86 €10.86
Bill payments 0.16 €94.88 €15.55 0.13 €160.83 €21.45
Average
payments 1.54 €35.25 €54.45 1.87 €38.82 €72.43
Chart B.5.2
Estonia
Euro area
47% 49%
Card Card
24% 41%
48% 41%
Cash Cash
73% 48%
5% 10%
Other Other
3% 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
outside the home.
Chart B.5.3
(number)
Estonia Cash No clear preference
47% Euro area 27% 49% 24%

Card Estonia 13% 69% 17%
49%
Gender
2% Male 13% 68% 18%
Cash
4% Female 14% 70% 16%
Age
28% 18-24 7% 85% 8%
Credit transfer
10% 25-39 9% 73% 18%
40-54 11% 66% 23%
E-payment 16% 55-64 14% 71% 15%
solutions 27% +65 23% 62% 15%
Urban/rural
8%
10%
Rural 13% 71% 16%
0% 50% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Estonia Very important Relatively unimportant
Neutral Don't know
23%
Card Euro area 32% 22% 21% 11% 13%
48%
Estonia 23% 19% 22% 15% 21%
0% Gender
Cash Male 23% 19% 21% 15% 22%
3%
Female 24% 19% 23% 15% 19%
46% Age
Credit transfer
14% 18-24 10% 25% 15% 28% 22%
25-39 19% 20% 23% 15% 24%
E-payment 15% 40-54 26% 19% 22% 12% 20%
solutions 24% 55-64 25% 15% 22% 18% 21%
+65 30% 21% 22% 9% 18%
16% Urban/rural
Other
11% Urban 21% 19% 20% 17% 22%
Rural 25% 20% 23% 12% 20%
0% 50% 100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Estonia Very easy Fairly difficult
Euro area 50% 39% 7%2%

10%
Cards Estonia 62% 27% 8% 3%
18%
Gender
3% Male 61% 29% 7% 3%
Cash
11% Female 62% 26% 9% 2%
Age
81% 18-24 58% 31% 7% 4%
Credit transfers
20% 25-39 58% 28% 11% 2%
40-54 60% 30% 8% 3%
0% 55-64 67% 25% 7%1%
Direct debits
41% +65 65% 25% 6%4%
Urban/rural
6%
Others Urban 63% 28% 7%2%
10%
Rural 60% 27% 9% 3%
0% 50% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Spain
Table B.6.1
General Information
Sample size 4,157
via internet 2,060
via telephone 2,097
via POS and P2P 6,700 €124,118
Chart B.6.1

Direct debit 81%
Credit transfer 67%
Bank cheque 7%
Other 3%
Crypto assets 3%
None 2%
Don't know 1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
outside the home.
Table B.6.2
Country Euro area

Payments at
POS and P2P 1.61 €18.52 €29.86 1.57 €25.55 €40.12
Cash 1.34 €14.56 €19.57 1.14 €16.92 €19.33
Non-cash 0.27 €38.52 €10.28 0.43 €48.56 €20.80
Online
purchases 0.15 €50.41 €7.71 0.16 €66.86 €10.86
Bill payments 0.08 €138.01 €11.68 0.13 €160.83 €21.45
Average
payments 1.85 €26.63 €49.25 1.87 €38.82 €72.43
Chart B.6.2
Spain
Euro area
15% 28%
Card Card
24% 41%
83% 66%
Cash Cash
73% 48%
2% 7%
Other Other
3% 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
outside the home.
Chart B.6.3
(number)
Spain Cash No clear preference
59% Euro area 27% 49% 24%

Card Spain 26% 46% 27%
49%
Gender
E-payment 31% Male 24% 48% 27%
solutions 27% Female 28% 45% 27%
Age
2% 18-24 29% 49% 22%
Credit transfer
10% 25-39 21% 55% 24%
40-54 22% 50% 27%
5% 55-64 34% 36% 30%
Other
10% +65 31% 38% 30%
Urban/rural
2%
Cash Urban 28% 42% 30%
4%
Rural 26% 47% 27%
0% 50% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Spain Very important Relatively unimportant
Neutral Don't know
58%
Card Euro area 32% 22% 21% 11% 13%
48%
Spain 22% 21% 27% 10% 20%
30% Gender
E-payment
solutions Male 20% 22% 25% 11% 22%
24%
Female 23% 21% 28% 9% 19%
5% Age
Credit transfer
14% 18-24 19% 28% 33% 8% 13%
25-39 17% 22% 27% 12% 22%
5% 40-54 20% 21% 26% 10% 23%
Other
11% 55-64 25% 22% 26% 8% 19%
+65 27% 18% 25% 9% 20%
1% Urban/rural
Cash
3% Urban 22% 22% 26% 10% 20%
Rural 21% 18% 29% 10% 22%
0% 50% 100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Spain Very easy Fairly difficult
Euro area 50% 39% 7%2%

13%
Card Spain 50% 35% 9% 5%
18%
Gender
11% Male 52% 36% 8% 3%
Cash
11% Female 48% 34% 11% 6%
Age
8% 18-24 48% 43% 7%2%
Credit transfer
20% 25-39 44% 41% 11% 4%
40-54 50% 36% 11% 3%
65% 55-64 54% 28% 12% 3%
Direct debit
41% +65 53% 30% 5% 10%
Urban/rural
3%
Other Urban 50% 35% 10% 5%
10%
Rural 49% 37% 8% 5%
0% 50% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Finland
Table B.7.1
General Information
Sample size 3,023
via internet 1,514
via telephone 1,509
via POS and P2P 4,158 €115,380
Chart B.7.1

Credit transfer 94%
Other 6%
Crypto assets 2%
Bank cheque 1%
None 0%
Don't know 0%
Direct debit 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
outside the home.
Table B.7.2
Country Euro area

Payments at
POS and P2P 1.38 €27.75 €38.17 1.57 €25.55 €40.12
Cash 0.49 €20.88 €10.14 1.14 €16.92 €19.33
Non-cash 0.89 €31.49 €28.03 0.43 €48.56 €20.80
Online
purchases 0.15 €85.83 €13.09 0.16 €66.86 €10.86
Bill payments 0.20 €191.07 €37.51 0.13 €160.83 €21.45
Average
payments 1.72 €51.48 €88.77 1.87 €38.82 €72.43
Chart B.7.2
Finland
Euro area
58% 67%
Card Card
24% 41%
35% 27%
Cash Cash
73% 48%
7% 6%
Other Other
3% 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
outside the home.
Chart B.7.3
(number)
Finland Cash No clear preference
36% Euro area 27% 49% 24%

