Germanev

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning
ISSN: 1523-908X (Print) 1522-7200 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjoe20
How do Consumers Perceive Electric Vehicles? A

Comparison of German Consumer Groups
Anja Peters & Elisabeth Dütschke
To cite this article: Anja Peters & Elisabeth Dütschke (2014) How do Consumers Perceive
Electric Vehicles? A Comparison of German Consumer Groups, Journal of Environmental Policy &
Planning, 16:3, 359-377, DOI: 10.1080/1523908X.2013.879037
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2013.879037
Published online: 05 Feb 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 724
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 30 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjoe20
Download by: [RMIT University Library] Date: 13 December 2017, At: 00:33
Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 2014
Vol. 16, No. 3, 359 –377, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2013.879037
How do Consumers Perceive Electric Vehicles? A

Comparison of German Consumer Groups
ANJA PETERS & ELISABETH DÜTSCHKE

Fraunhofer ISI, Breslauer Str. 48, D-76139 Karlsruhe, Germany
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 00:33 13 December 2017
ABSTRACT Electric vehicles (EVs) are currently being discussed as a promising means to
increase the energy efficiency and sustainability of today’s transport systems. While tech-
nological progress and cost reduction are certainly crucial topics for their successful diffu-
sion, consumer acceptance is another issue that warrants further analysis. Based on a large
online survey (N ¼ 969), we compared four consumer groups which differ in their likeli-
hood to purchase an EV with regard to their socio-demographic characteristics, their will-
ingness to pay (WTP) and their perceptions of EVs. The findings indicate that early users
in Germany are most likely to be middle-aged men living with their families in a multi-
vehicle household who have a higher WTP for an EV. Perceived compatibility of an EV
with personal needs seems to be the most influential factor on the stated willingness to pur-
chase an EV. With regard to the promotion of EVs, strengthening their environmental
advantages and providing financial incentives for purchase are rated as important
measures by a majority of the sample, while performance characteristics which are compar-
able to conventional vehicles seem to be less important for most participants. Based on the
data analyses, we provide recommendations for measures regarding the further develop-
ment and promotion of EVs.
KEY WORDS: Acceptance, diffusion of innovation, early adopters, survey, prefer-

ences
Introduction
In the discourse about achieving more sustainable life styles, individual mobility
is one of the most important topics. In our modern societies, mobility is the key in
everyday life to fulfilling professional requirements and family demands as well
as leisure pursuits and holiday trips. As society has become more mobile than
ever, environmental impacts have also increased. A fifth of today’s greenhouse
gas emissions in Europe is due to transport; at the same time, noise, local pollu-
tants and traffic congestion are regarded as urgent problems that need to be
tackled or at least mitigated in re-urbanising societies (European Commission,
2011). Against this background, the European Commission (2011) has set the
Correspondence Address: Anja Peters, Fraunhofer ISI, Breslauer Str. 48, D-76139 Karlsruhe,
Germany. Email: anja.peters@isi.fraunhofer.de
# 2014 Taylor & Francis

360 A. Peters & E. Dütschke
goal of reducing the greenhouse gas emissions from transport by 60% until 2050.
To achieve this goal, three relevant options exist: (1) making current modes of
transport more efficient, e.g. by changing to alternatively fuelled vehicles, (2)
increasing the share of more efficient modes of transport like public transport
and (3) reducing transport kilometres (Xenias & Whitmarsh, 2013).
Electric vehicles (EVs) are being intensively discussed as part of the first
option. Their main advantage lies in their ability to help reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, local pollutants and noise while meeting individual transport needs.
Most industrialized countries and automobile manufacturers—also Germany
and German manufacturers—have launched huge research programmes on
battery and vehicle development and are conducting pilot trials to test technology
and explore successful mobility solutions and business models. Moreover, several
governments have defined goals for the share of EVs in the overall vehicle stock.
In Germany, for example, one million EVs should be driving on the streets in 2020
according to the German Government (2011). In order to encourage actual adop-
tion by consumers, several countries, e.g. France, Norway and Denmark, have
already implemented financial incentive schemes with rebates reducing the pur-
chase price of EVs by 5000 Euro up to 10,000 Euro (Robison & Nath, 2010).
Also, non-financial incentives have already been implemented, e.g. in many US
states, such as specific traffic lanes or parking places which are designated to be
used by EVs. The German Government is currently preparing a regulation for lab-
elling EVs as requirement for such incentives. With regard to financial incentives,
EVs are exempted from the German motor vehicle tax for currently 5 years which
is envisaged to be extended to 10 years. A purchase price subsidy has not been
announced by the German Government so far (Peters et al., 2013).
So far, it is not clear whether and how EVs will receive enough consumer
support to successfully gain large market shares. Electric mobility is still in an
early phase, with low market shares world wide and only a few commercial
models available. In 2010, when the data for this study were collected, in
Germany, for example, 2307 EVs were registered in total, of which 541 vehicles
were newly registered (KBA, 2011).1 Thus, consumer experiences with EVs are
still very limited. Several aspects of EVs are critical for consumer acceptance,
because EVs have different characteristics to conventional vehicles. Crucial
topics are their high purchase cost, the limited driving range and the reliability
of the battery. Driver habits are further challenged by driving characteristics of
EVs and by implementing charging routines. As research on diffusion of inno-
vations (DoIs) shows, users may be reluctant to adopt innovations as long as
they perceive current options—in this case a conventional car—as more attractive
(Rogers, 2003). Against this background, it is highly relevant to examine the con-
sumer perspective of EVs in order to develop effective strategies and measures to
support the further development of electric mobility.
This paper presents data on the consumer perspective from Germany. The
study of the German market seems interesting as it provides a case study of a
market with neither purchase subsidies nor broad non-financial incentives. At
the same time, due to German pilot and demonstration projects, consumers are
generally aware of EVs, though actual experience of EVs is still very limited.
Thus, the findings should be transferable to a broad range of European countries.
In particular, countries which are still in a waiting position with regard to pilot
trials or measures promoting the diffusion of EVs could learn and get transferable
insights from case-study results for Germany.
How do consumers perceive electric vehicles? 361
However, because EVs are still in an early market phase, a study of their
acceptance by consumers faces several constraints and challenges. Surveys
which focus on potential consumers to study if and when they would purchase
or use an EV face the problem that it is difficult for consumers to express valid atti-
tudes and intentions regarding new, rather unfamiliar vehicle types. Usually, such
statements are based on comparisons with conventional vehicles and the corre-
sponding use patterns. Thus, the results of these kinds of surveys tend to indicate
that consumers are very open to EVs as long as they do not differ from convention-
al vehicles (e.g. more than one-third of respondents stated that they expected an
EV to run 500 km without charging and have a maximum speed of at least
150 km/h; ADAC, 2009).
Surveys of actual users allow statements to be collected which are based on
real experience. However, these mainly focus on participants in pilot trials
(Schneider et al., 2014; Vilimek et al., 2012), which have very specific settings for
EV adoption and use and which are not representative for the usual process of
vehicle purchase and address very specific consumer groups. On top of this, pub-
lication of the results from these studies is still ongoing.
With regard to the total population of consumers, Rogers’ DoI theory (2003)
indicates that different consumer groups can be distinguished according to
when they adopt an innovation in the diffusion process. The specific time of adop-
tion depends on the consumer’s perception of the innovation and his/her charac-
teristics. The diffusion process should first target promising target groups with the
most positive attitudes. But with regard to the continued distribution, other con-
sumer groups should also be considered in the further development and market-
ing of vehicles.
The aim of this study is to discuss the relevant factors for the acceptance and
adoption of EVs for different consumer groups in the diffusion process. Based on
this, promising measures for the further market development can be discussed.
Therefore, this study analyses the perception and acceptance of EVs by different
consumer groups as well as consumer characteristics based on a broad online
survey. The survey focused on ‘regular’ users on the one hand (i.e. who have
fully adopted an EV for their daily needs), and on non-users with a differing
degree of interest in EVs on the other hand, and was conceptualized based on
Rogers’ DoI model (2003).
This paper presents the methodology and results of the survey and is struc-
tured as follows. First, a short overview is given of the literature on the acceptance
and DoIs, and the state of research on the consumer acceptance of EVs is pre-
sented. Subsequently, the methodology of the online survey is described, before
its results are reported. The last section discusses implications with regard to
future development and policy recommendations as well as further questions to
be studied.
Conceptual Background and Research Questions

