Electric Mobility in Europe - A Comprehensive Review of Motivators and Barriers in Decision Making Processes

Transportation Research Part A 109 (2018) 1–13
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Transportation Research Part A

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tra
Electric mobility in Europe: A comprehensive review of motivators

T
and barriers in decision making processes
⁎
Mehmet Efe Biresselioglua, , Melike Demirbag Kaplanb, Barbara Katharina Yilmaza
a
Sustainable Energy Division, Izmir University of Economics, Turkey
b
Department of Business Administration, Business School, Izmir University of Economics, Turkey
AR TI CLE I NF O AB S T R A CT
Keywords: European Union’s (EU) long-term objective of achieving a competitive low carbon economy is
Electric mobility mainly based on enabling environmentally sustainable investments, particularly in terms of de-
Electric vehicles creasing energy consumption in buildings, transition to electric vehicles, and developing smart
Europe electricity networks, while promoting renewable energy use in order to reduce greenhouse gas
Decision making process
(GHG) emissions by at least 80% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. Since, transport is one of the
Motivators
Barriers
main sector responsible for EU’s emissions; diffusion of Electric Vehicles (EVs) could allow im-
mense reduction. Therefore, since the announcement of 2050 Roadmap in 2009, there has been a
great increase in studies exploring the viability of transition to e-mobility in a Europe-wide
context, identifying common factors and variables. However, it is usually not that straightfor-
ward when decision makers seek to transform these variables into policy implications that will
actually help to achieve the EU goals on energy transition. At this point, the motivators and
barriers are of utmost importance. Accordingly, this study is based on an extensive and up-to-date
review of the existing literature on e-mobility in Europe, with the main aim of identifying and
mapping the motivators and barriers for the diffusion of electric mobility through three levels of
decision-making: Formal Social Units, Collective Decision-Making Units, and Individual Units.
Results of the analysis identifies that the main barriers are lack of charging infrastructure; eco-
nomic restrictions and cost concerns; technical and operational restrictions; lack of trust; in-
formation and knowledge; limited supply of electricity and raw materials; and practicability
concerns. Thus, key motivators appear to be environmental, economic and technical benefits
associated with EVs, as well as personal and demographic factors.
1. Introduction
The transport sector is one of the main consumers of fossil fuel, and hence is a major contributor to the EU’s total greenhouse gas
(GHG) emission, accounting for 23% of total GHG emission as of 2015 (EuroStat Greenhouse Gas Emission Statistics, 2015). It is also
the only sector to continue showing increasing GHG emissions (EEA, 2016; European Commission, 2016; Taefi et al., 2016). This not
only increases the fossil fuel dependency, but also leads to severe impacts on the environment, such as air pollution, noise, resource
use and waste, and eventually, causes climate change (EEA, 2016). To address the issue of climate change, the European Commission
has set the target of achieving emission-free urban passenger transportation by 2050 (i.e., abandoning the use of conventionally
fuelled cars in cities) and emission-free urban freight transportation by 2030 (i.e., CO2 free logistics) (European Commission, 2011).
However, in order to reach these targets set by the European Commission, there needs to be a shift in the transport sector from
⁎
Corresponding author at: Sustainable Energy Division, Izmir University of Economics, Sakarya Cad. No: 156, Balcova/Izmir, Turkey.
E-mail addresses: efe.biresselioglu@ieu.edu.tr (M.E. Biresselioglu), melike.demirbag@ieu.edu.tr (M. Demirbag Kaplan), katharina.yilmaz@ieu.edu.tr (B.K. Yilmaz).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.01.017
Received 1 October 2017; Received in revised form 4 January 2018; Accepted 8 January 2018
Available online 04 February 2018
0965-8564/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.E. Biresselioglu et al. Transportation Research Part A 109 (2018) 1–13
fossil fuel dependent vehicles to alternative transportation systems that are less dependent on fuel. Key to this shift is electric
mobility, and in specific the introduction of electric vehicles (EV) (Usmani and Rösler, 2015). These vehicles are fully or partially
electrically powered, and hence reduce fossil fuel dependency and GHG emissions. However, as of now, the acceptance of alternative
fuel saving transport vehicles is still marginal, and EU sales volume of EVs is very low. For example, very few countries, such as
Sweden (3.8%), and Belgium (2.1%) have market share exceeding 2% of total new car sales by the first half of 2017 (The Electric
Vehicle World Sales Database, 2017). The Netherland’s 3.87% EV share in new car sales in 2014 dipped to 1.5% in 2017, pursuant to
expectations of incentive withdrawals (IEA, 2016; EAFO, 2017). Not being an EU member, Norway maintains generous tax incentives
and the country’s 28.9% EV diffusion rate is also worth noting in terms of new sale market shares in Europe. In the light of such
examples, low figures in EV penetration demonstrate the need for governments and institutions to take action in order to increase
market diffusion.
Several research projects have addressed the issue that the electric mobility market is still in infancy, and point to many barriers
and challenges to successful diffusion of EVs throughout Europe. These studies also provide recommendations for governments and
institutions to remedy this slow diffusion, and recommend policies and incentives to alleviate this concern. Despite the keen interest
in this research area, there is a lack of studies providing an extensive overview, considering the existing literature, technical reports
and directives. This study therefore provides a comprehensive assessment that (1) investigates the actions conducted so far to reach
the 2030 and 2050 goals, (2) analyses the current situation within the EU, and finally, (3) identifies motivators and barriers related to
Europe’s transition towards electric mobility.
This study is based on an extensive and up-to-date review of the existing literature on electric mobility in Europe, with the main
aim of identifying and mapping the motivators and barriers for the diffusion of electric mobility in Europe with a significant focus on
the three different decision levels defined as formal social units: (1) formal social units, (2) collective decision-making bodies, and (3)
individual consumers. This approach allows this study to produce a critical overview of the overarching importance of varying
motivators and barriers in different levels. The study is based on manuscripts, technical reports and directives focusing on Electric
Mobility in Europe, published between 2003 and 2017. A keyword search utilizing words and phrases such as “electric mobility”, “e-
mobility”, “electric vehicles”, “energy behaviour”, “automobility”, “electric bus”, “hybrid vehicles”, “smart charging”, “low carbon
transport”, “consumer awareness”, “energy transition”, “smart mobility”, and “eco-driving” was conducted on major academic da-
tabases, including Web of Science, Sciencedirect, Scopus and Google Scholar to generate a list of relevant manuscript in addition to
the existing technical reports and directives. The initial list of references contained around 500 sources. These were then refined by
omitting first recurring manuscripts, and then those with a focus outside the European experience, while this study selectively
included additional relevant items. The manuscripts were then examined thoroughly and classified into categories, and subcategories
based on levels of decision-making, method used, and perspective adopted. Following this pre-process, around 90 sources were
included in the analysis.
This study first concentrates on the importance of electric mobility in Europe, outlining its role and impact, goals set by the EU
and its member states, car manufacturer’s efforts, specific objectives with regard to infrastructural dimensions, and main challenges.
Following that, it focuses on decision-making processes as a critical dimension in developing the electric vehicle market, highlighting
the key motivators and barriers for three levels of decision-making: Formal Social Units, Collective Decision-Making Units, and
Individual Units. Then, this study discusses the results of the analyses and main findings.
2. Importance of the electric mobility in Europe
2.1. Role and impact of electric mobility
Transport sector accounts for a quarter of Europe’s GHG emission, and therefore is considered to be a major source of air
pollution, contributing to climate change (European Commission, 2016). The electrification of transport (electric mobility) not only
significantly reduces energy consumption and GHG emissions, but also enhances Europe’s energy security. In addition, public health
will benefit from the reduction of air pollution. The shift towards electric mobility also offers many opportunities for European car
manufacturers through modernized technologies, and these opportunities are needed for market innovations. Besides car manu-
factures, also energy companies and service providers can benefit from the shift, because new jobs will be created with the devel-
opment of modernized technologies throughout the different sectors (Haddadian et al., 2015; European Commission, 2016). Electric
mobility is hence the focus of discussions concerning sustainable and energy-efficient means of transportation (Peters et al., 2011;
Faria et al., 2014).
Innovations enabling the electrification of transport are EVs, plug-in battery-powered electric vehicles that are able to be charged
through an external power supply (Chan, 2007). There are several existing types of EVs with a range of varying technologies,
including plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), battery electric vehicles (BEVs), extended-range battery electric vehicles (E-REVs)
and hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs). According to definitions by Adnan et al. (2016), BEVs run solely on electricity via on-board
batteries that are charged by plugging into a power outlet or charging station. These vehicles do not have a gasoline engine, but do
have longer electric driving ranges compared to PHEVs, and create no tailpipe emissions. PHEVs have an internal combustion engine
powered by conventional or alternative fuel, and an electric motor that uses battery-stored energy power. These types of vehicles can
be plugged into a power outlet to charge the battery. Some types of these vehicles can travel more than 70 miles on electricity alone,
or, solely on gasoline. HEVs, on the other hand, have primarily an internal combustion engine that runs on conventional or alter-
native fuel, and an electric motor that uses energy stored in a battery powers. The battery is charged via regenerative braking and the
internal combustion engine, and there is no need to plug into a power outlet.
2