Card Finland 13% 75% 13%
49%
Gender
1% Male 17% 72% 11%
Cash
4% Female 9% 77% 14%
Age
29% 18-24 16% 70% 14%
Credit transfer
10% 25-39 6% 81% 13%
40-54 12% 77% 11%
E-payment 27% 55-64 12% 71% 17%
solutions 27% +65 18% 71% 11%
Urban/rural
6%
10%
Rural 12% 77% 12%
0% 50% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Finland Very important Relatively unimportant
Neutral Don't know
31%
Card Euro area 32% 22% 21% 11% 13%
48%
Finland 29% 29% 16% 13% 13%
4% Gender
Cash Male 30% 28% 16% 14% 13%
3%
Female 27% 30% 15% 13% 14%
36% Age
Credit transfer
14% 18-24 22% 33% 16% 16% 13%
25-39 26% 27% 16% 17% 14%
E-payment 24% 40-54 27% 27% 17% 14% 15%
solutions 24% 55-64 33% 32% 10% 12% 13%
+65 32% 29% 18% 10% 11%
5% Urban/rural
Other
11% Urban 29% 26% 16% 15% 15%
Rural 29% 31% 16% 13% 12%
0% 50% 100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Finland Very easy Fairly difficult
Euro area 50% 39% 7%2%

8%
Cards Finland 48% 44% 6%1%
18%
Gender
1% Male 51% 42% 6%1%
Cash
11% Female 46% 45% 7%1%
Age
88% 18-24 50% 42% 6%2%
Credit transfers
20% 25-39 47% 46% 7%0%
40-54 40% 51% 8%1%
0% 55-64 51% 43% 2%
4%
Direct debits
41% +65 56% 35% 6%2%
Urban/rural
3%
10%
Rural 50% 41% 7%1%
0% 50% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
France
Table B.8.1
General Information
Sample size 4,489
via internet 2,212
via telephone 2,277
Payment transaction in sample 11,340 €1,129,055
via POS and P2P 5,755 €172,948
Chart B.8.1

Direct debit 85%
Bank cheque 84%
Credit transfer 80%
Other 5%
Crypto assets 2%
None 0%
Don't know 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
outside the home.
Table B.8.2
Country Euro area

Payments at
POS and P2P 1.28 €30.05 €38.53 1.57 €25.55 €40.12
Cash 0.75 €12.95 €9.75 1.14 €16.92 €19.33
Non-cash 0.53 €54.36 €28.78 0.43 €48.56 €20.80
Online
purchases 0.18 €66.55 €11.99 0.16 €66.86 €10.86
Bill payments 0.15 €188.89 €28.71 0.13 €160.83 €21.45
Average
payments 1.61 €49.08 €79.23 1.87 €38.82 €72.43
Chart B.8.2
France
Euro area
35% 57%
Card Card
24% 41%
59% 25%
Cash Cash
73% 48%
6% 18%
Other Other
3% 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
outside the home.
Chart B.8.3
(number)
France Cash No clear preference
49% Euro area 27% 49% 24%

Card France 9% 69% 22%
49%
Gender
3% Male 10% 68% 21%
Cash
4% Female 8% 69% 22%
Age
4% 18-24 13% 68% 19%
Credit transfer
10% 25-39 11% 71% 18%
40-54 9% 69% 22%
E-payment 27% 55-64 7% 66% 27%
solutions 27% +65 8% 68% 23%
Urban/rural
17%
10%
Rural 10% 71% 19%
0% 50% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

France Very important Relatively unimportant
Neutral Don't know
45%
Card Euro area 32% 22% 21% 11% 13%
48%
France 19% 25% 25% 14% 16%
3% Gender
Cash Male 19% 25% 25% 14% 17%
3%
Female 19% 25% 26% 14% 16%
12% Age
Credit transfer
14% 18-24 17% 29% 22% 15% 17%
25-39 17% 24% 26% 17% 16%
E-payment 26% 40-54 18% 26% 26% 13% 17%
solutions 24% 55-64 19% 26% 24% 15% 17%
+65 22% 22% 25% 14% 16%
15% Urban/rural
Other
11% Urban 19% 25% 24% 14% 17%
Rural 19% 25% 26% 15% 15%
0% 50% 100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

France Very easy Fairly difficult
Euro area 50% 39% 7%2%

16%
Card France 51% 41% 6%2%
18%
Gender
3% Male 53% 40% 5%2%
Cash
11% Female 49% 42% 7%2%
Age
7% 18-24 34% 56% 8% 2%
Credit transfer
20% 25-39 45% 47% 7%1%
40-54 50% 42% 6%2%
54% 55-64 60% 33% 6%1%
Direct debit
41% +65 59% 34% 4%2%
Urban/rural
19%
Other Urban 51% 41% 7%2%
10%
Rural 51% 41% 5%2%
0% 50% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Greece
Table B.9.1
General Information
Sample size 2,109
via internet 1,054
via telephone 1,055
via POS and P2P 4,086 €118,977
Chart B.9.1

Direct debit 42%
Credit transfer 35%
None 10%
Other 3%
Bank cheque 3%
Crypto assets 2%
Don't know 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
outside the home.
Table B.9.2
Country Euro area

Payments at
1.94 €29.12 €56.41 1.57 €25.55 €40.12
POS and P2P
Cash 1.56 €22.39 €34.92 1.14 €16.92 €19.33
Non-cash 0.38 €56.88 €21.50 0.43 €48.56 €20.80
Online
0.15 €46.51 €7.20 0.16 €66.86 €10.86
purchases
Bill payments 0.13 €114.08 €15.13 0.13 €160.83 €21.45
Average
2.22 €35.40 €78.75 1.87 €38.82 €72.43
payments
Chart B.9.2
Greece
Euro area
18% 29%
Card Card
24% 41%
80% 62%
Cash Cash
73% 48%
1% 9%
Other Other
3% 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
outside the home.
Chart B.9.3
(number)
Greece Cash No clear preference
58% Euro area 27% 49% 24%