This section gives a short overview of the general theories explaining the accep-
tance of technological innovations by individual consumers. Afterwards, research
findings on consumer acceptance of EVs in the 1990s are briefly outlined as are the
results of current studies.
Acceptance of New Technologies

Acceptance of a new technology has been defined as ‘behavior that enables or pro-
motes (support) the use of a technology, rather than inhibits or demotes (resist-
ance) the use of it’ (Huijts et al., 2012, p. 526). In the case of EVs, this means
purchasing and using an EV. Theories on the acceptance of new technology and
the DoI aim to explain how and when individuals adopt innovations (i.e. ideas,
applications or objects that are perceived as new), and thus why some innovations
successfully diffuse through the market, while others do not.
The model which is most often applied to the DoI and which is empirically
well established is the DoI model by Rogers (2003), which outlines the process
and determinants of the individual adoption decision. Accordingly, the decision
to adopt or reject an innovation is influenced by the individually perceived attri-
butes of the innovation: (1) the relative advantages (RA) (and disadvantages) of an
innovation compared to conventional alternatives on the market, (2) the compat-
ibility with the adopter’s values, experiences and needs, (3) the complexity, i.e. dif-
ficulty to understand and use the innovation, (4) the trialability, i.e. the possibility
to test the innovation before the decision to adopt and (5) the observability or visi-
bility of an innovation and its consequences.
Other theories that have been applied to explain user acceptance of new tech-
nologies are based on the theory of reasoned action by Fishbein & Ajzen (1975)
and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) by Davis (1993). Work relating to
Fishbein & Ajzen (1975) stresses the relevance of attitude for behaviour, i.e. the
expectation and evaluation of the consequences of the respective behaviour, as
well as the perceived social norm, i.e. an individual’s expectation that this kind
of behaviour is expected by others. Davis (1993) conceptualizes innovation adop-
tion mainly as a result of the perceived ease of use and the perceived usefulness of
a technology. The TAM model has been extended to include social norms, thereby
adding an inter-individual factor (Taylor & Todd, 1995).
Comparing the three approaches to innovation acceptance reveals that they
include similar variables that are supposed to explain acceptance on an individual
level: the usefulness of the innovation and its RA compared to alternatives, the
compatibility with personal as well as social norms, values and attitudes, the com-
plexity or ease of use. The most comprehensive model is the DoI of Rogers (2003).
Therefore, we take this model as a starting point for our analyses and include
social norms as an additional factor as these are considered relevant in many of
the other models.
Consumer Acceptance of EVs in the 1990s

Pilot studies were conducted in various countries during EVs’ first boom in the
1990s. The most comprehensive analysis of consumer data was undertaken by
Knie et al. (1997, 1999), who conducted a secondary analysis of pilot studies in
Austria, France, Germany, Norway and Switzerland. According to their findings,
the users of EVs in the 1990s were a homogenous group with regard to their socio-
demographic characteristics and were typically male, middle-aged, well-edu-
cated, had a family, an above-average income and lived in both urban and rural
areas.
With regard to psychological variables, Knie et al. (1999) identified four types
of users, based on the Swiss data, who differed significantly in their attitudes, e.g.
whether they emphasized environmental concerns, enthusiasm for technology or

cars and practical issues in relation to their mobility needs. With regard to vehicle
use, the data suggest that EVs are likely to be bought by households which own
more vehicles than the average household. Often, the EVs substituted a second
car which had to be replaced or were purchased due to increased mobility needs.
Consumer Acceptance of the Current Generation of EVs

Of the few results published on experiences from the ongoing field trials, the find-
ings relating to the Mini E (Vilimek et al., 2012) indicate that driving patterns with
EVs are similar to those with comparable conventional vehicles and that the
demands of participants on the characteristics of EVs are largely the same interna-
tionally. Before the trials started, participants perceived the limited range and
charging durations as major drawbacks; however, complaints declined once the