To achieve emission-free transportation, action can be taken in the two transportation segments, passenger and freight (Taefi
et al., 2016). Light and heavy-duty commercial vehicles are major contributors to CO2 emissions, air pollution, noise and traffic
(Kaplan et al., 2016). Although these vehicles account for only 13% of the vehicles in Europe, they contribute more than one third to
the total CO2 emissions in road transport (EEA, 2016). Shifting the freight transportation to electric mobility, hence, represents an
enormous potential for reducing environmental impact. Furthermore, the freight transportation segment is likely to be an early
adopter of electric mobility (Sierzchula et al., 2014; Klauenberg et al., 2016) due to organizations’ high vehicle-purchasing rate,
intense usage, and a clear understanding of the lifetime vehicle costs. That is, organizations can better appreciate that the high
vehicle purchase price is offset by the low operational costs (Sierzchula et al., 2014; Wikström et al., 2015). In addition, organizations
aim to lower environmental impacts, and improve the organization’s public image (Sierzchula et al., 2014). Passenger cars, on the
other hand, accounts for 83.4% of inland passenger transport in the EU-28 and contributes around two third to the total road
transport emissions (EEA, 2016).
2.2. Goals set by the EU
In order to achieve the above-mentioned targets, the EU has set several goals in mainly three areas as detailed below.
“Transport 2050” - Strategy: For many local authorities, the key short-term goal is to enhance local air quality (Quak et al., 2016).
In the long run, the European Commission has developed a comprehensive strategy called “Transport 2050” to address the issue of
increased GHG emissions, and to reduce Europe’s dependency on imported oil (European Commission, 2011). Accordingly, the goals
are that, by 2030, the use of conventionally fuelled passenger cars will be halved, and urban freight transportation will be CO2
emission-free, and by 2050, conventionally fuelled cars will be completely phased out of cities. With the “Transport 2050” strategy in
line, the European Commission has recently communicated a European strategy for low-emission mobility (European Commission,
2016). This strategy aims to decrease Europe’s imported oil dependency while increasing innovation and competitiveness. For ex-
ample, in regard to the commercial sector, it is of major concern to reduce the CO2 emissions caused by freight logistics, but at the
same time, to guarantee an efficient urban freight transport system (Quak et al., 2016).
Infrastructure: Given that energy demand increases with rising EV usage, the EU posits in its Directive (Directive 2014/94/EU)
that Member States need to ensure recharging points for EVs to be publicly accessible and to provide sufficient coverage. These
recharging stations should therefore be installed at public transport stations, including airports, railway stations, collective parking
lots and business locations. The EU goal is to create a charging infrastructure of one recharging point per 10 EVs, to guarantee levels
of usage. The key aim is that owners of EVs can recharge their vehicles across Europe without obstacles.
A further goal is the interoperability and standardization of electro-mobility in order to facilitate recharging of EVs across Europe
(European Commission, 2010). A charging plug standard for cars already exists, the next step is to introduce such a standard to
electric buses and motorbikes (European Commission, 2010).
Electric Market Design: As highlighted in the introduction, the goal of the European Commission is to achieve emission-free
transport by 2050 for passengers, as well as commercial transport. However, the reduction of emissions gained by introducing electric
vehicles is highly dependent on the source of electricity used (Kannan and Hirschberg, 2016). This source of electricity is likely to be
nuclear power or renewable energy sources (EEA, 2016). Consequently, in order to optimize impact on CO2 emissions, the source of
electricity for vehicle charging should be renewable sources such as wind and sun (Usmani and Rösler, 2015). According to a study
conducted by the Oeko-Institut in 2012, there will be a growth in renewable energy in the future, but according to their model
calculation, the total predicted amount available in 2030 would not be sufficient to meet the increased demand by EVs (Oeko-Institut,
2012). Since the EU is aiming to phase out nuclear power, electricity companies face the challenge of meeting the increased energy
demand through an expansion of renewable energies from sun, wind and water. To address this issue, the European Commission aims
to link the transport and energy sectors (European Commission, 2010). This link is especially important, because, with rising use of
electricity in the transport sector, challenges may arise in meeting demand at peak times. For example, high load spikes may cause
stability problems within electric grids (Flath et al., 2013). In 2010, the European Commission proposed the “Electric Market Design”,
which aims to encourage recharging when cheap electricity is available, i.e., when demand is low or supply is high (European
Commission, 2010).
2.3. Goals set by the member states and measures for achievement
Despite the ambitious goals of the EU, market diffusion of electric vehicles is currently very low. For example, in 2015 electric
passenger vehicles represented just 1.2% of all new cars sold in the EU, although the sales of electric passenger vehicles dramatically
increased from 49,000 in 2013 to 150,000 in 2015 (EEA, 2016). However, only 0.15% of the total passenger vehicles are electric, and
90% of these sales are in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Sweden and Denmark (EEA, 2016).
Given this low diffusion, it can be considered that there is no acceptance of EVs, and nor a general understanding of the ad-
vantages and costs. The main challenge is that conventional vehicles offer high levels of technological advancements, and benefit
from high social acceptance, and hence, remain serious competition (Wells and Nieuwenhuis, 2012). In particular, an EV is usually a
more expensive option, in addition to limited choice and availability of car models. Furthermore, potential buyers have limited
information about the capabilities of EVs, and have doubt about the technology in terms of vehicle range, charging availability, and
costs of ownership (EEA, 2016). Further, an initial resistance is common among commercial vehicle users. However, this attitude can
change after a positive experience (Wikström et al., 2015).
To date, small and medium-sized BEVs, as well as medium-sized and large PHEVs dominate the EV market; however, the demand
3
for each of the vehicle type depends on the incentives and purchasing subsidies offered by governments (EEA, 2016; EAFO, 2017).
The European Commission has a target to achieve emission-free transport by 2050, for passenger and commercial transport. This
relies heavily on reducing CO2 emission in new vehicles. By 2012, transport was responsible for around 20% of CO2 gas emissions,
making it the second largest emitting sector after the energy industry within the EU. Emissions from the sector grew by 19% between
1990 and 2011 (European Commission, 20121). In order to alleviate this trend and accomplish the EU targets, a series of measures
has been imposed, particularly on car manufacturers. In this context, 2015 targets required that the new cars registered in the EU do
not exceed an average of 130 g of CO2 per kilometre (g CO2/km) (ICCT, 2014). These targets were achieved by 2013, and the CO2
emission level in 2014 continued to decrease to 123.3 g/km on average (EEA, 2016), and the average emissions level of new cars in
2015 fell to 119.5 g. Following the initiation of monitoring under the current legislation in 2010, emissions have reduced by
21 g CO2/km (15%). Therefore, the 2009 EU legislation with binding CO2 targets has proven effective. 2021 targets require the fleet
average of all new cars to be limited to 95 g of CO2 per kilometre (European Commission, 20172).
Achievement of goals in reducing CO2 emissions has not directly translated into a corresponding growth in the EV market.
Currently, the vast majority of Europe’s new cars are gasoline or diesel powered with a total market share of 93%, while the shares of
hybrid-electric vehicles, and Plug-in hybrid (PHEV) and battery-electric vehicles are 1.8% and 1.1% respectively in the EU in 2015
(ICCT, 2017). With regard to EV market share, Norway (28.9%) surpass other European countries, particularly due to favourable
taxation schemes (The Electric Vehicle World Sales Database, 2017).
Mock and Yang (2014) provide an analysis of fiscal incentive policies for electric vehicles worldwide, and conclude that there is a
significant relationship between supportive national incentive schemes and the level of uptake of EVs. There are a number of policy
incentives to increase the sales of EVs; however, the most effective ones are direct subsidies (one-time bonus upon purchase of an EV),
and fiscal incentives (purchase reduction and/or annual tax for EVs). The authors also mention fuel cost savings, based on the fact
that electricity prices are lower than fuel prices, and accordingly, the cost to fuel an electric car is about a sixth to eighth of the cost of
a gas-equivalent vehicle (Idaho National Laboratory, 2017). While this last one is not a policy incentive, it appears to be a major
factor that alleviates economic concerns of potential buyers when making decision. Mock and Yang’s (2014) analysis also highlights
that the most noticeable measures appear to be purchase incentives for cars, while in most of the proactive countries (e.g., Norway,
Netherlands), circulation taxes and concessions on company car taxes also play an important role.
2.4. Car manufacturers’ efforts to satisfy a new EV market
A major challenge facing the electric car industry is, despite all incentives given, the competition with their conventional
counterparts on a technological and sociological level (Wells and Nieuwenhuis, 2012). Key actors in overcoming these obstacles are
unquestionably the automobile manufacturers (Shao et al., 2016). In 2010, Bain & Company estimated that one in every two new car
sales would be electric by 2020 (Bain & Company, 2010). While current numbers fall short of this figure, electric mobility is the key
trend in 2017, according to automotive industry executives (KPMG, 2017). This is particularly important given that EVs moved up
from rank 9 in 2015, which is inevitably attributable to new targets set for 2020 and 2030. For instance, EVI (Electric Vehicles
Initiative) has set a 20 by 20 target, i.e. a global electric car fleet of 20 million by 2020. Equally ambitious is the Paris Declaration on
Electro-Mobility and Climate Change and Call to Action, which sets a global target of 100 million by 2030 (IEA, 2016). In this context,
manufacturers face the challenge of developing a mass market with existing EV technologies, as well as investing in new technologies
to overcome infrastructural barriers. By March 2017, Renault Zoe, BMW i3, and Nissan LEAF (EVObsession, 2017) led electric car