Card Greece 25% 47% 27%
49%
Gender
5% Male 26% 46% 28%
Cash
4% Female 24% 49% 27%
Age
6% 18-24 28% 37% 35%
Credit transfer
10% 25-39 19% 51% 30%
40-54 26% 44% 30%
E-payment 21% 55-64 24% 47% 29%
solutions 27% +65 30% 51% 19%
Urban/rural
10%
10%
Rural 21% 51% 28%
0% 50% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Greece Very important Relatively unimportant
Neutral Don't know
53%
Card Euro area 32% 22% 21% 11% 13%
48%
Greece 33% 22% 22% 9% 14%
3% Gender
Cash Male 33% 22% 21% 10% 15%
3%
Female 33% 21% 23% 9% 13%
10% Age
Credit transfer
14% 18-24 26% 37% 21% 6% 11%
25-39 30% 27% 22% 10% 12%
E-payment 26% 40-54 40% 17% 23% 11% 9%
solutions 24% 55-64 25% 21% 29% 9% 16%
+65 35% 17% 18% 8% 20%
8% Urban/rural
Other
11% Urban 34% 21% 23% 9% 13%
Rural 31% 22% 21% 9% 15%
0% 50% 100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Greece Very easy Fairly difficult
Euro area 50% 39% 7%2%

44%
Card Greece 52% 29% 11% 6%
18%
Gender
24% Male 55% 32% 8% 3%
Cash
11% Female 49% 26% 13% 9%
Age
19% 18-24 37% 49% 11% 2%
Credit transfer
20% 25-39 47% 33% 14% 5%
40-54 50% 36% 9% 5%
10% 55-64 62% 17% 11% 6%
Direct debit
41% +65 59% 18% 10% 10%
Urban/rural
2%
Other Urban 51% 31% 11% 6%
10%
Rural 53% 27% 10% 6%
0% 25% 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Ireland
Table B.10.1
General Information
Sample size 2,088
via internet 1,042
via telephone 1,046
via POS and P2P 3,965 €123,783
Chart B.10.1

Direct debit 78%
Credit transfer 53%
Bank cheque 33%
Other 6%
Crypto assets 5%
None 2%
Don't know 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
outside the home.
Table B.10.2
Country Euro area

Payments at
POS and P2P 1.90 €31.22 €59.28 1.57 €25.55 €40.12
Cash 1.32 €25.59 €33.83 1.14 €16.92 €19.33
Non-cash 0.58 €44.11 €25.46 0.43 €48.56 €20.80
Online
purchases 0.22 €84.23 €18.83 0.16 €66.86 €10.86
Bill payments 0.15 €156.57 €23.47 0.13 €160.83 €21.45
Average
payments 2.27 €44.70 €101.59 1.87 €38.82 €72.43
Chart B.10.2
Ireland
Euro area
27% 33%
Card Card
24% 41%
70% 57%
Cash Cash
73% 48%
4% 10%
Other Other
3% 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
outside the home.
Chart B.10.3
(number)
Ireland Cash No clear preference
62% Euro area 27% 49% 24%

Card Ireland 30% 45% 24%
49%
Gender
7% Male 32% 44% 23%
Cash
4% Female 28% 47% 25%
Age
2% 18-24 38% 44% 17%
Credit transfer
10% 25-39 25% 57% 18%
40-54 25% 48% 27%
E-payment 23% 55-64 41% 31% 27%
solutions 27% +65 34% 35% 30%
Urban/rural
7%
10%
Rural 29% 48% 23%
0% 50% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Ireland Very important Relatively unimportant
Neutral Don't know
60%
Card Euro area 32% 22% 21% 11% 13%
48%
Ireland 33% 23% 19% 12% 14%
8% Gender
Cash Male 34% 24% 18% 11% 13%
3%
Female 32% 21% 20% 12% 15%
10% Age
Credit transfer
14% 18-24 21% 29% 17% 18% 15%
25-39 25% 21% 22% 14% 18%
E-payment 16% 40-54 32% 22% 17% 15% 15%
solutions 24% 55-64 49% 25% 15% 6% 5%
+65 43% 19% 19% 3% 16%
7% Urban/rural
Other
11% Urban 30% 24% 18% 12% 15%
Rural 35% 21% 20% 11% 14%
0% 50% 100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Ireland Very easy Fairly difficult
Euro area 50% 39% 7%2%

28%
Card Ireland 48% 42% 6%2%
18%
Gender
14% Male 50% 41% 6%2%
Cash
11% Female 46% 44% 7%2%
Age
7% 18-24 44% 48% 5%1%
Credit transfer
20% 25-39 41% 50% 6%2%
40-54 45% 44% 7% 2%
43% 55-64 56% 33% 9% 2%
Direct debit
41% +65 59% 31% 4%3%
Urban/rural
7%
5%
10%
Rural 45% 43% 8% 3%
0% 25% 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Italy
Table B.11.1
General Information
Sample size 4,199
via internet 2,099
via telephone 2,100
via POS and P2P 7,978 €183,516
Chart B.11.1

Credit transfer 68%
Direct debit 58%
Bank cheque 44%
None 4%
Other 3%
Crypto assets 2%
Don't know 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
outside the home.
Table B.11.2
Country Euro area

Payments at
POS and P2P 1.90 €23.00 €43.70 1.57 €25.55 €40.12
Cash 1.56 €16.18 €25.26 1.14 €16.92 €19.33
Non-cash 0.34 €54.50 €18.45 0.43 €48.56 €20.80
Online
purchases 0.14 €64.64 €8.78 0.16 €66.86 €10.86
Bill payments 0.08 €140.29 €11.11 0.13 €160.83 €21.45
Average
payments 2.11 €30.07 €63.59 1.87 €38.82 €72.43
Chart B.11.2
Italy
Euro area
16% 32%
Card Card
24% 41%
82% 58%
Cash Cash
73% 48%
2% 10%
Other Other
3% 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
outside the home.
Chart B.11.3
(number)
Italy Cash No clear preference
54% Euro area 27% 49% 24%

Card Italy 28% 47% 25%
49%
Gender
6% Male 25% 50% 25%
Cash
4% Female 32% 44% 25%
Age
3% 18-24 40% 38% 22%
Credit transfer
10% 25-39 27% 50% 23%
40-54 22% 54% 24%
E-payment 28% 55-64 22% 47% 31%
solutions 27% +65 35% 40% 25%
Urban/rural
9%
10%
Rural 28% 48% 24%
0% 50% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Italy Very important Relatively unimportant
Neutral Don't know
59%
Card Euro area 32% 22% 21% 11% 13%
48%
Italy 27% 25% 24% 13% 11%
4% Gender
Cash Male 23% 25% 23% 14% 14%
3%
Female 31% 25% 25% 11% 8%
5% Age
Credit transfer
14% 18-24 20% 38% 25% 13% 5%
25-39 23% 30% 24% 13% 10%
E-payment 24% 40-54 25% 22% 24% 13% 15%
solutions 24% 55-64 24% 21% 24% 16% 13%
+65 37% 20% 25% 11% 8%
8% Urban/rural
Other
11% Urban 26% 25% 25% 13% 11%
Rural 31% 25% 22% 13% 9%
0% 50% 100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Italy Very easy Fairly difficult
Euro area 50% 39% 7%2%