trials began. Similarly, analyses by Schneider et al. (2014) show that user evalu-
ations of several aspects of EVs became more positive once practical experience
with EVs had been made; in this study, however, two aspects (time for charging
and public infrastructure) were rated more negatively after the trial had started
compared to prior expectations. While these studies are very informative about
how people perceive the handling of EVs, they suffer from the limitation that
the results are obtained under the special conditions related to the field trials.
For example, in some of them, participants had to apply to take part or did not
have to pay for the EVs. Thus, it is difficult to draw conclusions about real
market conditions.
Other studies have concentrated on potential users and applied either quali-
tative methods (e.g. ABF – morphologische marktanalysen, 2010; Graham-Rowe
et al., 2012; Peters & Hoffmann, 2011) or quantitative methods (Anable et al.,
2011; Götz et al., 2011; Lieven et al., 2011; Ziegler, 2012) to identify the most
likely early adopters or the most attractive vehicle concepts. For example, a
stated choice survey by Ziegler (2012) indicates that the majority of potential car
buyers still prefer conventional vehicles to EVs. Those who rate EVs and other
alternative propulsion technologies as preferential are younger and more environ-
mentally aware than the average participant. Anable et al. (2011) surveyed consu-
mers in the UK and identified several groups who are likely to adopt an EV, but
who differ in their motives. However, none of these studies includes regular
users of EVs which would provide a higher validity of the results. We address
this gap in the literature in our survey.
Research Questions
As already outlined, the aim of this study is to analyse consumer groups who
differ in their position in the adoption process with regard to their characteristics
and perception of EVs in order to identify the relevant factors for a successful dif-
fusion of EVs. Therefore, we focused on regular users of EVs and potential consu-
mers with differing interests in EVs by differentiating the following four groups:
(1) users of EVs, (2) consumers with purchase intention, (3) affine consumers, i.e.
people generally interested in EVs, but without a concrete purchase intention
and (4) consumers with less or no interest in EVs.
Rogers’ (2003) model was chosen as the theoretical background for data col-
lection and analysis and extended by including social norms (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Theoretical model to explain intention to purchase and use an EV, adapted from Rogers
(2003), enriched with social norm. The complexity variable of Rogers’ DoI (2003) is substituted by the
ease of use variable, which represents the positive specification of this construct.
Based on this model, we focus on the following research questions:

(1) Are the four groups differentiated by their socio-demographic variables?
(2) How do these four groups differ in their willingness to pay (WTP) for an EV?
(3) How do the predictors of the model differ among the groups under study and
how do they influence the target variable (intention to purchase and use an
EV) in the respective consumer groups?
(4) Which are the preferences regarding the further development of EVs and how
do they differ according to group affiliation?
Method
To answer the research questions outlined in the previous section, an online
survey was conducted in Germany in 2010. Recruitment aimed at finding respon-
dents who have different levels of experience with and interest in EVs, i.e. regular
users of EVs, consumers interested in adopting EVs in the near future, consumers
generally interested in EVs and consumers not interested in EVs. Therefore, calls
for participation were published in online media such as blogs, newspapers, jour-
nals and online-forums; moreover, associations, EV manufacturers, importers and
dealers were asked to disseminate the information to their customers and
members.
Questionnaire
This section briefly describes the relevant modules and items. The items included
in the final analysis are presented in the appendix (provided as additional online
content).
First of all, the questionnaire included several indicators in order to divide the
respondents into the four consumer groups in this study. People who confirmed that
they own or regularly drive an EV in everyday life were selected as users (group 1).
Other items assessed the general interest in EVs on the one hand and the intention
to buy an EV within the next 5 years on the other hand. If both items were
answered positively, the participant was assigned to the purchase intention group
(group 2). If only the interest item was affirmed, participants were classified as
affine (group 3). Participants affirming none of the above were classified as not
interested (group 4).
Each of the predictors included in the theoretical model (Figure 1) was
measured by several items which were formulated based on Rogers’ (2003) defi-
nitions and recommendations and which corresponded to previous studies of the

acceptance of innovations (Artho, 2008). Respondents usually rated their agree-
ment on a 7-point response scale ranging from 1 (¼not at all the case2) to 7
(¼very much the case). Sixteen items were used to assess the perceived RA of
EVs. The items were collected based on a literature review and represent advan-
tages and disadvantages which are often associated with EVs. Each characteristic
was assessed for both an EV and a conventional combustion engine vehicle (of the
car size class which the respondents associated most with EVs). Compatibility with
own values, experiences and needs was assessed by four items which refer to the
own personality and to daily habits. A set of six items measured complexity/ease of
use3 and two items measured trialability. Observability and social norm were each
assessed by four items.
The target variable intention to purchase and use an EV (within the next 5 years),
which is to be explained by the predictor variables, was assessed by the following

indicators: attitude towards a purchase within the next 5 years, likelihood to pur-
chase an EV within the next 5 years, intention to use an EV in case of purchase and
likelihood to substitute a vehicle with combustion engine by an EV. From these
indicators of the target variable, only attitude was measured by several items
using semantic differentials slightly modified from rating scales developed by
Davis (1993).
Participants were further asked to give an estimation of how much more they
were willing to pay for an EV compared to a conventional vehicle. Respondents
also had the possibility to choose the option ‘I am not willing to pay more.’
In order to assess preferences regarding the further development of EVs, partici-
pants were asked for the impact of different development and policy scenarios
on their purchase decision: (1) focus on optimization of environmental aspects and
energy efficiency, (2) focus on comparability with performance of conventional vehicles,
(3) financial incentives of 5000 Euro for the purchase of an EV and (4) purchase of
an EV combined with car sharing of conventional vehicles.
Finally, questions about the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondent
and his or her household were included (e.g. sex, age, household size, place of
residence and number of vehicles per household).
Sample
Of the total 1196 participants who completed the survey,4 the following were
excluded: (1) records of participants not resident in Germany; (2) records of par-
ticipants under the age of 18 and (3) a small group obviously providing contradic-
tory or fictitious answers.
The resulting sample of N ¼ 969 respondents contains 81.4% men and has a
mean age of 40.9 years (min. ¼ 18, max. ¼ 90, SD ¼ 13.14). The majority of the
respondents stated that they have a monthly household income between 2001
and 3000 Euro. On average, the respondents live in households of 2.48 persons
(SD ¼ 1.55; children: M ¼ 0.45, SD ¼ 0.82) with 1.43 cars (SD ¼ 0.93). Forty-
three per cent of respondents live in cities of more than 100,000 inhabitants. The
other participants were more or less evenly distributed among villages of less
than 5000 inhabitants (20%), small towns (19%) and medium-sized towns (18%).
Fifty-one per cent of respondents hold a university degree and 42% work in tech-
nical jobs. In sum, this sample is not representative for the German population of
car owners which was not the aim during sampling. The implications will be dis-
cussed in more detail in the next section.
With regard to the consumer groups which were distinguished, users
(group 1) represent the smallest group with N ¼ 92. As consumers with purchase
intention (group 2), N ¼ 244 respondents could be identified. The group of affine
consumers, i.e. of consumers without purchase intention (group 3), includes N ¼
352 data-sets and the group of consumers who are not interested in EVs (group 4)
includes N ¼ 281 respondents.
Preliminary analyses and statistical methods