sales in Europe. Moreover, major carmakers GM, Audi, Toyota, Volkswagen and Volvo recently each announced the production of at
least one fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV) model by 2020, and industry experts predict that others are likely to follow (Thompson,
2016). A KMPG Industry Survey reveals that fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs), which use hydrogen gas to power an electric motor
instead of batteries, are perceived to be the main focus of R&D the near future, as the majority of executives believe that battery
powered vehicles market will eventually fail due to infrastructure challenges (KPMG, 2017).
2.5. Infrastructural objectives
Rapid growth of the EV fleet in Europe necessitates a thorough examination of the infrastructural capabilities available, which are
critical to support further development of the market. Infrastructure in this market mainly refers to the network of charging station,
on which EV mobility depends. This is particularly the case because charging infrastructure appears to be a key barrier for market
diffusion, and the main source of consumer anxiety in changing their preferences (Axsen et al., 2013; Azadfar et al., 2015; Bakker and
Trip, 2013; Barisa et al., 2016; Barlag, 2015; Daziano and Chiew, 2012; Graham-Rowe et al., 2012; Laurischkat et al., 2016;
Sierzchula et al., 2014; Tan et al., 2016)
To date, most European countries opted for the public sector to take the lead for installing charging facilities, particularly
Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, the UK, and France. While some member states allocate fiscal funding to the deployment of
charging stations, (e.g. the UK, France, etc.) others, including the German government, are more inclined to support R&D into more
efficient charging technologies, as well as encouraging local authorities to establish charging infrastructure (Amsterdam Roundtables
Foundation and McKinsey Company, 2014).
1
For more info, please see http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/index_en.htm.
2
For more info, please see https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/cars_en.
4
2016 and 2017 emerged as critical years for the deployment of electric recharging infrastructure, as EU Member States were
required to submit National Policy Frameworks that established each country’s implementation plan for the Alternative Fuels
Infrastructure (AFI) Directive by November 2016 (Electro-Mobility Platform, 2016). The AFI Directive calls for action with regard to
charging infrastructure, in order to reduce consumer concerns towards EVs, and thus, to foster the growth of the market. According to
the AFI Directive, there are three areas of significance: (1) increasing the number of private charging units, (2) expanding the number
of publicly accessible charging stations, and (3) determining standard technical specifications for recharging and refuelling stations
(European Commission, 2014). These ambitious targets also require private sector involvement in the deployment of charging in-
frastructure, as costs for such a large-scale deployment are too high for the public sector alone (Amsterdam Roundtables Foundation
and McKinsey Company, 2014).
2.6. Main challenges
Given the ambitious targets by the EU Commission and the Member States, actual growth of the EV market is still lagging behind
the objectives. In order to address the factors that impede the success of EV diffusion, a number of measures might be considered by
policy makers. First, an effective coordination is needed between many stakeholders in the EV ecosystem, including the customers,
power system and distribution network operators, manufacturers and services providers, mobility and urban planners (Newbery and
Strbac, 2016).
A second issue in this domain arises from the fact that low-emission mobility is a European-wide matter, i.e., all countries need to
have a common position regarding policies, charging infrastructure, etc. This requires a holistic understanding that not only focuses
on country-specific problems, but also needs a wider international framework in which to consider EV diffusion. Currently, there are
almost as many national studies as international studies in the literature review, but more studies European-wide are needed to
develop a coherent regional approach.
A final problem that needs to be addressed in research is the lack of a comprehensive overview of all dimensions in decision-
making processes, including barriers and motivators. To date, research has focused on specific markets and contexts, but provides no
overall picture to show the links and relationships within the decision-making process. Barriers already identified in the literature
include unfamiliarity with the market for environmental friendly products, lack of trust, non-competitive price, lack of motivation,
lack of availability, limited choice of models, and technological uncertainty (Shao et al., 2016; EEA 2016). Similarly, demographic,
personal and lifestyle related factors appear to be key variables regarding incentives and policies to increase EV preference (Axsen
et al., 2013). Our review focuses on these dimensions on three decision-making levels, i.e. formal, collective and individual levels, in
order to provide a comprehensive framework that identifies how these barriers and motivators operate in different contexts.
3. Identification of motivators and barriers to the diffusion of electric vehicles
An analysis of the existing literature in an attempt to pinpoint the most significant factors and variables that drive the transition to
a carbon free economy in the context of electric mobility provides important insights. One main conclusion that can be drawn from
such an analysis is that many factors and variables are commonly identified across various member states and various decision
making levels (Axsen et al., 2016; Comodi et al., 2016; Kaplan et al., 2016; Klauenberg et al., 2016; Sang and Bekhet, 2015; Taefi
et al., 2016; Mahmoud et al., 2016; Mardani et al., 2016; Morton et al., 2016; Noel and Sovacool, 2016; Quak et al., 2016; Rezvani
et al., 2015; Bakker and Trip, 2013; Burgess et al., 2013; Graham-Rowe et al., 2012; Wikström et al., 2015; Laurischkat et al., 2016;
Schmalfuβ et al., 2015). However, it is usually not that straightforward when decision makers seek to transform these variables into
policy implications that will actually help to achieve the EU goals on energy transition. At this point, the motivators and barriers are
of utmost importance. That is, a thorough analysis of the motivators and barriers will help to establish the bridge between the
outstanding factors and variables, the progress of transition to a low carbon economy, and finally what needs to be done to achieve
goals set by the EU and by member states.
Hence, this section provides a comprehensive review of existing research with respect to the identification of motivators and
barriers to the diffusion of electric vehicles in the following three levels of formal social units: (1) formal social units which act as
policy-makers and/or energy providers, (2) collective decision-making units which are more formally structured and with relatively
lower information and power asymmetries, and (3) individual consumers engaging in joint contracts to increase their power of
negotiation. Below, these motivators and barriers are categorized in relation to line decision making units identified in the previous
section, along with the relevant literature than focuses on each.
3.1. Motivators and barriers of the formal social unit
3.1.1. Barriers
• Lack of charging infrastructure: At the formal social decision making unit, lack of charging infrastructure is considered one of
the main barriers to EV market diffusion (Azadfar et al., 2015; Bakker and Trip, 2013; Barisa et al., 2016; Barlag, 2015; Foltyński,
2014; Sierzchula et al., 2014; Tan et al., 2016; Tietge et al., 2016). This is especially due to the fact that in case of insufficient
charging infrastructure, there is no guarantee of flexibility and convenience in energy supply, which in turn makes EV driving less
attractive (Haddadian et al., 2015). A sufficient charging infrastructure can, however, only be realized with the availability of
extensive information on drivers and driving patterns (i.e., travel habits, routs, and EV charging). Based on such data,
5
optimization of a charging network and relevant management systems might be possible (Rahman et al., 2016)
• Economic restrictions Barisa et al. (2016) reveal in their study that the higher price of electric cars in comparison to conven-
tional cars is one of the main barriers to the introduction of EVs into municipal fleets. In this context, Sierzchula et al. (2014)
argue that EV prices are considerably higher, and there are no compensating benefits for users for lower pollution levels. From an
economic perspective, Haddadian et al. (2015) argue that the total cost of ownership of electric vehicles is lower than in the case
of conventional vehicles, due to fuel savings and lower maintenance costs. However, many potential EV users are not aware of
these benefits, and compare EVs with conventional vehicles solely on purchase price. In addition, many potential EV buyers are
not aware of the various government incentive programs; such awareness is key to the successful market acceptance of EVs
(Haddadian et al., 2015).
• Technical restrictions A large number of studies also consider technical restrictions, such as charging time, battery technology or
electric battery range as barriers to effective EV market implementation (Azadfar et al., 2015; Barisa et al., 2016; Foltyński, 2014;
Haddadian et al., 2015; Kasten and Hacker, 2014; Mahmoud et al., 2016; Sierzchula et al., 2014; Tan et al., 2016). For example,
Haddadian et al. (2015) conclude that the battery costs are excessive, battery life is uncertain, and most of batteries have limited
range and long charging times. Also, these batteries occupy a space much larger than a gasoline tank. Regarding the electric
battery range, there is a notable misperception among EV drivers that the range cannot meet their actual driving needs
(Haddadian et al., 2015).
• Lack of trust in environmental benefits Many potential EV buyers lack sufficient information on electric vehicles and their
benefits (Barisa et al., 2016), and additionally, potential EV buyers are uncertain in how far the use of an EV actually leads to a
decrease of CO2 emissions, and thus benefits the environment. There are concerns that electric mobility actually leads to an
increase in electric power demand, which in turn, increases the CO2 emissions (Kasten and Hacker, 2014; Öko Institute, 2012).
Therefore, many potential consumers question the environmentally-friendliness of EVs due to the lack of information on the
power sources for charging the EVs (Haddadian et al., 2015). Besides the increased power demand, potential EV drivers consider
the disposal of used batteries as harmful to the environment, which increases the uncertainty about environmental benefits
(Haddadian et al., 2015). However, such concerns may be alleviated by providing the consumers with sufficient information and
reassurance, particularly based on the fact that lithium-ion batteries used in EVs are in fact considered as general solid waste in