26%
Card Italy 42% 47% 5%2%
18%
Gender
30% Male 44% 46% 5%1%
Cash
11% Female 39% 48% 4%2%
Age
9% 18-24 32% 60% 0%
4%
Credit transfer
20% 25-39 38% 51% 7%3%
40-54 44% 46% 5%1%
28% 55-64 44% 45% 4%2%
Direct debit
41% +65 45% 42% 2%
2%
Urban/rural
8%
10%
Rural 40% 48% 2%
4%
0% 25% 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Lithuania
Table B.12.1
General Information
Sample size 2,164
via internet 1,108
via telephone 1,056
via POS and P2P 3,181 €69,985
Chart B.12.1

Credit transfer 60%
Other 10%
None 4%
Bank cheque 3%
Crypto assets 2%
Don't know 0%
Direct debit 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
outside the home.
Table B.12.2
Country Euro area

Payments at
POS and P2P 1.47 €22.00 €32.34 1.57 €25.55 €40.12
Cash 1.00 €20.01 €20.00 1.14 €16.92 €19.33
Non-cash 0.47 €26.26 €12.34 0.43 €48.56 €20.80
Online
purchases 0.23 €53.64 €12.19 0.16 €66.86 €10.86
Bill payments 0.16 €71.89 €11.60 0.13 €160.83 €21.45
Average
payments 1.86 €30.20 €56.12 1.87 €38.82 €72.43
Chart B.12.2
Lithuania
Euro area
29% 30%
Card Card
24% 41%
68% 62%
Cash Cash
73% 48%
3% 8%
Other Other
3% 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
outside the home.
Chart B.12.3
(number)
Lithuania Cash No clear preference
42% Euro area 27% 49% 24%

Card Lithuania 30% 51% 18%
49%
Gender
7% Male 28% 53% 18%
Cash
4% Female 32% 50% 18%
Age
19% 18-24 28% 56% 16%
Credit transfer
10% 25-39 22% 64% 14%
40-54 23% 54% 21%
E-payment 24% 55-64 35% 42% 23%
solutions 27% +65 43% 40% 15%
Urban/rural
9%
10%
Rural 25% 57% 18%
0% 50% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Lithuania Very important Relatively unimportant
Neutral Don't know
31%
Card Euro area 32% 22% 21% 11% 13%
48%
Lithuania 34% 15% 23% 9% 18%
4% Gender
Cash Male 32% 15% 22% 9% 20%
3%
Female 36% 15% 23% 8% 16%
28% Age
Credit transfer
14% 18-24 27% 22% 24% 14% 14%
25-39 25% 19% 21% 12% 23%
E-payment 29% 40-54 36% 14% 21% 9% 20%
solutions 24% 55-64 34% 13% 27% 7% 17%
+65 44% 11% 23% 5% 14%
8% Urban/rural
Other
11% Urban 30% 16% 23% 10% 20%
Rural 39% 14% 23% 7% 15%
0% 50% 100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Lithuania Very easy Fairly difficult
Euro area 50% 39% 7%2%

23%
Cards Lithuania 43% 37% 12% 4%
18%
Gender
15% Male 45% 37% 12% 3%
Cash
11% Female 42% 37% 12% 5%
Age
43% 18-24 53% 38% 8%1%
Credit transfers
20% 25-39 36% 43% 14% 6%
40-54 42% 38% 14% 4%
0% 55-64 47% 34% 14% 2%
Direct debits
41% +65 45% 32% 8% 6%
Urban/rural
18%
Others Urban 46% 38% 11% 3%
10%
Rural 40% 36% 14% 6%
0% 25% 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Luxembourg
Table B.13.1
General Information
Sample size 1,367
via internet 752
via telephone 615
Payment transaction in sample 4,796 €1,115,675
via POS and P2P 2,294 €123,343
Chart B.13.1

Credit transfer 89%
Direct debit 79%
Bank cheque 9%
Other 5%
Crypto assets 4%
None 0%
Don't know 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
outside the home.
Table B.13.2
Country Euro area

Payments at
POS and P2P 1.68 €53.77 €90.23 1.57 €25.55 €40.12
Cash 0.91 €24.15 €21.98 1.14 €16.92 €19.33
Non-cash 0.77 €88.85 €68.25 0.43 €48.56 €20.80
Online
purchases 0.25 €109.72 €27.87 0.16 €66.86 €10.86
Bill payments 0.23 €442.91 €99.72 0.13 €160.83 €21.45
Average
payments 2.16 €100.97 €217.82 1.87 €38.82 €72.43
Chart B.13.2
Luxembourg
Euro area
39% 56%
Card Card
24% 41%
54% 24%
Cash Cash
73% 48%
7% 20%
Other Other
3% 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
outside the home.
Chart B.13.3
(number)
Luxembourg Cash No clear preference
61% Euro area 27% 49% 24%

Card Luxembourg 13% 67% 20%
49%
Gender
1% Male 18% 64% 18%
Cash
4% Female 10% 69% 22%
Age
9% 18-24 30% 45% 25%
Credit transfer
10% 25-39 12% 73% 15%
40-54 14% 68% 17%
E-payment 25% 55-64 5% 66% 28%
solutions 27% +65 14% 67% 19%
Urban/rural
4%
10%
Rural 21% 58% 21%
0% 50% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Luxembourg Very important Relatively unimportant
Neutral Don't know
56%
Card Euro area 32% 22% 21% 11% 13%
48%
Luxembourg 23% 22% 22% 13% 19%
0% Gender
Cash Male 20% 29% 21% 11% 19%
3%
Female 25% 16% 23% 15% 20%
15% Age
Credit transfer
14% 18-24 17% 41% 20% 7% 14%
25-39 21% 25% 18% 13% 23%
E-payment 28% 40-54 29% 17% 20% 12% 23%
solutions 24% 55-64 23% 15% 33% 17% 12%
+65 13% 31% 20% 13% 17%
1% Urban/rural
Other
11% Urban 22% 23% 27% 10% 16%
Rural 23% 22% 21% 14% 20%
0% 50% 100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Luxembourg Very easy Fairly difficult
Euro area 50% 39% 7%2%

