Electric vehicles are potential solution to increase in crude oil consumption leading to pollution and towards sustainable mobility. In India the journey towards Electric mobility was started by Reva Electric Car Company and is been continued by Mahindra. The three essential components to be considered in influencing the adoption of EV are the technology, user and the task. For a radically disruptive innovative product like Electric cars, technical factors influence adoption process. Non-technical factors like Brand and Diversity, Warranty, Policy and Environmental concern are found to be significant in the studies. This article has comprehensively reviewed the various technical and non-technical factors influencing adoption.
Cite this article:
Indumathi R. A Review of Technical and Non-technical Factors towards Preference of Electric Vehicles. Asian Journal of Management. 2020;11(4):529-534. doi: 10.5958/2321-5763.2020.00078.5
1. Achtnicht, M., Bühler, G., Hermeling, C., 2012. The impact of fuel availability on demand for alternative-fuel vehicles. Transportation Research Part D 17(3), 262-269.
2. Ajzen, M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
3. Bamberg, S. (2003). How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 21–32.
4. Beresteanu, A., Li, S., 2011. Gasoline prices, government support, and the demand for hybrid vehicles in the United States. Int. Econ. Rev.52(1),161–182.
5. Bockarjova, M., and Steg, L. (2014). Can Protection Motivation Theory predict proenvironmental behavior? Explaining the adoption of electric vehicles in the Netherlands. Global Environmental Change, 28, 276–288. doi:10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2014.06.010
6. Bunce, L., Harris, M., and Burgess, M. (2014). Charge up then charge out? Drivers’ perceptions and experiences of electric vehicles in the UK. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 59, 278–287.
7. Daziano, R.A., Bolduc, D., 2011. Incorporating pro-environmental preferences towards green automobile technologies through a Bayesian hybrid choice model. Transportmetrica iFirst, 1-33.
8. Diamond, D., 2009. The impact of government incentives for hybrid-electric vehicles: evidence from US states. Energy Policy37,972–983.
9. Dimitropoulos, A., Rietveld, P. and van Ommeren, J. N. Consumer valuation of changes in driving range: a meta-analysis. Transp. Res. Part Policy Pract. 55, 27–45 (2013).
10. Eggers, F. and Eggers, F. (2011). Where have all the flowers gone? Forecasting green trends in the automobile industry with a choice-based conjoint adoption model, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78, 51-62.
11. Eppstein, M., Grover, D., Marshall, J., Rizzo, D., 2011. An agent-based model to study market penetration of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Energy Policy 39, 3789–3802.
12. Franke, T., Bühler, F., Cocron, P., Neumann, I., Krems, J. F., 2012a. Enhancing sustainability of electric vehicles: A field study approach to understanding user acceptance and behavior. In: Sullman, M., Dorn, L. (Eds.), Advances in Traffic Psychology. Ashgate, Farnham, UK, pp. 295-306.
13. Franke, T., Krems, J. F., 2013. Interacting with limited mobility resources: Psychological range levels in electric vehicle use. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 48, 109-122.
14. Gallagher, K., Muehlegger, E., 2011. Giving green to get green? Incentives and consumer adoption of hybrid vehicle technology. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 61 (1), 1–15.
15. Glerum, A., Stankovikj, L., and Bierlaire, M. (2014). Forecasting the demand for electric vehicles: Accounting for attitudes and perceptions. Transportation Science, 48(4), 483–499. doi: 10.1287/trsc.2013.0487.
16. Hackbarth A, Madlener R. Consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles: a discrete choice analysis, Transp Res Part D; Transp Environment, 2013;25:5-17.
17. Helveston, J. P., Liu, Y., Feit, E. M., Fuchs, E., Klampfl, E., and Michalek, J. J. (2015). Will subsidies drive electric vehicle adoption? Measuring consumer preferences in the U.S. and China. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 73, 96–112. doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2014.11.004.
18. Hess, S., Train. K. E., Polak, J.W., 2006. On the use of a modified Latin hypercube sampling (MLHS) method in the estimation of a mixed logit model for vehicle choice. Tranpsort Research, Part B 40, 147-163.
19. Hidrue, M., Parsons, G., Kempton, W., Gardner, M., 2011. Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and their attributes. Resour. EnergyEcon.33,686–705.
20. Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., and Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 1–18.
21. Hoen, A., and Koetse, M. J. (2014). A choice experiment on alternative fuel vehicle preferences of private car owners in the Netherlands. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 61, 199–215.
22. Jensen, A. F., Cherchi, E., and Mabit, S. L. (2013). On the stability of preferences and attitudes before and after experiencing an electric vehicle. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 25, 24–32. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2013.07.006
23. Mabit, S.L. and Fosgerau, M. (2011) Demand for alternative-fuel vehicles when registration taxes are high, Transportation Research D, 16, 225-231.
24. Mock, P. and Yang, Z. 2014 Driving electrification: a global comparison of fiscal incentive policy for electric vehicles. The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) 22 (6), http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_EV-fiscal-incentives 20140506.pdf
25. Musti.S, Kockelman, K, 2011 Evolution of household vehicle fleet: anticipating fleet compostion and PHEV adoption in Austin, Texas Transport Res. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0965-8564(15)30062-8/h0115 Part A 45 (8), 707–720.
26. Nemeth, C. (2003). Human factors methods for design: making systems human-centered (London: Taylor and Francis).
27. Potoglou, D., Kanaroglou, P., 2007. Household demand and willingness to pay for clean vehicles. Transportation Research Part D 12, 264–274.
28. Rasouli, S., and Timmermans, H. (2013). Influence of social networks on latent choice of electric cars: A mixed logit specification using experimental design data. Networks and Spatial Economics, 13, 1–32. doi: 10.1007/s11067-012-9171-5
29. S. Kim, H.-H. Park, J. Kim, and S. Ahn, “Design and analysis of a resonant reactive shield for a wireless power electric vehicle,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 1057–1066, 2014.
30. Schuitema, G., Anable, J., Skippon, S., Kinnear, N.: The role of instrumental, hedonic and symbolic attributes in the intention to adopt electric vehicles. Transp. Res. Part A 48, 39–49 (2013)
31. Shafiei, E., Thorkelsson, H., Ásgeirsson, E., Davidsdottir, B., Raberto, M., Stefansson, H., 2012. An agent-based modeling approach to predict the evolution of market share of electric vehicles: a case study from Iceland. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 79(9),1638–1653.
32. Tamor, M. A., Moraal, P. E., Reprogle, B., and Milacic, M. (2015). Rapid estimation of electric vehicle acceptance using a general description of driving patterns. Transportation Research Part C-Emerging Technologies, 51, 136-148. doi:10.1016/ j.trc.2014.10.010
33. Valeri, E., and Danielis, R. (2015). Simulating the market penetration of cars with alternative fuel powertrain technologies in Italy. Transport Policy, 37, 44–56. doi: 10.1016/ j. tranpol.2014.10.003.
34. Ziegler, A., 2012. Individual characteristics and stated preferences for alternative energy sources and propulsion technologies in vehicles: a discrete choice analysis for Germany. Transport. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 46 (8), 1372–1385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.tra.2012.05.016.
35. Zubaryeva, A., Thiel, C., Barbone, E., Mercier, A., 2012. Assessing factors for the identification of potential lead markets for electrified vehicles in Europe: expert opinion elicitation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change79,1622–1637.