Before analysing the model variables with regard to the research questions, the
psychometric quality of the item sets was checked in several principal component
analyses (PCAs). Due to the high number of variables in comparison to the
number of participants, the PCAs had to be run for subgroups of variables in
order to extract stable solutions. First, a PCA was carried out for the 16 items asses-
sing RA, a second PCA for the 16 items measuring the other psychological vari-
ables, a third PCA for the 5 items of the attitude variable as component of the
target variable and a fourth PCA for the 4 items (including the aggregated atti-
tude) of the target variable. Only factors with eigenvalues larger than one were
retained. The analyses confirmed the model variables except for the variable
observability, which was excluded from the further analyses. For the items asses-
sing RA, the specific underlying dimensions were explored and the following
factors extracted: (1) RA in driving characteristics (RA driving), (2) RA in costs of
operation and maintenance and in environmental consequences (RA operation), (3)
RA in market and infrastructural characteristics (RA infrastructure) and (4) RA in
basic features such as safety, comfort and loading capacity (RA basic). The final
variables which were used in the further analyses were constructed by computing
the individual average scores across the scores of the associated items. Detailed
results from the PCAs can be found in the appendix together with the scale
reliabilities estimated by Cronbach’s a, which all exceed 0.6.
In order to analyse whether the four groups of respondents differ in their
average evaluation of EVs, we conducted a multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) and post hoc analyses for all predictor variables from the theoretical
model (Figure 1). A univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was run, in order
to analyse whether the scores of the target variable intention to purchase and
use an EV mirror the group affiliation, i.e. whether the purchase and use intention
decreases across groups with a lower interest in EVs.
Finally, regression models (using stepwise method) were computed in order
to analyse which of the model variables are able to predict the intention to pur-
chase and use an EV. An overall regression model was estimated for the whole
sample as well as separate regression models for each of the four consumer
groups in order to consider differences between the respective groups.
Results
Are the Four Groups Differentiated by Socio-demographic Variables?
Several socio-demographic variables were analysed in order to see whether they
vary among the four consumer groups. An overview of the results is provided in
Table 1. Socio-demographic variables across the four groups compared to the

population in Germany (above the age of 17 years)
Relative share (%)
Not Affine Purchase German

interested people intention Users population
Sex
Female 31.7 17.9 9.4 5.4 51.0
Male 68.3 82.1 90.6 94.6 49.0
Age
18–30 years 34.9 30.7 18.9 7.6 17.4
31–40 years 21.4 23.0 25.8 19.6 15.9
41–50 years 20.6 25.3 29.1 48.9 20.6
51–60 years 13.5 13.4 18.0 18.5 16.3
. 60 years 9.6 7.7 8.2 5.4 29.8

Children .18 years
Yes 24.9 27.0 24.2 45.7 20.2
Education
Higher education (college/ 43.9 59.6 51 49.4 13.6
university)
Employment
Full-time 68.1 67.8 70.2 80.9 35.0
Part-time 7.7 5.1 6.4 9.0 12.3
Not working 24.2 27.2 23.4 10.1 52.7
Place of residence
Big city (.100,000 inhabitants) 42.7 49.7 37.7 34.8 31.18
Medium-sized town 16.7 18.6 19.7 16.3 27.37
(20,000– 100,000 inhabitants)
Small town (5000–20,000 inhabitants) 19.9 15.7 20.1 20.7 26.18
Village (,5000 inhabitants) 20.6 16 22.5 28.3 15.27
No. of cars per household
Higher education (college/ 1.4 1.3 1.4 2.2 1.4a
university)
Source: Analysis of data from own survey compared to data for the German population from Statis-
tisches Bundesamt (2012a, 2012b, 2012c).
a
This figure refers to German car owners and not the German population in general.
Table 1. While men are generally over-represented in our sample, their share rises
continuously across the groups so that more interested groups (groups which are
more likely to buy an EV) include a higher share of men: 95% of the current users
surveyed are men; in the group not interested in EVs, 68% are male5—which is
equal to the share of men in the group of car owners in Germany (KBA, 2009).
Regarding age, the sample under study is younger than the German population
on average. However, there are also systematic differences among the four
groups: the group of individuals younger than 30 decreases with increasing inter-
est in EVs (from 35% to 8%), while the share of individuals between 41 and 50
years strongly increases (from 21% to 49%).6 Moreover, in line with these
results, users of EVs are more likely to live in a household together with children
than those who are not interested.7 Again, our sample is neither representative for
the German population nor—as far as the available comparative statistics show—
for the population of car owners. However, it can be stated that the group becomes
more similar to the general population, the lower the interest in EVs. No statisti-
cally significant results can be observed for the level of education within our
Figure 2. Willingness to pay for an EV across groups compared to the purchase price of a conventional
vehicle.
sample besides the fact that our sample is generally highly educated. At the same
time, users of EVs are more likely to work full time than the non-user groups.8
The share of survey participants living in big cities and the share living in vil-
lages are larger than the respective shares for the German population. However,
respondents from the user group were more likely to live in a village. The user
group—on average—owns a higher number of cars (M ¼ 2.2), while all other
groups have on average 1.4 vehicles, which is comparable to the number of cars
in German car-owning households.
How Do the Groups Differ in their WTP for an EV?

On average, respondents stated they were willing to pay more for an EV compared
to a conventional vehicle, but the actual figure cited varies greatly (Figure 2): actual
users said they would be willing to pay an average premium of 35%; respondents
with purchase intentions indicated a premium of 20% on average; the affine
respondents found 19% acceptable, while those not interested in EVs limited the
premium they would pay to 16% on average. According to a post hoc Scheffé test,
the group of users differs significantly from all the other groups in their WTP.9
Analysing Differences in the Model Variables between Consumer Groups

The general MANOVA model indicated significant differences between the four
consumer groups. The detailed results of these analyses are presented in
Table 2. Here, we focus on the differences between neighbouring groups as
these indicate the starting points of a shift to another phase of adoption, at
which consumers change the relevant perceptions in a more favourable direction.
When comparing the respondents who are not interested in EVs and affine
respondents, the affine consumers evaluated driving characteristics, operational
costs, basic features, ease of use and compatibility of electrical vehicles as well
as social norms significantly more positively, while the assessment of infrastruc-
ture and trialability was not significantly different between these two groups.
Comparing the affine consumers who have not (yet) decided to adopt an EV
to consumers with a purchase intention, compatibility, driving characteristics,
operational costs and social norm are evaluated significantly more positively by
Table 2. Means (and standard deviations) of perceived characteristics of EVs and of intention to purchase and use an EV, rated by
different consumer groups
RA RA RA Social Ease of Intention to purchase
Consumer group driving RA operation infrastructure basic norm use Trialability Compatibility and use an EV
Users (N . 84) 0.56 2.54 22.74 20.81 5.40 5.66 4.57 6.00 5.21
(1.29) (1.77) (1.37) (1.49) (1.20) (1.09) (2.12) (0.95) (1.15)
[I, N] [I, N] [I, N] [N] [I, N] [N] [P, I, N] [I, N] [I, N]
Purchase intention 0.10 2.53 23.14 20.86 5.12 5.84 1.9 5.72 5.47
(N . 209) (1.19) (1.73) (1.29) (1.25) (1.16) (0.84) (1.54) (0.92) (.81)
How do consumers perceive electric vehicles?