13%
Card Luxembourg 57% 35% 6%1%
18%
Gender
5% Male 57% 37% 0%
5%
Cash
11% Female 58% 32% 8%1%
Age
46% 18-24 48% 43% 7%1%
Credit transfer
20% 25-39 50% 38% 12% 1%
40-54 52% 41% 0%
6%
27% 55-64 73% 23% 2%
3%
Direct debit
41% +65 68% 25% 0%
2%
Urban/rural
9%
10%
Rural 56% 37% 6%0%
0% 25% 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Latvia
Table B.14.1
General Information
Sample size 2,144
via internet 1,085
via telephone 1,059
via POS and P2P 3,542 €61,783
Chart B.14.1

Credit transfer 79%
None 5%
Other 4%
Crypto assets 2%
Bank cheque 1%
Don't know 0%
Direct debit 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
outside the home.
Table B.14.2
Country Euro area

Payments at
POS and P2P 1.65 €17.44 €28.82 1.57 €25.55 €40.12
Cash 1.12 €16.18 €18.10 1.14 €16.92 €19.33
Non-cash 0.53 €20.09 €10.72 0.43 €48.56 €20.80
Online
purchases 0.13 €39.51 €5.17 0.16 €66.86 €10.86
Bill payments 0.17 €59.27 €9.93 0.13 €160.83 €21.45
Average
payments 1.95 €22.51 €43.92 1.87 €38.82 €72.43
Chart B.14.2
Latvia
Euro area
27% 25%
Card Card
24% 41%
68% 63%
Cash Cash
73% 48%
5% 12%
Other Other
3% 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
outside the home.
Chart B.14.3
(number)
Latvia Cash No clear preference
50% Euro area 27% 49% 24%

Card Latvia 29% 46% 25%
49%
Gnder
2% Male 28% 47% 25%
Cash
4% Female 29% 46% 24%
Age
29% 18-24 28% 53% 19%
Credit transfer
10% 25-39 18% 53% 29%
40-54 25% 46% 28%
E-payment 12% 55-64 30% 42% 28%
solutions 27% +65 42% 41% 17%
Urban/rural
6%
10%
Rural 23% 51% 26%
0% 50% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Latvia Very important Relatively unimportant
Neutral Don't know
58%
Card Euro area 32% 22% 21% 11% 13%
48%
Latvia 28% 17% 28% 12% 15%
1% Gender
Cash Male 26% 19% 24% 13% 18%
3%
Female 29% 16% 30% 11% 13%
34% Age
Credit transfer
14% 18-24 18% 28% 21% 15% 18%
25-39 25% 21% 26% 14% 15%
E-payment 5% 40-54 27% 16% 28% 11% 18%
solutions 24% 55-64 29% 16% 31% 10% 15%
+65 35% 13% 28% 11% 13%
3% Urban/rural
Other
11% Urban 26% 16% 28% 12% 18%
Rural 29% 19% 27% 12% 13%
0% 50% 100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Latvia Very easy Fairly difficult
Euro area 50% 39% 7%2%

14%
Cards Latvia 42% 44% 9% 3%
18%
Gender
10% Male 42% 48% 6%3%
Cash
11% Female 43% 41% 11% 3%
Age
71% 18-24 42% 52% 6%0%
Credit transfers
20% 25-39 43% 45% 7% 4%
40-54 40% 48% 9% 2%
0% 55-64 39% 47% 9% 3%
Direct debits
41% +65 47% 34% 11% 4%
Urban/rural
5%
10%
Rural 41% 42% 10% 4%
0% 25% 50% 75% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Malta
Table B.15.1
General Information
Sample size 450
face to face 450
via POS and P2P (3 days) 1,716 €46,685
via online purchases (3 days) 80 €6,435
via bill payments 313 €60,842
Chart B.15.1

Bank cheque 57%
Credit transfer 49%
Direct debit 45%
None 11%
Other 1%
Crypto assets 0%
Don't know 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
outside the home.
Table B.15.2
Country Euro area

Payments at
POS and P2P 1.27 €27.20 €34.58 1.57 €25.55 €40.12
Cash 1.13 €22.36 €25.15 1.14 €16.92 €19.33
Non-cash 0.15 €64.49 €9.43 0.43 €48.56 €20.80
Online
purchases 0.06 €80.82 €4.77 0.16 €66.86 €10.86
Bill payments 0.10 €194.34 €19.31 0.13 €160.83 €21.45
Average
payments 1.43 €41.03 €58.66 1.87 €38.82 €72.43
Chart B.15.2
Malta
Euro area
10% 20%
Card Card
24% 41%
88% 73%
Cash Cash
73% 48%
2% 7%
Other Other
3% 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
outside the home.
Chart B.15.3
(number)
Malta Cash No clear preference
57% Euro area 27% 49% 24%

Card Malta 37% 33% 29%
49%
Gender
1% Male 38% 29% 33%
Cash
4% Female 36% 37% 26%
Age
1% 18-24 28% 40% 32%
Credit transfer
10% 25-39 32% 38% 30%
40-54 31% 34% 34%
E-payment 35% 55-64 41% 31% 28%
solutions 27% +65 52% 23% 23%
Urban/rural
6%
10%
Rural 35% 27% 36%
0% 50% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Malta Very important Relatively unimportant
Neutral Don't know
72%
Card Euro area 32% 22% 21% 11% 13%
48%
Malta 47% 21% 19% 6% 7%
0% Gender
Cash Male 47% 18% 22% 8% 5%
3%
Female 47% 23% 17% 4% 9%
1% Age
Credit transfer
14% 18-24 43% 23% 23% 8% 2%
25-39 41% 26% 17% 7% 9%
E-payment 21% 40-54 36% 19% 27% 10% 7%
solutions 24% 55-64 50% 22% 22% 5%
1%
+65 66% 13% 11% 2% 8%
6% Urban/rural
Other
11% Urban 51% 17% 20% 4% 8%
Rural 46% 22% 19% 7% 6%
0% 50% 100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Malta Very easy Fairly difficult
Euro area 50% 39% 7%2%