contrast to lead-acid and nickel cadmium batteries, which are regulated as hazardous. Moreover, lithium-ion recycling is on the
top of bureaucratic and commercial agendas with promising developments and efforts in waste management, paving the way for a
manageable solution (Winslow et al., 2018).
• Electricity supply Increased electric mobility increases electricity demands. Given the fact that many economies are planning to
phase out nuclear energy, increased electricity demand is considered a possible barrier. Large gas power plants and imported
electricity generally can meet the surplus demand, but renewable energy sources alone are not sufficient (Kannan and Hirschberg,
2016; Öko Institute, 2012). However, since countries intend to shift their energy supply toward renewable energy sources, this
poses the problem of insufficient supply. Another obstacle is that cheap electricity may not always be available, and at peak
loading times, there might be challenges in the distribution of energy (European Commission, 2010; Kannan and Hirschberg,
2016; Öko Institute, 2012). In addition, international energy prices may fluctuate (Kannan and Hirschberg, 2016). However,
recent research that uses empirical data and simulation results concluded the opposite in many instances, revealing that even
restricted grids will be able to manage recharging of large numbers of EVs, provided that recharging is controlled to occur during
off-peak or high supply periods (Mullan et al., 2011; Laslett et al., 2017). These results highlight the fact that policy decisions and
effective managerial practices in the electricity generation sector are the key forces affecting the cost efficiency of electric mobility
(Kannan and Hirschberg, 2016).
• Raw materials supply With the development of electric mobility, considerable quantities of raw materials will be needed for the
production of new vehicles. These raw materials are in some cases rare metals, and their supply is sometimes irregular (Öko
Institute, 2012). The study from the Öko Institute (2012), for example, highlights that copper is needed throughout the entire
manufacturing process, and lithium and cobalt for battery production. Of those, cobalt and rare earth minerals used in modern
electric motors may become subject to scarcity of supply with increasing electric mobility.
• Limited availability of models The limited model diversity is another barrier to successful EV market acceptance (Barisa et al.,
2016; Haddadian et al., 2015). The few models on the market and their limited functionalities currently fail to meet the needs and
preferences of the different consumer segments (Haddadian et al., 2015).
3.1.2. Motivators
• Environmental aspects Many studies have investigated environmental aspects such as CO 2 emission, noise and air quality
(Adamou et al., 2012; Colmenar-Santos et al., 2015; Da Silva and Moura, 2016; Kasten and Hacker, 2014; Mahmoud et al., 2016).
Environmental aspects are increasingly by prominent in the procurement of fleet vehicles (Öko Institute, 2012) and can hence be
considered as motivators to EV purchase. Barisa et al. (2016), for example, find reduction of air pollution locally as a key
motivator for municipalities to purchase EVs for their fleet. Also, a contribution to national climate and energy policy goals seems
to be a motivating factor (Barisa et al., 2016). In this context, Kasten and Hacker (2014) argue that the overall energy con-
sumption can be significantly reduced by EV market penetration, which is hence a vital motivator. Another environmental mo-
tivator is the contribution to the “green image” of the municipality (Barisa et al., 2016).
• Economic aspects Economic factors such as reduced fuel costs can be considered as motivating factors to EV market acceptance
(Barisa et al., 2016). In this context, Haddadian et al. (2015) suggest that the EV purchase decision can be impacted by
6
emphasizing the lower charges of electricity compared to gasoline, in order to motivate potential EV buyers. According to
Haddadian et al. (2015), incentives such as using night-time rates, free electricity at some workplaces, or using public charging
could further enhance the motives to purchase an EV.
• Taxes, incentives and regulations These practices have consequently received much research attention (Adamou et al., 2012;
Colmenar-Santos et al., 2015; Gallagher and Giving, 2008; Liu and Santos, 2015; Sierzchula et al., 2014; Tietge et al., 2016).
According to Haddadian et al. (2015) higher taxes and restrictions on conventional vehicles represent motivators for higher EV
use. In addition, well-designed incentives can further enhance EV acceptance in the transportation sector. The authors suggest that
besides federal incentives, a key impact can be made by state monetary incentives.
3.2. Motivators and barriers of the collective decision-making unit
3.2.1. Barriers
• Lack of charging infrastructure An insufficient charging infrastructure is also one of the most significant barriers at the level of
collective decision making unit (Barlag, 2015; Caramizaru and Barlag, 2015; Laurischkat et al., 2016).
• Economic restrictions High procurement costs of electric vehicles represent another noteworthy barrier (Quak et al., 2016; Shao
et al., 2016). Also, Laurischkat et al. (2016) argue in this context that high procurement costs and slow acceptance in the mass
market make it very challenging for new companies to enter the market.
Other barriers considered by Quak et al. (2016) are limited loading capacity, as well as insufficient, unreliable and expensive
after-sales support. Furthermore, using electric vehicles in the company fleet does not enhance the revenue flow, because customers
do not pay the extra cost incurred by EV deliveries. Another economic factor that affects the EV acceptance is the uncertainty over oil
and energy prices. If oil prices are low, but energy prices in general are increasing, the investment in EVs is not financially beneficial.
• Operational restrictions Other key barriers are operational factors, such as grid issues with a large fleet, and limited availability
of vehicles (Quak et al., 2016; Matthews et al., 2017; Norland and Ishaque, 2006). In addition, companies aiming to shift their
fleet to battery electric vehicles undergo an enormous change process, which presents a number of challenges (Laurischkat et al.,
2016), including decisions on the composition of the electric fleet, the charging infrastructure at the premises, and the information
systems needed to manage the fleet, and ensure the uninterrupted availability of vehicles (Laurischkat et al., 2016).
• Lack of trust, information and knowledge Shao et al. (2016) differentiate between several barriers that impact EV market
acceptance. Potential EV buyers may have insufficient knowledge regarding the market for environmentally friendly products,
such as the availability and variety of EVs. They lack trust in the marketing campaigns and claims for the products. Potential EV
buyers lack an understanding of the extent to which driving an EV is environmentally friendly, and how far they themselves
benefit from emission reductions. Potential EV buyers may also question the environmental performance. According to Barlag
(2015), due to the battery manufacturing process, EVs have a higher impact on the environment than conventional vehicles. To
increase the acceptance of electromobility, not only does the renewable energy sector needs to be strengthened, but less en-
vironmentally harmful batteries need to be developed (Barlag, 2015). Finally, there is an enormous gap between customers’
expectations and perceptions, mainly due to potential EV buyers’ insufficient sustainability related information. All these aspects
reduce an individual’s motivation to invest in an electric vehicle (Shao et al., 2016).
3.2.2. Motivators
• Environmental aspects. Factors such as strong environmental performance (i.e., low CO emission) and low noise levels are vital
2
motivators to EV acceptance (Quak et al., 2016).
• Economic aspects Economic factors such as low fuel costs and efficiency of operation can be named as motivators to EV ac-
ceptance (Quak et al., 2016). For example, the efficiency of operation can be enhanced by policies that allow EV vehicles to be
used in designated low emission zones, or to use bus lanes and special parking spaces. Decreasing battery price is a further
potential motivator (Quak et al., 2016). In addition, Daziano and Chiew (2012) consider that the option to sell surplus energy to
the grid (vehicle to grid or V2G) as another motivating factor. However, as discussed by Mullan et al. (2012), other lower cost
solution are available to network operators, considering the costs of required control infrastructure, and battery wear-out.
• Technical aspects With the increase of the EV market and growing acceptance, EVs are increasingly displaying improved
technical performance, including a greater distance range. In addition, a denser network of public charging points will be de-
veloped (Quak et al., 2016). These are significant aspects motivating potential EV purchases.
• Other aspects Besides the above mentioned motivators, the positive acceptance by the public, as well as innovative vehicle and
battery leasing schemes, represent noteworthy motivators for EV market penetration (Quak et al., 2016).
3.3. Motivators and barriers of the individual unit
3.3.1. Barriers
• Lack of charging infrastructure Lack of charging infrastructure also represents a barrier to engagement in electric mobility
7
(Axsen et al., 2013; Daziano and Chiew, 2012; Graham-Rowe et al., 2012). Many drivers claim that there are not sufficient
charging facilities in public spaces (Axsen et al., 2013; Daziano and Chiew, 2012). Hence, drivers will only consider transferring to
an electric vehicle when this issue is resolved.
• Economic restrictions The main barrier hindering EV market penetration is the high purchasing price (Axsen et al., 2013;
Daziano and Chiew, 2012; Graham-Rowe et al., 2012), coupled with high vehicle depreciation cost. Several studies on TCO (total
cost of ownership) demonstrate that EVs lose a larger share of their purchase value, particularly due to rapid technological
advances in the market (Lévay et al., 2017; Palmer et al., 2018). Moreover, many drivers are uncertain about the cost of re-
charging the car or how much electricity is needed. This lack of knowledge impedes the calculation of likely costs and savings, and
hence leads to imprecise cost comparison (Graham-Rowe et al., 2012). Regarding the limited battery life span, many users fear
that the replacement costs of batteries will exceed the lower running costs, and that purchasing an electric vehicle would not be
economically beneficial (Daziano and Chiew, 2012; Graham-Rowe et al., 2012).
• Technical restrictions/Security of technology Several technical aspects are considered as barriers to engagement (Gebauer
et al., 2016; Gruber and Kihm, 2015; Moons and De Pelsmacker, 2015; Peters et al., 2011; Plötz et al., 2014; Schmalfuβ et al.,
2015; Axsen et al., 2016; Barth et al., 2016; Fujimori et al., 2014; Norland and Ishaque, 2006; Moons and De Pelsmacker, 2015;
Pasaoglu et al., 2012); particular, many potential EV drivers are concerned about the battery life span and distance range (Axsen