[I, N] [I, N] [I, N] [N] [I, N] [I, N] [U] [I, N] [I, N]
Interested 20.54 1.54 23.68 20.88 4.63 5.61 1.64 4.70 4.32
(N . 268) (1.24) (1.53) (1.20) (1.26) (1.29) (1.03) (1.25) (1.25) (1.13)
[U, P, N] [U, P, N] [U, P] [N] [U, P, N] [P, N] [U] [U, P, N] [U, P, N]
Not interested 21.50 0.72 23.61 21.42 3.60 5.08 1.65 3.57 3.35
(N . 199) (1.69) (1.80) (1.45) (1.51) (1.58) (1.23) (1.21) (1.60) (1.50)
[U, P, I] [U, P, I] [U, P] [U, P, I] [U, P, I] [U, P, I] [U] [U, P, I] [U, P, I]
Total (N . 763) 20.53 1.67 23.42 21.01 4.58 5.55 2.02 4.77 4.41
(1.54) (1.83) (1.35) (1.38) (1.47) (1.08) (1.68) (1.54) (1.44)
F-value (Sig.) F(24.170) ¼ 20.603 (p , .001) F (2.966) ¼ 143.603
(p , .001)
Notes: For the variables RA driving, RA operation, RA infrastructure and RA basic, negative values correspond to disadvantages of EVs compared to conventional vehicles;
positive values correspond to advantages. For the other variables, the values correspond to the response scale 1 ¼ ‘not at all the case’ to 7 ¼ ‘very much the case’. The
letters in square brackets indicate from which consumer group the respective mean is significantly different (the variables were analysed by MANOVA and separate pair-
wise post hoc analyses, except the intention to purchase and use an EV which was analysed by ANOVA), where U stands for ‘users’, P for consumers with ‘purchase inten-
tion’, I for ‘affine’ people and N for consumers ‘not interested’ in EVs.
369
the consumers with purchase intention, while basic features and trialability have
similar ratings.
Consumers with a purchase intention and EV users only differ clearly in how
they rate trialability and do not differ significantly from each other in the other
assessed perceptions of EVs.
The results of the ANOVA, which is also included in Table 2, confirm the
expected relationships between the scores of the target variable intention to pur-
chase and use an EV and the group affiliation, i.e. the purchase and use intention
decreases, the less interested the respective group is in EVs.10
Predicting Intention to Purchase and Use an EV in the Respective Consumer Groups

The regression model for the overall sample shows, first of all, that the variable
compatibility with own values, experience and needs11 significantly predicts the
intention to purchase and use an EV (Table 3). Additionally, significant effects
are observed for RA with regard to the operational costs of EVs and driving
characteristics. Moreover, social norm and ease of use play a minor, but still sig-
nificant role for the purchase and use intention. However, contrary to the hypoth-
esized positive influence in the model, a negative, but very low influence of the
ease of use is indicated by the analyses. This means that the respondents’
would be more likely to purchase and use an EV if they perceived the use of
EVs as more complex, i.e. less easy. As indicated by the small beta coefficient,
this relationship is not strong. It seems reasonable that in samples with a high
level of education and affinity towards new technology, a certain technological
complexity could also represent a positive characteristic if it is still manageable
for the individual consumer. Overall, 58% of variance of the participants’ intention
to purchase and use an EV can be explained by these variables.
The important role of compatibility also becomes apparent in its significant
contribution within the models for each consumer group, while differences can
be observed between consumer groups for the other predictors (Table 3). A signifi-
cant effect of RA with regard to the operational costs of EVs was also found in
Table 3. Significant standardized regression coefficients b and R2 of regression

analyses for variables predicting intention to purchase and use an EV within the
different consumer groups
Purchase Not
Predictor Users intention Interested interested Total
variables (N . 85) (N . 210) (N . 269) (N . 200) (N . 764)
Compatibility .349∗∗ .274∗∗∗ .451∗∗∗ .588∗∗∗ .549∗∗∗

RA operation .278∗∗ .193∗∗ .146∗∗∗
RA driving .133∗ .132∗∗∗
∗
Social norm .125 .165∗ .095∗∗
RA basic .150∗
Ease of use 2.056∗
R2 (adjusted R2) .261 (.242) .113 (.103) .380 (.372) .614 (.606) .584 (.581)
Note: Missings were excluded pairwise.

∗
p , .05.
∗∗
p , .01.
∗∗∗
p , .001.
the groups of users and affine people. Perceived RA (or disadvantages) with
regard to the driving characteristics of EVs are indicated as relevant for the
(low) intention of consumers who are not interested in EVs. For consumers who
are not interested in EVs and affine consumers, ratings of the intention to use
and purchase EVs also vary depending on the perceived social norm, i.e. the per-
ceived expectations and evaluations of relevant other people with regard to the
use of EVs. Within the group of consumers with purchase intention, besides com-
patibility, RA relating to basic features of EVs explain part of the variance. With
regard to results within groups, it is important to consider that the intention to
use and purchase varies less within the purchase intention group (SD ¼ 0.81; cf.
Table 2) than in the other groups; so there is less variance to be explained here
by the predictor variables (i.e. less chance for significant results) than for the
other groups.
Which are the Preferences Regarding the Further Development of EVs and How Do
They Differ According to Group Affiliation?
Participants were also asked what impact specific developments and measures
would have on their decision to purchase an EV. In general, the ratings for differ-
ent measures and developments differ in each group across the whole scale. The
mean ratings for all groups are presented in Figure 3. On average, non-interested
respondents rated all items below the middle of the scale, thus indicating their
rather low impact for all scenarios. In general, the optimization of EVs with
regard to environmental aspects and energy efficiency and financial incentives
for purchasing an EV were rated highest of all the scenarios. Only the non-inter-
ested respondents rated comparability to conventional vehicles with regard to
performance as having a similar influence, while, for users, this aspect is the
least important. The ratings for comparability with regard to performance and
for using an EV in combination with car sharing of a conventional vehicle were
generally in the lower half of the scale, indicating a low to average impact for
all groups.
Figure 3. Impact of specific developments and measures on the purchase decision, rated by different
consumer groups (mean of ratings).
Discussion
The aim of this paper was to take a look at the consumer perspective of EVs which
are being discussed as an option to make transport more sustainable. Convention-
al vehicles are a widely implemented mode of transport and are very familiar to
society. In comparison, driving an EV implies several challenges and dealing with
new characteristics. Our study analysed what makes EVs attractive and to whom.
In this final section, we discuss the results and relate them to political and societal
implications. The limitations of our study will also be addressed throughout this
section.
In our study, we differentiated four groups of consumers: (1) actual users of
EVs, (2) consumers intending to buy an EV, (3) affine consumers, i.e. consumers
interested in EVs and (4) consumers not interested in EVs. First, we looked at
the socio-demographic characteristics of these groups. It turned out that consumer