21%
Card Malta 46% 28% 12% 9%
18%
Gender
41% Male 53% 22% 10% 10%
Cash
11% Female 39% 34% 14% 9%
Age
15% 18-24 44% 37% 4% 15%
Credit transfer
20% 25-39 52% 26% 14% 6%
40-54 40% 35% 9% 12%
13% 55-64 46% 29% 7% 10%
Direct debit
41% +65 47% 19% 19% 8%
Urban/rural
10%
Other Urban 53% 31% 6% 4%
10%
Rural 44% 27% 13% 11%
0% 25% 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Portugal
Table B.16.1
General Information
Sample size 2,127
via internet 1,075
via telephone 1,052
via POS and P2P 4,083 €62,533
Chart B.16.1

Direct debit 76%
Credit transfer 50%
Bank cheque 29%
Crypto assets 5%
None 3%
Other 3%
Don't know 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
outside the home.
Table B.16.2
Country Euro area

Payments at
POS and P2P 1.92 €15.31 €29.40 1.57 €25.55 €40.12
Cash 1.56 €10.17 €15.90 1.14 €16.92 €19.33
Non-cash 0.36 €37.95 €13.50 0.43 €48.56 €20.80
Online
purchases 0.12 €51.96 €6.20 0.16 €66.86 €10.86
Bill payments 0.16 €101.52 €15.80 0.13 €160.83 €21.45
Average
payments 2.19 €23.42 €51.40 1.87 €38.82 €72.43
Chart B.16.2
Portugal
Euro area
15% 33%
Card Card
24% 41%
81% 54%
Cash Cash
73% 48%
3% 13%
Other Other
3% 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
outside the home.
Chart B.16.3
(number)
Portugal Cash No clear preference
38% Euro area 27% 49% 24%

Card Portugal 25% 51% 24%
49%
Gender
4% Male 25% 52% 23%
Cash
4% Female 25% 50% 25%
Age
7% 18-24 32% 43% 25%
Credit transfer
10% 25-39 23% 53% 24%
40-54 20% 55% 24%
E-payment 46% 55-64 29% 51% 18%
solutions 27% +65 27% 46% 27%
Urban/rural
4%
10%
Rural 22% 53% 24%
0% 50% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Portugal Very important Relatively unimportant
Neutral Don't know
61%
Card Euro area 32% 22% 21% 11% 13%
48%
Portugal 26% 23% 30% 9% 12%
2% Gender
Cash Male 20% 24% 34% 9% 12%
3%
Female 31% 21% 26% 8% 12%
8% Age
Credit transfer
14% 18-24 28% 24% 31% 10% 6%
25-39 25% 22% 33% 8% 12%
E-payment 25% 40-54 26% 22% 28% 11% 14%
solutions 24% 55-64 28% 24% 29% 6% 11%
+65 25% 24% 28% 8% 13%
4% Urban/rural
Other
11% Urban 25% 21% 30% 9% 14%
Rural 28% 25% 30% 7% 10%
0% 50% 100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Portugal Very easy Fairly difficult
Euro area 50% 39% 7%2%

35%
Card Portugal 54% 37% 6%2%
18%
Gender
16% Male 56% 39% 1%
3%
Cash
11% Female 52% 36% 8% 3%
Age
13% 18-24 42% 50% 7%1%
Credit transfer
20% 25-39 53% 42% 1%
4%
40-54 54% 38% 4%3%
29% 55-64 56% 34% 8%0%
Direct debit
41% +65 58% 29% 9% 2%
Urban/rural
6%
10%
Rural 51% 40% 5%2%
0% 25% 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Slovenia
Table B.17.1
General Information
Sample size 2,075
via internet 1,026
via telephone 1,049
via POS and P2P 3,316 €85,236
Chart B.17.1

Direct debit 62%
Credit transfer 37%
Crypto assets 5%
Other 2%
Bank cheque 2%
None 1%
Don't know 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
outside the home.
Table B.17.2
Country Euro area

Payments at
POS and P2P 1.60 €25.70 €41.08 1.57 €25.55 €40.12
Cash 1.17 €22.10 €25.90 1.14 €16.92 €19.33
Non-cash 0.43 €35.60 €15.18 0.43 €48.56 €20.80
Online
purchases 0.19 €58.00 €11.00 0.16 €66.86 €10.86
Bill payments 0.20 €92.07 €18.58 0.13 €160.83 €21.45
Average
payments 1.99 €35.51 €70.66 1.87 €38.82 €72.43
Chart B.17.2
Slovenia
Euro area
24% 31%
Card Card
24% 41%
73% 63%
Cash Cash
73% 48%
3% 6%
Other Other
3% 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
outside the home.
Chart B.17.3
(number)
Slovenia Cash No clear preference
41% Euro area 27% 49% 24%

Card Slovenia 24% 48% 28%
49%
Gender
8% Male 27% 46% 26%
Cash
4% Female 21% 49% 30%
Age
6% 18-24 28% 47% 25%
Credit transfer
10% 25-39 22% 51% 26%
40-54 20% 52% 27%
E-payment 29% 55-64 23% 48% 29%
solutions 27% +65 30% 39% 32%
Urban/rural
16%
10%
Rural 20% 55% 26%
0% 50% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Slovenia Very important Relatively unimportant
Neutral Don't know
50%
Card Euro area 32% 22% 21% 11% 13%
48%
Slovenia 28% 16% 23% 11% 21%
5% Gender
Cash Male 28% 18% 23% 12% 19%
3%
Female 27% 15% 24% 10% 23%
10% Age
Credit transfer
14% 18-24 24% 20% 29% 12% 15%
25-39 22% 20% 21% 14% 23%
E-payment 19% 40-54 25% 14% 22% 12% 27%
solutions 24% 55-64 33% 13% 24% 7% 22%
+65 33% 16% 26% 9% 14%
17% Urban/rural
Other
11% Urban 23% 18% 21% 11% 27%
Rural 30% 16% 24% 11% 18%
0% 50% 100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Slovenia Very easy Fairly difficult
Euro area 50% 39% 7%2%

16%
Card Slovenia 65% 24% 7% 3%
18%
Gender
19% Male 67% 23% 5%4%
Cash
11% Female 63% 25% 9% 3%
Age
17% 18-24 64% 31% 1%
4%
Credit transfer
20% 25-39 61% 30% 7%2%
40-54 67% 26% 5%1%
34% 55-64 70% 17% 6% 4%
Direct debit
41% +65 62% 18% 9% 8%
Urban/rural
14%
10%
Rural 64% 24% 7% 4%
0% 25% 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Slovakia
Table B.18.1
General Information
Sample size 2,089
via internet 1,037
via telephone 1,052
via POS and P2P 3,324 €80,098
Chart B.18.1