et al., 2013; Daziano and Chiew, 2012; Zaunbrecher et al., 2014). Regarding the latter, drivers are concerned that their flexibility
will be significantly impacted if forced to calculate in advance how far they are able to drive (Daziano and Chiew, 2012).
A further barrier is the perceived immaturity of charging technology (Zaunbrecher et al., 2014). In particular, many potential EV
drivers question whether the electricity grid has the capacity to supply the power needed to recharge large number of e-cars. In
addition, much of the discussion focuses on recharge time, which is much longer compared to conventional car refuelling (Axsen
et al., 2013; Daziano and Chiew, 2012; Zaunbrecher et al., 2014).
Other technical barriers are the poor acceleration performance, and the silence of electric vehicles (Axsen et al., 2013). Regarding
noise, many drivers fear that electric vehicles are less secure because they cannot be heard by pedestrians leading to more accidents.
• Lack of trust in environmental benefits Many potential EV buyers question the lifecycle impact of electric vehicles on CO 2
emissions. In particular, it is assumed that EVs are not automatically environmentally-friendly because the electricity used is
generated from power plants, which in turn produce enormous CO2 emissions (Axsen et al., 2013; Zaunbrecher et al., 2014).
• Individual aspects There are several individual barriers to engagement, such as lack of knowledge regarding reasons and impacts
to climate change. In addition, many potential EV users are unable to find relevant information, or find by information confusing,
untrustworthy or conflicting (Lorenzoni et al., 2007). This raises a feeling of uncertainty and scepticism towards electric mobility.
In addition, a vast majority perceives climate change as a distant threat, and feels overwhelmed by the global scale of the problem
(Lorenzoni et al., 2007).
• Other aspects/practicability Drivers consider the use of electric vehicles as restrictive because they are forced to plan their
journeys in advance (Axsen et al., 2013). Hence, potential EV drivers need to change their lifestyle and to better organize their
journeys (Axsen et al., 2013; Lorenzoni et al., 2007).
3.3.2. Motivators
• Environmental aspects Many studies examined personal values and environmentalism in the context of EV adaption (Axsen
et al., 2016; Cherchi et al., 2015; Flamm and Weinstein, 2012; Graham-Rowe et al., 2012; Krupa et al., 2014; Noel and Sovacool,
2016; Sang and Bekhet, 2015). One of the key motivators to purchase an EV is to protect the environment by reducing air
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (Axsen et al., 2013; Daziano and Chiew, 2012; Ziefle et al., 2014a).
• Economic aspects There are also several economic aspects that can be considered as motivators. For example, some users
consider the EVs cost effective (Axsen et al., 2013), mainly because of lower refuelling costs compared to conventional vehicles
(Graham-Rowe et al., 2012). Also, the option to use domestic electricity is very convenient, and recharging costs are also con-
sidered low (Graham-Rowe et al., 2012). Although the initial purchasing price is higher than that of a conventional car, long term
running costs are lower (Ziefle et al., 2014b).
• Functional aspects Being able to recharge the electric vehicle at home rather than at a charging station is another motivating
factor (Axsen et al., 2013). Smart charging systems facilitate the procedure, and enable energy supply to be balanced with demand
(Schmalfuβ et al., 2015). Another functional aspect is the lack of noise created by EVs (Axsen et al., 2013).
In this context, the similarities and differences among decision making processes at each level may be outlined. Table 1 provides a
summary of the variables-factors that influence decision-making at the levels of formal social unit, collective decision-making unit, as
well as the individual unit, allowing to broad insights into various factors affecting the decision-making process across the levels.
The table demonstrates that, for the formal social unit level, important decision drivers are operational features, charging in-
frastructure and economic performance, and that regulations, policy practices and environmental aspects are also relevant. This is
expected, because the formal social unit is characterized by decisions taken by policy makers and/or energy providers. These actors
clearly aim to focus on aspects that allow for a rapid transition to electric mobility in society. Energy providers, for instance, are key
to improving the grid technology, and have supported policy makers’ efforts to reduce the charging time and enhance the charging
infrastructure. Thus, these formal social units have to collaborate and work in line with each other. In addition, they should to ensure
8
Table 1
Factors that play a role in decision-making process at respective units.
Formal social unit Collective decision making unit Individual level unit
Operational features (e.g., range, charging time, grid Attitude towards electric Demographics (e.g., income, gender, age, household size,
technology, and availability) vehicles and occupation level)
Charging infrastructure Charging infrastructure Attitude towards electric vehicles
Economic performance (e.g., price, maintenance costs, fuel Charging solutions Environmental values, beliefs, and norms
consumption, and TCO)
Regulations, policy practices, incentives Characteristics of EV use Social influence and social factors
Environmental aspects (e.g., CO2 emission, noise, and air Regulations, policy practices, incentives
quality)
Experience with electric vehicles and general awareness
about EVs
Preferences, lifestyle, and habits with respect to EV use
that their regulations and policy practices are effective, and that they provide attractive incentive schemes to the public. Policy
makers and energy providers should also take into account the environmental aspects and goals set by the European Commission.
For both the formal social units and collective units, the charging infrastructure is a key component affecting their decision-
making process. Unlike the formal social unit, however, the collective decision-making units should also consider attitudes towards
electric vehicles as an important aspect. The charging solutions also are key factors that influence the decision-making. Collective
units include companies that aim to transform their commercial fleet, which means minimizing logistics department disruptions
caused by charging infrastructure issues or ineffective charging. Also, companies need to take into account the need to plan their
driving patterns and activities in advance to ensure effective fleet operation.
At the individual level, attitude towards electric vehicles is similarly predominant. While at the collective level, the attitude of an
entire company or its fleet managers is considered, the individual level focuses on the attitude of an individual’s intention to buy an
EV for their own use. Also, clear differences can be noticed among the three levels, the formal social unit, the collective unit and the
individual level. Clearly, the two main aspects influencing the decision making at the individual level are the background of the
individual (e.g., income, age, household size), and their environmental values, beliefs and norms. A role is also played by social
influence of personal contacts, as well as the influence of the community and the wider environment. For example, if companies and
municipalities shift their entire fleet to electric mobility, individual consumers are increasingly confronted with electric vehicles,
which, in turn, facilitates EV acceptance. In addition, regulations, policy practices and incentive schemes introduced by the formal
social unit impact the decision making at the individual level. While the formal social unit aims to develop successful and
straightforward regulations and policies, the individual decision maker has to evaluate these policy activities, and decide whether
purchasing an EV is beneficial. It is also important to mention that, at the individual level, lifestyle and habits with respect to EV use
play an important role in the decision-making process. Individuals are often reluctant to change their lifestyle, or impose constraints
in their daily life activities. Therefore, these aspects seem to significantly affect individual decision-making.
In this section, motivators and barriers at each of the three levels of formal social units are identified and discussed. The review of
research concludes that the main barriers to the diffusion of EV are lack of charging infrastructure; economic restrictions and cost
concerns; technical and operational restrictions; lack of trust; information and knowledge; limited supply of electricity and raw
materials; and practicability concerns. Thus, key motivators appear to be environmental, economic and technical benefits associated
with EVs, as well as personal and demographic factors, which are found to be influential in determining individual consumption
preferences.
4. Discussion and conclusions
The majority of previous research focuses on the individual level, with less on the formal level and the collective level respec-
tively. Consequently, there are more aspects investigated at the individual level than the collective level. Hence, there is a more
comprehensive understanding of aspects impacting the individual level decision making. Here, the vast majority of research focuses
on consumer attitude and perceptions towards electric vehicles as well as socioeconomic and demographic variables. However,
according to Anable (2005), in addition to variables that could affect preferences and choices, it is necessary to focus on an in-
dividual’s motivation, ability to change and adopt. This is especially important, as the use of an EV requires the drivers to change
patterns and lifestyle, and to plan their journeys in advance. There is hence a need to expand the research focus to investigate factors
that affect an individual’s willingness and ability to change.
At the formal social unit level, key drivers affecting purchase decisions are operational features such as range and charging time,
as well as charging infrastructure and economic performance of the electric vehicle. Besides these aspects, regulations, policy
practices, and incentives, as well as environmental aspects (e.g., CO2 emission, noise, etc.) seem to be noteworthy influencing factors.
Despite current broad research focus on the formal social unit, it is however surprising that important aspects such as supply and
security of raw materials have not been considered as factors in decision-making. As outlined above, with increasing electric mobility,
more raw materials will be needed; however, their supply is not guaranteed (Öko Institute, 2012). Therefore, the supply and security
of raw materials need to be taken into account when making decisions towards EVs at this level.
Last but not least, at the collective decision-making level, the attitude towards EVs seems to be a significant influencing factor.
9
Table 2
Barriers to EV market acceptance.
Lack of charging infrastructure Lack of charging infrastructure Lack of charging infrastructure