groups who have already adopted (groups 1) or are very likely to adopt an EV in
the near future (group 2) show significant differences in comparison to consumers
who are less likely to adopt EVs soon (interested and non-interested consumers,
i.e. groups 3 and 4). On the one hand, this indicates that it is possible to identify
likely early target groups for EVs. On the other hand, this also suggests that
EVs—at least so far—are only appreciated by specific groups, while other signifi-
cant groups, like women, do not seem likely to get involved with EVs in an early
market phase. Thus, one of the next steps is to analyse how EVs could become
more interesting to other groups as well and which groups of individuals are
likely to be the next adopters of electric mobility. This includes an analysis of per-
ceived barriers among these groups.
In the context of socio-demographic characteristics, it is important to keep in
mind that our sample is only partially representative for the German population
and for German car owners. In particular, our sample has a higher education and
is not evenly spread concerning the place of residence. Research has shown that
groups with a higher socio-economic status are more likely to adopt innovations
(Rogers, 2003; Wejnert, 2002); thus, participants in our sample might in general
have more positive perceptions of EVs than the wider population of car owners.
With regard to the place of residence, the interpretation is more difficult so that
generalizations cannot be made here. Recent analyses (Dütschke et al., 2013)
point out that people living in urban areas might be more likely to take up
vehicle sharing concepts during the transition towards electric mobility while pur-
chasers of EVs are more likely to live in commuting distance to work and shop-
ping. However, broader and reliable data are scarce and, therefore, further
research and monitoring of actual developments are needed on these topics.
The observed differences in the WTP can, on the one hand, be interpreted as
implying some validity for our segmentation as they correspond to the affinity
towards EVs. On the other hand, they also indicate that there seems to be at
least some WTP more for an EV. However, if the WTP is compared to real
prices for EVs, it turns out that vehicles are still regarded as being too expensive.
In the further analyses conducted, we looked at the attributes that make EVs
attractive. These analyses are based on variables from the DoI and reveal other
meaningful differences, but also interesting similarities between groups. The
few differences between the users (group 1) and the consumers with purchase
intention (group 2) indicate that the consumers with purchase intention have
come to almost the same conclusions regarding the properties of EVs as the
user group, but have a lower WTP than the user group. Thus, they will probably
wait for EVs to enter the market at a lower price. Moreover, according to Rogers
(2003), a delayed and carefully considered purchase decision is indicative for
the early majority adopter category. In this regard, the lack of opportunity to prac-
tically test and evaluate EVs, which is perceived by all groups except the user
group, is probably a significant barrier to actual adoption.
Consumers with purchase intention (group 2) and affine consumers (group 3)
also differ significantly on several predictor variables, and those not interested in
EVs at all (group 4) rate most aspects lower than the other groups.
Regression analysis was used to identify those variables from the DoI which
influence the willingness to actually purchase an EV. The results generally suggest
that compatibility with own needs, habits and values is a necessary precondition,
which shows a significant relationship with the purchase intention for all four
groups. Moreover, for the less-interested consumers (groups 3 and 4), the per-
ceived social norm about the purchase and use of EVs plays a relevant role in
their purchase intention. In general, such interpretations need to be handled
with care as we analysed cross-sectional data, even if methods like regression
are applied which seem to imply a causal relationship. However, the relevance
of these factors is in line with Rogers’ (2003) theory. For example, the important
role of social norms and peer pressure is typical for consumers who adopt an inno-
vation relatively late, as these groups orientate their own decision to adopt an
innovation on the behaviour of others. Correspondingly, a higher share of EVs
on the streets could have a positive impact on the attitudes and purchase inten-
tions of these currently less-interested consumer groups.
Preferences regarding further development and measures are in line
with these overall results. Those who have not been interested in EVs so far
(group 4) do not expect that they can be convinced to buy an EV by any of the out-
lined developments or measures presented in the study. Thus, at the moment EVs
are not perceived as an alternative to conventional cars by this group. However,
this does not necessarily mean that this group will never become interested in
EVs. That this might change is—for example—indicated by the above mentioned
influence of social norms. However, it may also be that EVs do not fulfil the mobi-
lity needs of members of this group, i.e. EVs might not be a practical transport
option for them.
Strengthening environmental advantages of EVs and providing financial
incentives are rated as important measures by a majority of the sample. At the
same time, it is less important for most participants that EVs have comparable per-
formance characteristics to conventional vehicles, though results from previous
surveys focusing only on potential consumers who are not very familiar with
EVs indicated the opposite.
This indicates that EVs are seen as a new mobility option with their own
specific advantages and disadvantages (which may or may not be compatible
with an individual’s own needs, habits and values) and not simply as vehicles fea-
turing a new propulsion system. The demand for environmental advantages also
points out environmental attitudes and motives as a significant factor to influence
adoption of EVs. While people value this new means of transport due to different
aspects (in general, they perceive certain advantages and are willing to pay more),
they would appreciate financial incentives in view of the current prices for EVs.
Combinations of EVs with car sharing of conventional vehicles are less favoured
in our sample (for different results see, e.g. Dütschke et al., 2012); however, this
may be due to the specific characteristics of our sample. During the recruitment
process, we focused on car buyers, i.e. explicitly addressed individuals who
could imagine buying a car. Thus, our sample is likely to attach more value to
car ownership and might be less interested in car sharing than the average
population.
With regard to policy implications, it is important to keep in mind that con-
sumer perceptions are based on the one hand on actual conditions, i.e. character-
istics of EVs, and on the other hand on availability and content of information.
Thus, effective measures to promote EVs have to consider both, i.e. improve
both actual conditions and information and communication on EVs.
The ratings of financial incentives and the statements regarding WTP for EVs
indicate that high market shares of EVs seem not very likely until prices decrease
significantly, either due to policy measures, technology progress or business
models which reduce the costs for car users. Incentives schemes that reduce the
individual costs of EVs—as already implemented by several countries—might
be a feasible option at the current stage of development which also draws atten-
tion to EVs and demonstrates public support for their purchase. However, if
and which schemes are to be favoured needs to be subject to a careful debate
(Xenias & Whitmarsh, 2013). Also non-financial incentives, e.g. traffic priorities
such as allowance to EVs to use bus lanes, as introduced in many US states,
could be a feasible instrument to further enhance the attractiveness of EVs and
change attitudes towards EVs by practical experience and compensate price pre-
miums at least to some extent.
Moreover, our findings indicate that enhancing access to and trialability of
EVs for the average consumer could be an important approach for promoting
EVs. As recommended by Gärling & Thøgersen (2001), marketing should first
target consumer groups who are the most likely adopters. Besides targeting
already promising groups, which is certainly an important first step to getting a
higher number of EVs on the roads, it is also worthwhile cautiously trying to
change the perceptions of other target groups in a more positive direction. Influ-
encing social norms, i.e. the general perception of EVs, seems to be a promising
approach.
Overall, our study indicates that it is possible to identify consumer groups
that are more interested in EVs than others and thus specifically target these
groups in order to promote EVs. Thus, our research extends the findings pub-
lished so far. To the best of our knowledge, it is one of the first studies to
include a comparison of actual users of EVs to non-users. Further research will
be needed to extend this comparison to other countries as well as continuously
monitor implications due to the progressing market and vehicle development. If
consumers become more familiar with EVs, attitudes towards EVs are also
likely to change.
Another question that needs to be addressed in more detail in the future is in
how far actual usage of EVs changes perceptions and attitudes towards the
vehicle. The generally gradual differences between our four consumer groups
provide first hints supporting this hypothesis. However, a longitudinal study of
changes is needed to confirm our interpretation of the correlational data. If
actual usage of EVs leads to more favourable opinions this would imply an impor-
tant argument for carrying on with the fleet trials which are ongoing in many
countries as well as in Germany.
From a consumer perspective, the perceived compatibility with daily life is