Credit transfer 65%
Direct debit 55%
Bank cheque 11%
None 4%
Crypto assets 3%
Other 2%
Don't know 1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
outside the home.
Table B.18.2
Country Euro area

Payments at
POS and P2P 1.59 €24.10 €38.34 1.57 €25.55 €40.12
Cash 1.17 €20.66 €24.20 1.14 €16.92 €19.33
Non-cash 0.42 €33.68 €14.14 0.43 €48.56 €20.80
Online
purchases 0.19 €46.16 €8.64 0.16 €66.86 €10.86
Bill payments 0.16 €77.63 €12.35 0.13 €160.83 €21.45
Average
payments 1.94 €30.63 €59.34 1.87 €38.82 €72.43
Chart B.18.2
Slovenia
Euro area
23% 25%
Card Card
24% 41%
74% 63%
Cash Cash
73% 48%
4% 11%
Other Other
3% 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
outside the home.
Chart B.18.3
(number)
Slovakia Cash No clear preference
57% Euro area 27% 49% 24%

Card Slovakia 21% 61% 18%
49%
Gender
8% Male 21% 61% 18%
Cash
4% Female 20% 62% 17%
Age
11% 18-24 22% 60% 18%
Credit transfer
10% 25-39 14% 65% 21%
40-54 16% 66% 18%
E-payment 18% 55-64 24% 58% 18%
solutions 27% +65 32% 54% 13%
Urban/rural
6%
10%
Rural 16% 68% 16%
0% 50% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Slovakia Very important Relatively unimportant
Neutral Don't know
61%
Card Euro area 32% 22% 21% 11% 13%
48%
Slovakia 22% 9% 27% 13% 29%
4% Gender
Cash Male 21% 9% 27% 13% 30%
3%
Female 23% 9% 28% 13% 27%
18% Age
Credit transfer
14% 18-24 13% 20% 22% 15% 30%
25-39 15% 10% 31% 13% 31%
E-payment 13% 40-54 19% 8% 28% 13% 31%
solutions 24% 55-64 29% 8% 26% 12% 24%
+65 36% 5% 24% 12% 24%
5% Urban/rural
Other
11% Urban 17% 11% 26% 12% 34%
Rural 25% 8% 28% 13% 26%
0% 50% 100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Slovakia Very easy Fairly difficult
Euro area 50% 39% 7%2%

15%
Card Slovakia 63% 23% 8% 3%
18%
Gender
12% Male 66% 20% 7% 3%
Cash
11% Female 61% 25% 9% 3%
Age
38% 18-24 62% 27% 5% 5%
Credit transfer
20% 25-39 63% 26% 6%3%
40-54 60% 25% 12% 1%
26% 55-64 65% 19% 8% 3%
Direct debit
41% +65 65% 14% 9% 2%
Urban/rural
10%
Other Urban 62% 23% 8% 4%
10%
Rural 63% 22% 8% 2%
0% 25% 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
List of references
Alvarez, F. and Lippi, F. (2017), “Cash burns: an inventory model with a cash-credit
choice”, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 90, pp. 99-112.
Arango, C., Huynh, K.P. and Sabetti, L. (2015), “Consumer Payment Choice:
Merchant Card Acceptance versus Pricing Incentives”, Journal of Banking & Finance,
Vol. 55, pp. 130-141.
Arango, C., Hogg, D. and Lee, A. (2015), “Why Is Cash (Still) so Entrenched? Insights
from Canadian Shopping Diaries”, Contemporary Economic Policy, Vol. 33,
pp. 141-158.
Arango-Arango C.A., Bouhdaoui, Y., Bounie, D, Eschelbach, M. and Hernandez, L.

(2018), “Cash remains top-of-wallet! International evidence from payment diaries”,
Economic Modelling, Vol. 69, pp. 38-48.
Bagnall, J., Bounie, D., Huynh, K., Kosse, A., Schmidt, T., Schuh, S. and Stix, H.
(2016), “Consumer Cash Usage: A Cross-Country Comparison with Payment Diary
Survey Data”, International Journal of Central Banking, Vol. 12, pp. 1-62.
Banque de France (2019), “Report on public access to cash in Metropolitan France”.
Banque de France (2020), “Public access to cash – Update of the assessment at

end-2019”.
Beshears, J., Choi, J. J., Laibson, D. and Madrian, B. C. (2008), “How are preferences
revealed?”, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 92, No 8-9, pp. 1787-1794.
Bethlehem, J. (2010), "Selection bias in web surveys", International Statistical Review,

Vol. 78, No 2, pp. 161-188.
Bouhdaoui, Y. and Bounie, D. (2012), “Modeling the Share of Cash Payments in the
Economy: An Application to France”, International Journal of Central Banking, Vol. 8,
No 4, pp. 175-195.
Bounie D., François A., Moret A., and Politronacci E. (2018), "Use of cash in France:
the payment method of choice for low-value purchases", Banque de France Bulletin,
Vol. 220.
Cohen, M. and Rysman, M. (2013), “Payment Choice with Consumer Panel Data”,
Research Department Working Papers, No 13-6, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
Demirguc-Kunt, A. and Klapper, L. (2012), “Measuring Financial Inclusion: The Global

Findex Database”, Policy Research Working Paper, No 6025, World Bank Group,
Washington, DC.
Study on the payment attitudes of consumers in the euro area – List of references 144
Demirguc-Kunt, A., Klapper, L., Singer, D., Ansar, S. and Hess, J. (2018), “The Global
Findex Database 2017: Measuring Financial Inclusion and the Fintech Revolution”,
World Bank Group, Washington, DC.
De Nederlandsche Bank (2020), “Shift of cash to debit card continues”, DNBulletin,

Retrieved 25 September 2020.
De Nederlandsche Bank (2020), “Contactless payments gaining further ground during

the COVID-19 crisis”, DNBulletin, Retrieved 16 October 2020.
Deutsche Bundesbank (2018), “Payment behaviour in Germany in 2017. Fourth study

of the utilisation of cash and cashless payment instruments”, Frankfurt am Main.
Deutsche Bundesbank (2020), “Cash hoarding by German households – how much

cash do they store and why?”, Monthly Report, Frankfurt am Main, July.
EHI Retail Institute (2020), “Kontaktlos und Corona pushen Kartenzahlung”, Retrieved
23 September 2020.
Esselink, H. and Hernandez, L. (2017), “The use of cash by households in the euro
area”, Occasional Paper Series, No 201, European Central Bank, Frankfurt am Main,
November.
European Central Bank (2019), Opinion of the European Central Bank of