Economic restrictions (e.g., purchase price Economic restrictions (e.g., purchase price of EV, Economic restrictions (e.g., purchase price of EV,
of EV) limited loading capacity, uncertain oil prices and replacement costs of batteries)
energy prices)
Technical restrictions (charging time, Operational restrictions (grid issues with large Technical restrictions/Security of technology (e.g., battery
battery technology, electric battery fleet and limited availability of vehicles) life span, driving range, poor acceleration, noise)
range)
Lack of trust in environmental benefits Lack of trust, information and knowledge Lack of trust in environmental benefits
Electricity supply Individual aspects (e.g., lack of knowledge regarding
reasons and impacts to climate change, climate change
considered as distant threat)
Raw materials supply Other aspects/practicability (e.g., change of lifestyle,
driving habits)
Limited availability of models
Charging infrastructure, and charging solutions, as well as characteristics of EV use, are considered relevant at this level. It is
important to note that the collective decision-making level has received much less research attention, compared to other levels.
Hence, insight into valuable aspects that might affect the decision-making at this level is lacking, and it would be of interest to
investigate how collective decision-making impacts EV purchase intentions. In particular, there are many obstructions and limitations
that impact the decision-making process at this level. According to Shaw (1976), collective group decisions are likely to involve
greater risk compared to decisions made by the individual members of the group, because group members perceive lower levels of
personal responsibility in the case of negative consequences (Forsythe, 1990). In the case of EV purchase intentions, it would be of
great interest to investigate in how far group decision-making facilitates or hinders the procurement of electric vehicles.
Tables 2 and 3 provide a summary of the core findings of barriers and motivators to EV market acceptance. The analysis of
barriers and motivators, along the three different levels of the formal social unit, reveals that many different barriers hinder the
successful market penetration of EVs, while unfortunately the number of motivators is much more limited. This imbalance is also
reflected in the low diffusion rate and acceptance of electric vehicles outlined in Section 1. Given this discrepancy, there is a need for
governments, cities and car manufacturers to take action, and to invest in practices and technologies that increase the benefits, and
hence the motivators, for using electric vehicles.
Across all decision-making levels, actors almost unanimously agree on the barriers that hinder EV market diffusion, and there is
agreement across the levels that lack of charging infrastructure is a prominent barrier. In order to overcome this barrier, policy
makers and energy providers have to ensure the construction a sufficient charging infrastructure, through international collaboration
throughout the European Union, to guarantee a European-wide charging grid.
The majority of studies identified the high purchasing cost as the main barrier to EV acceptance. Although these studies agree on
this aspect, there is a lack of research providing in-depth information on the long-term cost, i.e., the total cost of ownership. Only a
minority of researchers argue that the TCO is smaller compared to conventional vehicles (Haddadian et al., 2015; Bubeck et al.,
2016). The TCO could be enhanced by increases in taxes on fossil fuel as well as conventional vehicles themselves. This increase is,
according to Da Silva and Moura (2016), one of the most effective policies to boost EVs diffusion. However, few studies have
investigated the TCO, and there is still an insufficient understanding, and hence a need for future research to investigate the TCO of
electric vehicles and to provide a better understanding of TCO calculation to potential EV drivers.
In addition, another barrier highlighted by actors across the three decision-making is lack of trust, mainly with respect to en-
vironmental benefits. Here, it is important to note that policy makers, energy providers and car manufacturers should provide
transparent, accessible, and understandable public information to promote a true understanding of benefits.
Specific barriers that primarily affect the formal decision-making level are the supply of electricity and raw materials. These
barriers affect the entire success of electric mobility, and are, hence, significant obstacles to be overcome. To achieve this, policy
makers as well as energy providers worldwide should collaborate on strategies that guarantee a secured electricity and raw material
Table 3
Motivators to EV market acceptance.
Environmental aspects (e.g., reduction of CO2 Environmental aspects (e.g., reduction of CO2 Environmental aspects (e.g., reduction of CO2 emissions)
emissions) emissions)
Economic aspects (e.g., reduction of fuel Economic aspects (e.g., low fuel costs or Economic aspects (e.g., reduction of fuel costs, selling
costs) efficiency of operation) surplus energy to the grid)
Taxes, incentives and regulations Technical aspects (e.g., better technical Functional aspects (e.g., charge the EV at home)
performance)
Other aspects (e.g., positive acceptance by the
public)
10
supply.
Barriers that primarily affect the individual level unit are aspects such as climate change, which can be considered as a distant
threat, or aspects such as the need to change one’s lifestyle. These barriers can be addressed by public education the constant and
increasing threat of CO2 emissions, and by providing transparent and trustworthy information on how individuals can contribute to a
low CO2 emission environment.
The main motivation for engagement with electric mobility across all the decision-making levels is driven environmental pro-
tection. It is striking that most potential EV drivers claim that they have insufficient trust in the environmental performance of EVs. It
is hence of utmost importance to clarify the environmental advantages of EVs and to provide more accessible information on their
benefits. Therefore, it is the policy makers’ responsibility to diffuse the information related to the environmental performance of the
EVs, including their contribution on decreasing fossil fuel dependency and substantial savings in both CO2 emissions and energy
consumption.
Also, economic aspects such as the reduction of fuel costs are unanimously mentioned as a motivator. This perception is an
important first step towards a better understanding of the total costs of ownership. That is, while the purchase price of an EV is higher
compared to a conventional car, it has lower operating costs, including fuel costs, which positively affect the TCO.
Specific motivators that primarily affect the formal decision-making level are taxes, incentives and regulations. These motivators
could affect the entire success of electric mobility diffusion. Therefore, promoting favourable taxation schemes and financial in-
centives, including reduction in purchase and annual tax, circulation taxes and concessions on company car taxes, are emerging as
important tools.
Since EVs are continuously displaying better technical performance with greater distance range and battery-leasing schemes
positively attracts public acceptance, in collective decision-making level, technical aspects and positive acceptance by the public
emerged as the specific motivators.
For individual decision-making level, functional aspects such as implementation of smart charging systems allowing to recharge
the EVS at home and lack of noise compared to conventional vehicles appeared as specific motivators.
In conclusion, as aforementioned, the barriers outperform the motivators. Consequently, market acceptance of electric mobility is
relatively low. Therefore, as elaborated above, there is a strong need for researchers, practitioners and governments alike to take
action to strengthen the motivators and eliminate the barriers.
In view of that, this certainly requires the implementation of adequate policies in local, regional and European-wide level,
including better diffusion of charging infrastructure, improvement of grid infrastructure, implementation of subsidies such as cir-
culation tax and CO2 differentiated vehicle registration, promotion of incentives such as tax credits and tax exemptions, investing in R
&D, allocation of resources for extensive academic research, and providing continuous and updated high quality information to the
public.
Acknowledgements
This work is a part of ECHOES project funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme under
Grant Agreement No. 727470.
References
Adamou, A., Clerides, S., Zachariadis, T., 2012. Assessment of CO2-Oriented Vehicle Tax Reforms: A Case Study for Greece. University of Cyprus, Department of
Economics.
Adnan, N., Md Nordin, S., Rahman, I., Vasant, P., Noor, M.A., 2016. An integrative approach to study on consumer behavior towards plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
In: Ianole Rodica (Ed.), Applied Behavioral Economics Research and Trends. IGI Global, pp. 183–213.
Amsterdam Roundtables Foundation and McKinsey & Company, 2014. Evolution Electric Vehicles in Europe: Gearing Up for a New Phase? < http://www.mckinsey.
com/netherlands/our-insights/electric-vehicles-in-europe-gearing-up-for-a-new-phase > (accessed 04.06.17).
Anable, J., 2005. ‘Complacent car addicts’ or ‘aspiring environmentalists’? Identifying travel behaviour segments using attitude theory. Transp. Policy 12 (1), 65.
Axsen, J., Goldberg, S., Bailey, J., 2016. How might potential future plug-in electric vehicle buyers differ from current “Pioneer” owners? Transport. Res. Part D:
Transp. Environ. 47, 357–370.
Axsen, J., Orlebar, C., Skippon, S., 2013. Social influence and consumer preference formation for pro-environmental technology: the case of a UK workplace electric-
vehicle study. Ecol. Econ. 95, 96–107.
Azadfar, E., Sreeram, V., Harries, D., 2015. The investigation of the major factors influencing plug-in electric vehicle driving patterns and charging behaviour. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 42, 1065–1076.
Bain & Company, 2010. The e-Mobility Era: Winning the Race for Electric Cars < http://www.bain.com/bainweb/PDFs/cms/Public/BB_The_e-mobility_era_GLOBAL_