the most important predictor for the willingness to purchase an EV, so that initiat-
ives improving this aspect seem promising.
Acknowledgements
For valuable comments on the survey conducted in this study, the authors thank
Jana Hoffmann and Bettina Ryf. They specially thank Raphael Agosti and Mareike
Popp who had a crucial role in realizing this survey and who supported data col-
lection and analysis. The authors would also like to thank three anonymous
reviewers for their valuable comments which helped to improve this paper.
Funding
The authors gratefully acknowledge funding by the German Federal Ministry of Education and
Research (BMBF, Grant Number: 13N10597-13N10600).
Notes
1. Until August 2013, the overall number of EVs in Germany has now risen to slightly above 10,000;
however, the overall market share is still low (,0.02 %) (KBA, 2013).
2. For the variable relative advantage, the meaning of the scale values differed: 1 ¼ very low/not
sufficient and 7 ¼ very high/absolutely sufficient.
3. In the analyses, we use—analogous to the other model variables—the positive term ease of use
instead of complexity and code items so that higher values for this variable indicate an easier
use of EVs and are assumed to correlate with the target variable.
4. In total, the survey was accessed 3497 times during the data collection period. 2301 people
dropped out before completing the survey. As the majority dropped out on the first page, i.e.
before the actual start of the survey, the completion rate of 34.2% is regarded as satisfactory.
5. A x2-test shows that the frequency distribution significantly differs from a random distribution
(x2 ¼ 56.0; df ¼ 3; p , .01).
6. If age is analysed as a continuous variable and included in a one-way ANOVA, the non-interested
group and the affine group are significantly younger than the group with purchase intention and
the group of actual users (F ¼ 7.0; p , .01; df ¼ 3/965; post hoc Scheffé-test, p , .05).
7. A one-way ANOVA shows that these two groups differ significantly (F ¼ 3.0; p , .05; df ¼ 3/965;
post hoc Scheffé-test, p , .05).
8. A x2-test shows that the frequency distribution significantly differs from a random distribution
(x2 ¼ 13.0; df ¼ 6; p , .05).
9. F ¼ 23.9; p , .01; df ¼ 3/733.
10. Significant differences among all the groups concerning the intention to use and purchase an EV
could be observed in a post hoc analysis, except for the groups of users and consumers with con-
crete purchase intention.
11. The scale measuring compatibility shows multicollinearity with other variables in the model for
the overall sample as well as within the group of consumers not interested in EVs. Compatibility
is especially correlated to social norm (r ¼ .674) and relative advantages (r ¼ .561), i.e. estimations
may be less stable then it would be desirable.
References
ABF – morphologische marktanalysen (2010) Elektro-Autos – Kurzfristiger Hype oder die Zukunft der
Mobilität? Available at http://www.abf-morphologen.de (accessed 28 August 2012).
ADAC (2009) ADAC-Umfrage Kaufbereitschaft Elektroautos (Landsberg a. Lech: ADAC).
Anable, J., Skippon, S., Schuitema, G., & Kinnear, N. (2011) Who will adopt electric vehicles? A segmen-
tation approach of UK consumers, in: Proceedings to ECEEE Summer Study, June 9, France, Belambra
Presqu’ı̂le de Giens.
Artho, J. (2008) Der individuelle Adoptionsprozess bei technologischen Innovationen am Beispiel von
Holzpelletheizungen, Doctoral dissertation, University of Zurich.
Davis, F. D. (1993) User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions
and behavioral impacts, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), pp. 475–487.
Dütschke, E., Schneider, U., Sauer, A., Wietschel, M., Hoffmann, J., & Domke, S. (2012) Roadmap zur
Kundenakzeptanz – Zentrale Ergebnisse der sozialwissenschaftlichen Begleitforschung in den Modellregionen
(Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer ISI, Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS)).
Dütschke, E., Schneider, U., & Peters, A. (2013) Who Will Use Electric Vehicles? Working Paper Sustain-
ability and Innovation No. S 6/2013, Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer ISI.
European Commission (2011) White Paper – Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a
Competitive and Resource Efficient Transport System, European Commission, COM(2011) 144 final, Brus-
sels: European Commission.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and
Research (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).
Gärling, A., & Thøgersen, J. (2001) Marketing of electric vehicles, Business Strategy and the Environment,
10(1), pp. 53–65.
German government (2011) Regierungsprogramm Elektromobilität (Berlin: German government).
Götz, K., Sunderer, G., Birzle-Harder, B., & Deffner, J. (2011) Attraktivität und Akzeptanz von Elektroautos.
Arbeitspaket 1 des Projekts OPTUM: Optimierung der Umweltentlastungspotenziale von Elektrofahrzeugen.
Anhang zum Schlussbericht im Rahmen der Förderung von Forschung und Entwicklung im Bereich
der Elektromobilität des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit,
(Frankfurt/Main: ISOE (Institut für sozial-ökologische Forschung)).
Graham-Rowe, E., Gardner, B., Abraham, C., Skippon, S., Dittmar, H., Hutchins, R., & Stannard, J.
(2012) Mainstream consumers driving plug-in battery-electric and plug-in hybrid electric cars: A
qualitative analysis of responses and evaluations, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,
46(1), pp. 140– 153.
Huijts, N. M. A., Molina, E. J. E., & Steg, L. (2012) Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy
technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 16(1), pp. 525– 531.
KBA – Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt (2009/2011) Statistiken des Kraftfahrt-Bundesamtes. Available at http://
www.kba.de
KBA – Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt (2013) Fahrzeugzulassungen im August 2013, Pressemitteilung Nr. 26/2013.
Available at http://www.kba.de (accessed 24 October 2013).
Knie, A., Berthold, O., Hård, M., Buland, T., Gjøen, H., Truffer, B., & Harms, S. (1997) Consumer User
Patterns of Electric Vehicles, Discussion paper, Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozial-
forschung.
Knie, A., Berthold, O., Harms, S., & Truffer, B. (1999) Die Neuerfindung urbaner Automobilität. Elektroautos
und ihr Gebrauch in den U.S.A. und Europa (Berlin: Ed. Sigma).
Lieven, T., Mühlmeier, S., Henkel, S., & Waller, J. F. (2011) Who will buy electric cars? An empirical
study in Germany, Transportation Research Part D, 16(3), pp. 236– 243.
Peters, A. & Hoffmann, J. (2011) Nutzerakzeptanz von Elektromobilität: Eine empirische Studie zu attraktiven
Nutzungsvarianten, Fahrzeugkonzepten und Geschäftsmodellen aus Sicht potenzieller Nutzer (Karlsruhe:
Fraunhofer ISI).
Peters, A., Doll, C., Kley, F., Plötz, P., Schade, W., Thielmann, A., Wietschel, M., & Zanker, C. (2013) Kon-
zepte der Elektromobilität und deren Bedeutung für Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft und Umwelt. Project on behalf
of the Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag (Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer ISI).
Robison, R. A. V., & Nath, C. (Oct 2010) Electric Vehicles. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology
POSTnote no. 365.
Rogers, E. M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations (New York: Free Press).
Schneider, U., Dütschke, E., & Peters, A. (2014) How does actual usage of electric vehicles influence con-
sumer acceptance?, in: M. Hülsmann & D. Fornahl (Eds) Evolutionary Paths Towards the Mobility Pat-
terns of the Future, pp. 49– 66. (Heidelberg: Springer).
Statistisches Bundesamt (Hg.) (2012a) Familien mit minderjährigen Kindern 2010 nach Zahl der minderjäh-
rigen Kinder und nach der Familienform. Available at https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/
GesellschaftStaat/Bevoelkerung/HaushalteFamilien/Tabellen/FamilienKindern.html?nn¼50740
(accessed 28 August 2012).
Statistisches Bundesamt (Hg.) (2012b) Bildungsstand. Available at https://www.destatis.de/DE/

ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/BildungForschungKultur/Bildungsstand/Tabellen/Bildungsabsc
hluss.html?nn¼50760 (accessed 28 August 2012).
Statistisches Bundesamt (Hg.) (2012c) Bevölkerung und Erwerbstätigkeit. Haushalte und Familien. Ergeb-
nisse des Mikrozensus. Available at https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/
Bevoelkerung/HaushalteMikrozensus/HaushalteFamilien2010300107004.pdf?__blob¼publication
File (accessed 28 August 2012).
Taylor, S. & Todd, P. A. (1995) Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience, MIS Quarterly, 19,
pp. 561– 570.
Vilimek, R., Keinath, A., & Schwalm, M. (2012) The MINI E field study – similarities and differences in
international everyday EV driving, in: N. A. Stanton (Ed.) Advances in Human Aspects of Road and Rail
Transport, pp. 363– 372 (Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group).
Wejnert, B. (2002) Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework, Annual
Review of Sociology (Annual Reviews), 28, pp. 297 –306.
Xenias, D. & Whitmarsh, L. (2013) Dimensions and determinants of expert and public attitudes to sus-
tainable transport policies and technologies, Transportation Research Part A, 48, pp. 75– 85.
Ziegler, A. (2012) Individual characteristics and stated preferences for alternative energy sources and
propulsion technologies in vehicles: A discrete choice analysis for Germany, Transportation Research
Part A, 46(8), pp. 1372– 1385.

Germanev

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

Germanev

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning

ISSN: 1523-908X (Print) 1522-7200 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjoe20

How do Consumers Perceive Electric Vehicles? A

Anja Peters & Elisabeth Dütschke

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2013.879037

Published online: 05 Feb 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 724

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 30 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

How do Consumers Perceive Electric Vehicles? A

ANJA PETERS & ELISABETH DÜTSCHKE

KEY WORDS: Acceptance, diffusion of innovation, early adopters, survey, prefer-

# 2014 Taylor & Francis

Conceptual Background and Research Questions

Acceptance of New Technologies

Consumer Acceptance of EVs in the 1990s

whether they emphasized environmental concerns, enthusiasm for technology or

Consumer Acceptance of the Current Generation of EVs

charging durations as major drawbacks; however, complaints declined once the

Based on this model, we focus on the following research questions:

nitions and recommendations and which corresponded to previous studies of the

which is to be explained by the predictor variables, was assessed by the following

Preliminary analyses and statistical methods

Table 1. Socio-demographic variables across the four groups compared to the

Not Affine Purchase German

. 60 years 9.6 7.7 8.2 5.4 29.8

How Do the Groups Differ in their WTP for an EV?

Analysing Differences in the Model Variables between Consumer Groups

How do consumers perceive electric vehicles?

Predicting Intention to Purchase and Use an EV in the Respective Consumer Groups

Table 3. Significant standardized regression coefficients b and R2 of regression

Compatibility .349∗∗ .274∗∗∗ .451∗∗∗ .588∗∗∗ .549∗∗∗

Note: Missings were excluded pairwise.

the socio-demographic characteristics of these groups. It turned out that consumer

From a consumer perspective, the perceived compatibility with daily life is

Statistisches Bundesamt (Hg.) (2012b) Bildungsstand. Available at https://www.destatis.de/DE/

You might also like