26 November 2019 on the requirement for certain credit institutions and branches to
provide cash services, CON/2019/41.
Fernandez-Blanco, V., Orea, L. and Pietro-Rodriguez, J. (2009), “Analyzing

consumers heterogeneity and self-reported tastes: An approach consistent with the
consumer’s decision making process”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 30,
No 4, pp. 622-633, August.
Filzmoser, P., Gussenbauer, J. and Templ, M. (2016), “Detecting outliers in household

consumption survey data”, Final report with the World Bank (1157976), Vienna
University of Technology, Vienna, Austria.
Ghosh, D. and Vogt, A. (2012), “Outliers: An evaluation of methodologies”, in

American Statistic Association, Joint statistical meetings, San Diego, California,
pp. 3455-3460.
Hayashi, F. and Klee, E. (2003), “Technology adoption and consumer payments:

evidence from survey data”, Review of Network Economics, Vol. 2, No 2, pp. 1-16.
Jiménez, C. and Tejero, H. (2018), “Bank branch closure and cash access in Spain”,
Financial Stability Review, Banco de España, No 34, pp. 35-56.
Jonker, N., Hernandez, L., de Vree, R. and Zwaan, P. (2018), "From cash to cards:
how debit card payments overtook cash in the Netherlands”, DNB Occasional Studies,
Vol. 16, No 1, Research Department, De Nederlandsche Bank.
Klee, E. (2008), “How people pay: Evidence from grocery store data”, Journal of
Monetary Economics, Vol. 55, No 3, pp. 526-541.
Lagarde, C. (2020), “Payments in a digital world”, speech at the Deutsche

Bundesbank online conference on banking and payments in the digital world,
10 September 2020, Retrieved 9 October 2020.
Moracci, E. (2020), “Payment Choices and Cash Management: Theory and Evidence
from ECB SUCH Data”, European University Institute, unpublished.
Rysman, M. and Schuh, S. (2016), “New Innovations in Payments”, Innovation Policy

and the Economy, Vol. 17, pp. 27-48.
Shy, O. (2020), “How currency denomination and the ATM affect the way we pay”,
Journal of Economics and Business.
Stavins, J. (2017), “How Do Consumers Make Their Payment Choices?”, Research

Data Reports, No. 17-1, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
Stavins, J. (2019), “How Does Liquidity Affect Consumer Payment Choice?”,

Research Department Working Papers, No. 19-7, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
Sveriges Riksbank (2020), “Secure access to cash – report from the Riksbank
Committee”, Retrieved 25 September 2020.
Templ, M., Gussenbauer, J. and Filzmoser, P. (2019), “Evaluation of robust outlier

detection methods for zero-inflated complex data”, Journal of Applied Statistics,
Vol. 47, No 7, pp. 1144-1167.
Van der Cruijsen, C., Hernández, L. and Jonker, N. (2017), “In love with the debit card
but still married to cash”, Applied Economics, Vol. 49, No 30, pp. 2989-3004.
Van Hove, L. (2020), “How currency denomination and the ATM affect the way we pay:
a comment on Shy”, Journal of Economics and Business.
Wakamori, N. and Welte, A. (2017), “Why Do Shoppers Use Cash? Evidence from
Shopping Diary Data”, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 49, No 1,
pp. 115-169.
Whitesell, W.C. (1989), “The Demand for Currency versus Debitable Accounts”,
Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 21, No 2, pp. 246-251.
© European Central Bank, 2021
Postal address 60640 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Telephone +49 69 1344 0
Website www.ecb.europa.eu
All rights reserved. Reproduction for educational and non-commercial purposes is permitted provided that the source is acknowledged.
For specific terminology please refer to the ECB glossary (available in English only).
PDF ISBN 978-92-899-3911-9, doi:10.2866/849151, QB-01-19-695-EN-N

Ecb Spacereport202012 bb2038bbb6 en

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ecb Spacereport202012 bb2038bbb6 en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Study on the payment

1.2 Sample design 9

1.3 Data collection 12

Box 1 Payment surveys in Germany and in the Netherlands 13

1.5 Validation of the data 14

Box 2 Combining telephone and online interviews to reduce bias 15

2 Payments at the point of sale and to individuals 17

Box 3 Survey on the impact of the pandemic on cash trends 21

2.2 Daily average of POS and P2P payments 25

2.3 The use of contactless technology for card payments 29

3.1 E-shopping, telephone and mail orders 34

3.2 Bill payments and recurring payments in the euro area 43

4 Consumers use cash (in particular high-value banknotes) as a

4.1 Extra cash stored 50

4.2 Possession of high-value banknotes 54

Study on the payment attitudes of consumers in the euro area – Contents 1

5.1 Consumers’ payment preferences 57

5.2 Access and acceptance 63

5.3 Cash balances in consumers’ wallets 70

6 How consumers obtain cash 72

6.1 Topping up of consumers’ wallets 72

6.2 Receiving regular income in cash 75

Diary survey questionnaire 78

Study on the payment attitudes of consumers in the euro area – Contents 2

List of references 144

Study on the payment attitudes of consumers in the euro area – Contents 3

Retail payments have to be reliable, efficient and inclusive in order to maintain

Study on the payment attitudes of consumers in the euro area – Foreword 4

SPACE fieldwork was conducted in 2019. Between mid-March 2019 and

Consumers’ self-reported preferences for payment instruments contrast with the

3 Point-of-interaction transactions include point-of-sale, person-to-person and online transactions.

Study on the payment attitudes of consumers in the euro area – Introduction 8

The SPACE survey was based on a payment diary and an accompanying

1.2 Sample design

6 Esselink and Hernandez (2017).

Total 20,039 20,158 958

Data integration and weighting

1.5 Validation of the data

Telephone (left-hand scale)

Sources: ECB (SPACE) and European Commission.

All payment instruments 160 4,082

POS 151 3,686

Cash 116 1,971

POS 109 1,722

Number 73% 24% 3%

Value 48% 41% 11%

a) Number of transactions b) Value of transactions

Objective and survey methodology

Results at the country level

Much more often

Somewhat more often

The same as before

Somewhat less often

Much less often

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Source: ECB (2020).

Paying electronically has been made more convenient 45%

There is a risk of being infected by the virus via the banknotes

The government recommended to pay cashless as much as possible 35%

You could not withdraw cash as easily as before the crisis 9%

You discovered other means of payment 5%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Source: ECB (2020).