VERSION.pdf > (accessed 04.07.17).
Bakker, S., Trip, J.J., 2013. Policy options to support the adoption of electric vehicles in the urban environment. Transport. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 25, 18–23.
Barisa, A., Rosa, M., Kisele, A., 2016. Introducing electric mobility in Latvian municipalities: results of a survey. Energy Proc. 95, 50–57.
Barlag, H., 2015. Final Publishable Summary Report for Green eMotion. Belgium, Brussels.
Barth, M., Jugert, P., Fritsche, I., 2016. Still underdetected – social norms and collective efficacy predict the acceptance of electric vehicles in Germany. Transport. Res.
Part F: Traff. Psychol. Behav. 37, 64–77.
Bubeck, S., Tomaschek, J., Fahl, U., 2016. Perspectives of electric mobility: total cost of ownership of electric vehicles in Germany. Transp. Policy 50, 63–77.
Burgess, M., King, N., Harris, M., Lewis, E., 2013. Electric vehicle drivers’ reported interactions with the public: Driving stereotype change? Transp. Res. F Traffic
Psychol. Behav. 17, 33–44.
Chan, C.C., 2007. The state of the art of electric, hybrid and fuel cell vehicles. Proc. IEEE 95 (4), 704–718.
Caramizaru, A., Barlag, H., 2015. How to Ensure the Sustainability of Green eMotion Activities. Belgium, Brussels.
Cherchi, E., Morrissey, P., O’Mahony, M., Weldon, P., Jensen, A., Kelpin, R., Manca, F., Mabit, S., Valeri, E., Corchero, C., 2015. Deliverable 9.1 Consumers’ Preferences
and Attitudes to, Demand for, and Use of Electric Vehicles (EV), < http://www.greenemotion-project.eu/upload/pdf/deliverables/D9_1-Consumers-preferences-
and-attitudes_public.pdf > (accessed 20.07.17).
11
Colmenar-Santos, A., Rosales-Asensio, E., Borge-Diez, D., Mur-Perez, F., 2015. Cogeneration and district heating networks: measures to remove institutional and
financial barriers that restrict their joint use in the EU-28. Energy 85, 403–414.
Comodi, G., Caresana, F., Salvi, D., Pelagalli, L., Lorenzetti, M., 2016. Local promotion of electric mobility in cities: Guidelines and real application case in Italy. Energy
95, 494–503.
da Silva, M.B., Moura, F., 2016. Electric vehicle diffusion in the Portuguese automobile market. Int. J. Sustain. Transport. 10 (2), 49–64.
Daziano, R.A., Chiew, E., 2012. Electric vehicles rising from the dead: data needs for forecasting consumer response toward sustainable energy sources in personal
transportation. Energy Pol. 51, 876–894.
EAFO (European Alternative Fuels Observatory), 2017. Netherlands Section < http://www.eafo.eu/content/netherlands > (accessed 25.12.17).
Electro-Mobility Platform, 2016. Accelerating Electric Recharging Infrastructure Deployment in Europe < http://www.platformelectromobility.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2016/11/Executive-Summary-Platform-Position-Electric-Infrastructure.pdf > (accessed 20.07.17).
European Commission, 2010. A European Strategy on Clean and Energy Efficient Vehicles: Communication from The Commission to The European Parliament, The
Council and The European Economic and Social Committee. European Commission, Brussels.
European Commission, 2011. A Growth Package for Integrated European Infrastructures: Communication from The Commission to The European Parliament, The
Council, The European Court of Justice, The Court Of Auditors, The European Investment Bank, The European Economic and Social Committee and to the
Committee of the Regions. European Commission, Brussels.
European Commission, 2014. Directıve 2014/94/eu of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the Deployment of Alternative Fuels
Infrastructure. European Commission, Brussels.
European Commission, 2016. Implementing the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 2016, Country Reports. European Commission, Brussels.
EuroStat Greenhouse Gas Emission Statistics, 2017 < http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Greenhouse_gas_emission_statistics > (accessed 25.
12.17).
European Environment Agency (EEA), 2016. Electric Vehicles in Europe < https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/electric-vehicles-in-europe > (accessed 10.
07.17).
EVObsession, 2017. EV Sales < https://evobsession.com/category/research/sales > (accessed 17.07.17).
Faria, M.V., Baptista, P.C., Farias, T.L., 2014. Electric vehicle parking in European and American context: economic, energy and environmental analysis. Transport.
Res. Part A: Pol. Pract. 64, 110–121.
Flamm, B.J., Weinstein, A., 2012. Constraints to green vehicle ownership: a focus group study. Transp. Res. Part D 17 (2), 108–115.
Flath, C.M., Ilg, J.P., Gottwalt, S., Schmeck, H., Weinhardt, C., 2013. Improving electric vehicle charging coordination through area pricing. Transport. Sci. 201448
(4), 619–634.
Foltyński, M., 2014. Electric fleets in urban logistics. Proc. – Soc. Behav. Sci. 151, 48–59.
Forsythe, S.M., 1990. Effect of applicant's clothing on interviewer's decision to hire. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 20 (19), 1579–1595.
Fujimori, S., Kainuma, M., Masui, T., Hasegawa, T., Dai, H., 2014. The effectiveness of energy service demand reduction: a scenario analysis of global climate change
mitigation. Energy Pol. 75, 379–391.
Gallagher, K.S., Muehlegger, E., 2008. Giving Green to Get Green: Incentives and Consumer Adoption of Hybrid Vehicle Technology. Faculty Research Working Papers
Series. John F. Kennedy School of Government – Harvard University.
Gebauer, F., Vilimek, R., Keinath, A., Carbon, C.C., 2016. Changing attitudes towards e-mobility by actively elaborating fast-charging technology. Technol. Forecast.
Soc. Chang. 106, 31–36.
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. Transport. Res. A Pol. Pract. 46 (1), 140–153.
Gruber, J., Kihm, A., 2015. Reject or Embrace? Messengers and Electric Cargo Bikes. In: 9th International Conference on City Logistics. Tenerife, Canary Islands
(Spain) < http://elib.dlr.de/97190/1/5_Gruber_Kihm-Transportation%20Research%20Procedia%20(final%20draft).pdf > (accessed 10.06.17).
Haddadian, G., Khodayar, M., Shahidehpour, M., 2015. Accelerating the global adoption of electric vehicles: barriers and drivers. Electric. J. 28 (10), 53–68.
Idaho National Laboratory, 2017. Comparing Energy Costs per Mile for Electric and Gasoline-Fueled Vehicles < https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/costs.
pdf > (accessed 25.12.17).
International Council on Clean Transportation, 2014. Policy Update: EU CO2 Emission Standards for Passenger Cars and Light-Commercial Vehicles < http://www.
theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCTupdate_EU-95gram_jan2014.pdf > , January (accessed 17.06.17).
The International Council on clean Transportation, 2017. European Vehicle Market Statistics - Pocketbook 2017/18 < https://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/
publications/ICCT_Pocketbook_2017_Web.pdf > (accessed 25.12.17).
International Energy Agency (IEA), 2016. Global EV Outlook 2016: Beyond One Million Electric Cars < https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/
publication/Global_EV_Outlook_2016.pdf > (accessed 01.06.17).
Kannan, R., Hirschberg, S., 2016. Interplay between electricity and transport sectors – integrating the Swiss car fleet and electricity system. Transport. Res. Part A: Pol.
Pract 94, 514–531.
Kaplan, S., Gruber, J., Reinthaler, M., Klauenberg, J., 2016. Intentions to introduce electric vehicles in the commercial sector: a model based on the theory of planned
behaviour. Res. Transport. Econ. 55, 12–19.
Kasten, P., Hacker, F., 2014. DEFINE: Development of an Evaluation Framework for the Introduction of Electromobility < https://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/2160/2014-
710-en.pdf > (accessed 09.06.17).
Klauenberg, J., Rudolph, C., Zajicek, J., 2016. Potential users of electric mobility in commercial transport – identification and recommendations. Transp. Res. Proc. 16,
202–216.
KPMG, 2017. Global Automotive Executive Summary < https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2017/01/global-automotive-executive-survey-2017.
Krupa, J.S., Rizzo, D.M., Eppstein, M.J., Lanute, B.D., Gaalema, D.E., Lakkaraju, K., Warrender, C.E., 2014. Analysis of a consumer survey on plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles. Transport. Res. A Pol. Pract. 64, 14–31.
Laslett, D., Carter, C., Creagh, C., Jennings, P., 2017. A large-scale renewable electricity supply system by 2030: solar, wind, energy efficiency, storage and inertia for
the South West Interconnected System (SWIS) in Western Australia. Renew. Energy 113, 713–731.
Laurischkat, K., Viertelhausen, A., Jandt, D., 2016. Business models for electric mobility. Proc. CIRP 47, 483–488.
Lévay, P.Z., Drossinos, Y., Thiel, C., 2017. The effect of fiscal incentives on market penetration of electric vehicles: a pairwise comparison of total cost of ownership.
Energy Pol. 105, 524–533.
Liu, J., Santos, G., 2015. Decarbonising the road transport sector: breakeven point and consequent potential consumers' behaviour for the US case. Int. J. Sustain.
Transp. 9 (3), 159–175.
Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., Whitmarsh, L., 2007. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global
Environ. Change 17, 445–459.
Mardani, A., Zavadskas, E.K., Khalifah, Z., Khoshnoudi, M., 2016. A review of multi-criteria decision-making applications to solve energy management problems: two
decades from 1995 to 2015. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
Matthews, L., Lynes, J., Riemer, M., Matto, T.D., Cloet, N., 2017. Do we have a car for you? Encouraging the uptake of electric vehicles at point of sale. Energy Pol. 100,
79–88.
Mahmoud, M., Garnett, R., Ferguson, M., Kanaroglou, P., 2016. Electric buses: a review of alternative powertrains. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 62, 673–684.
Mock, P., Yang, Z., 2014. Driving Electrification—A Global Comparison of Fiscal Incentive Policy for Electric Vehicles. ICCT, Washington, DC.
Moons, I., De Pelsmacker, P., 2015. An extended decomposed theory of planned behaviour to predict the usage intention of the electric car: a multi-group comparison.
Sustainability 7, 6212–6245.
Morton, C., Anable, J., Nelson, J.D., 2016. Exploring consumer preferences towards electric vehicles: the influence of consumer innovativeness. Res. Transport. Bus.
12
Manage. 18, 18–28.

Mullan, J., Harries, D., Bräunl, T., Whitely, S., 2011. Modelling the impacts of electric vehicle recharging on the Western Australian electricity supply system. Energy
Pol. 39 (7), 4349–4359.
Mullan, J., Harries, D., Bräunl, T., Whitely, S., 2012. The technical, economic and commercial viability of the vehicle-to-grid concept. Energy Pol. 48, 394–406.
Newbery, D., Strbac, G., 2016. What is needed for battery electric vehicles to become socially cost competitive? Econ. Transport. 5, 1–11.
Noel, L., Sovacool, B.K., 2016. Why Did Better Place Fail? Range anxiety, interpretive flexibility, and electric vehicle promotion in Denmark and Israel. Energy Pol. 94,
377–386.
Norland, R.B., Ishaque, M.M., 2006. Smart bicycles in an urban area: evaluation of a pilot scheme in London. J. Pub. Transport. 9 (5), 71–95.
Oeko-Institut, 2012. Are Electric Vehicles the Mode of the Future? Potentials and Environmental Impacts < https://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/1350/2012-002-en.
Öko Institute, 2012. Global Emission Model for Integrated Systems (GEMIS) v.4.8.
Palmer, K., Tate, J.E., Wadud, Z., Nellthorp, J., 2018. Total cost of ownership and market share for hybrid and electric vehicles in the UK, US and Japan. Appl. Energy
209, 108–119.
Pasaoglu, G., Honselaar, M., Thiel, C., 2012. Potential vehicle fleet CO2 reductions and cost implications for various vehicle technology deployment scenarios in
Europe. Energy Policy 40 (1), 404–421.
Peters, A., Agosti, R., Popp, M., Ryf, B., 2011. Electric mobility: a survey of different consumer groups in Germany with regard to adoption. In: ECEEE Summer
Proceedings.
Plötz, P., Schneider, U., Globisch, J., Dütschke, E., 2014. Who will buy electric vehicles? Identifying early adopters in Germany. Transport. Res. Part A: Pol. Pract. 67,
96–109.
Quak, H., Nesterova, N., van Rooijen, T., 2016. Possibilities and barriers for using electric-powered vehicles in city logistics practice. Transport. Res. Proc. 12,
157–169.
Rahman, I., Vasant, P.M., Singh, B.S.M., Abdullah-Al-Wadud, M., Adnan, N., 2016. Review of recent trends in optimization techniques for plug-in hybrid, and electric
vehicle charging infrastructures. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 58, 1039–1047.
Rezvani, Z., Jansson, J., Bodin, J., 2015. Advances in consumer electric vehicle adoption research: a review and research agenda. Transport. Res. Part D 34, 122–136.
Sang, Y.-N., Bekhet, H.A., 2015. Modelling electric vehicle usage intentions: an empirical study in Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 92, 75–83.
Schmalfuß, F., Mair, C., Döbelt, S., Kämpfe, B., Wüstemann, R., Krems, J.F., Keinath, A., 2015. User responses to a smart charging system in Germany: battery electric
vehicle driver motivation, attitudes and acceptance. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 9, 60–71.
Shao, J., Taisch, M., Ortega-Mier, M., 2016. A grey-Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) analysis on the barriers between environmentally
friendly products and consumers: practitioners' viewpoints on the European automobile industry. J. Clean. Prod. 112 (4), 3185–3194.
Shaw, M., 1976. Group Dynamics; The Psychology of Small Group Behavior. McGraw-Hil, New York.
Sierzchula, W., Bakker, S., Maat, K., van Wee, B., 2014. The influence of financial incentives and other socio-economic factors on electric vehicle adoption. Energy Pol.
68, 183–194.
Taefi, T.T., Kreutzfeldt, J., Held, T., Fink, A., 2016. Supporting the adoption of electric vehicles in urban road freight transport – a multi-criteria analysis of policy
measures in Germany. Transport. Res. Part A: Pol. Pract. 91, 61–79.
Tan, K.M., Ramachandaramurthy, V.K., Ying, Yong J., 2016. Integration of electric vehicles in smart grid: a review on vehicle to grid technologies and optimization
techniques. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 53, 720–732.
Tietge, U., Mock, P., Lutsey, N., Campestrini, A., 2016. Comparison of leading electric vehicle policy and deployment in Europe. In: International Council on Clean
Transportation, June < http://theicct.org/comparison-ev-policies-europe-2016 > (accessed 14.06.17).
The Electric Vehicle World Sales Database, 2017. Norway Plug-in Sales Q3-2017 and YTD < http://www.ev-volumes.com/country/total-euefta-plug-in-vehicle-
volumes/ > (accessed 25.12.17).
Thompson, C., 2016. These 15 Electric Cars Will Be Here By 2020. Business Insider < http://www.businessinsider.com/15-electric-cars-that-will-be-here-by-2020-
2016-6 > (accessed 14.07.17).
Usmani, O., Rösler, H., 2015. Deliverable 9.7 Policy recommendations and stakeholder actions towards effective integration of EVs in the EU < http://www.
greenemotion-project.eu/upload/pdf/deliverables/D9_7-Policy-recommendations-and-stakeholder-actions_submitted_c.pdf > (accessed 14.06.17).
Wells, P., Nieuwenhuis, P., 2012. Transition failure: understanding continuity in the automotive industry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 79 (9), 1681–1692.
Wikström, M., Hansson, L., Alvfors, P., 2015. An end has a start – investigating the usage of electric vehicles in commercial fleets. Energy Proc. 75, 1932–1937.
Winslow, Kevin M., Laux, Steven J., Townsend, Timothy G., 2018. A review on the growing concern and potential management strategies of waste lithium-ion
batteries. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 129, 263–277.
Zaunbrecher, B., Beul-Leusmann, S., Ziefle, M., 2014. Laypeople's perspectives on electromobility. A focus group study. In: 1st Conference on Mobility in IoT. Rome,
Italy.
Ziefle, M., Beul-Leusmann, S., Kasugai, K., Schwalm, M., 2014a. Public perception and acceptance of electric vehicles: exploring users’ perceived benefits and
drawbacks. In: 1st Conference on Mobility in IoT. Rome, Italy.
Ziefle, M., Beul-Leusmann, S., Zaunbrecher, B., Kasugai, K., 2014b. Integrating the “E” in public transport: information and communication needs for electromobility.
In: 1st Conference on Mobility in IoT. Rome, Italy.
13

Electric Mobility in Europe - A Comprehensive Review of Motivators and Barriers in Decision Making Processes

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

Electric Mobility in Europe - A Comprehensive Review of Motivators and Barriers in Decision Making Processes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transportation Research Part A 109 (2018) 1–13

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part A

Electric mobility in Europe: A comprehensive review of motivators

2. Importance of the electric mobility in Europe

2.1. Role and impact of electric mobility

2.2. Goals set by the EU

2.4. Car manufacturers’ eﬀorts to satisfy a new EV market

2.5. Infrastructural objectives

2.6. Main challenges

3. Identiﬁcation of motivators and barriers to the diﬀusion of electric vehicles

3.1. Motivators and barriers of the formal social unit

3.2. Motivators and barriers of the collective decision-making unit

3.3. Motivators and barriers of the individual unit

4. Discussion and conclusions

Lack of charging infrastructure Lack of charging infrastructure Lack of charging infrastructure

Manage. 18, 18–28.

You might also like