Understanding the impact of the

socio-spatial dimension on electric

vehicle adoption - A literature review
MSc thesis research proposal

Maria Caballero Pons

Supervisor: Sol Maria Halleck Vega (UEC) and Bardia Mashhoodi (LUP)
Chair Group: ENR
Course code: ENR82000
Date of submission: 12/05/2023

1
Introduction

Road transport is at the core of the decarbonisation policies due to the negative environmental
externalities produced by the daily movement of people and goods. In 2019, road transport
accounted for 72% of EU transport emissions, with car use playing a dominant role (European
Commission, 2020). Likewise, in 2021, global CO2 emissions from the transport sector rebounded,
growing by 8% due to the end of pandemic movement restrictions (International Energy Agency,
2022). However, as the latest IPCC report highlights, emissions must peak in 2025 and be reduced
by 43% by 2030(IPCC, 2022). Crucial to meeting this goal is the diffusion of new technological
innovations, such as electric vehicles (EVs). The European Commission's Sustainable and
Intelligent Mobility Strategy states that 30 million zero-emission vehicles will be on European
roads by 2030.

The adoption of EVs will contribute to reducing the costs of the transport's environmental
externalities and limit global warming to 2°C(International Energy Agency, 2022b) Nonetheless,
the technological shift toward electric mobility transcends technological aspects, playing a role in
the process of generating economic, spatial, and social capital (Coenen et al., 2021a; Pucci, 2021).
Therefore, the socio-spatial contexts in which EVs are spread must be considered. Otherwise,
decarbonisation policies can have unintended negative externalities such as a larger
concentration of public charging infrastructure in wealthier neighbourhoods (Hardman et al.,
2021), leading to transport poverty or territorial divergences.

Not only innovations are context-specific (Aoyama et al., 2011), but environmental externalities
are also linked to space and scale. Noise pollution affects local levels, smog and acid rain impact
at regional and national scale and C02 emissions transcend to the global scale creating climate
change (Rodrigue, 2020). Hence, specific emphasis is required on the multiple ways in which
electric mobility transition instigates changes at different geographical scales. Understanding how
socio-spatial conditions shape the adoption of EVs is key to 1) understanding what and why
spatial and social imbalances are occurring in their uptake and 2) avoiding negative externalities
such as the exclusion of social groups or territories from access to mobility.

This research falls within the economic geography discipline that focuses on the differentiation
processes of economic development and equity. Research on EV adoption has generally ignored
the where, that is to say, the places where transitions occur and in what socio-spatial dynamics
they evolve (Coenen et al., 2012; Hansen & Coenen, 2015; Wesseling, 2016). Nonetheless, thanks
to the growing interest in the socio-spatial dimension, more authors have examined the effect of
local and regional processes on energy transitions (Coenen et al., 2021a). Furthermore, a few
authors have applied the socio-spatial dimension to the adoption of EVs (Kester et al., 2020; Lee
& Brown, 2021; Liu et al., 2017; Sovacool et al., 2018, 2019a) which has led to a well-established
consensus that mobility transitions are influenced by the environment where they are embedded.
This Master’s thesis will contribute to this debate by exploring the impact of the socio-spatial
dimension on electric vehicle adoption in recent empirical research.

Background and rationale

Given the urgent need to decarbonise the road transport sector, a large academic literature has
been devoted to building multidisciplinary theoretical frameworks that explain EV uptake (Adnan
et al., 2017; Asghar et al., 2021; Broadbent et al., 2018; Coffman et al., 2017; Hardman, 2019;
Kumar & Alok, 2020; Rezvani et al., 2015; Singh et al., 2020). These frames combine the results of
quantitative and qualitative empirical studies on the drivers and barriers of EV diffusion. Though,

2
most research is based on state preference surveys of potential consumers, restricting their
results to the adoption intention, instead of the actual uptake of an electric car.

Figure 1 shows a synthesis of these theoretical frameworks identifying five sets of factors
influencing EV adoption: technological, economic, financial, psychological, socio-spatial and socio-
economic and demographic. Following the nomological network proposed by Kumar & Alok
(2020), these dimensions relate to adoption intention in different forms: 1) Antecedents, namely
the factors that precede EV adoption intention and function as barriers or motivators, and 2)
moderators, which regulate the strength of the relationship between the antecedents and the
dependent variable.

Figure 1: Theoretical Framework of Electric Vehicle Adoption

Source: Compiled by the author based on the literature referenced.

Technological factors are one of the most extensively covered areas in the academic literature.
There is a broad consensus that the major technological constraint to EV adoption is driving range
as it limits drivers' mobility and results in range anxiety (Coffman et al., 2017). Additionally, EVs'
performance and vehicle design feature also play an important role in the uptake. For instance,

3
Singh et al. (2020) find that hedonic attributes (driving pleasure) are positively related to
BEV/PHEV adoption intention.
Another of the areas extensively studied in EV uptake are economic and financial factors. A strong
negative influence has been found between different types of costs (purchase, operation, battery,
and technology cost) and intention to adopt (Kumar & Alok, 2020). The literature reviewed
confirms that both the purchase price of an EV and its Total Cost of Ownership compared to that
of a similar vehicle with an ICE or a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) is of vital importance for
consumers (Coffman et al., 2017). A survey conducted in Germany in 2014 found that for future
consumers the purchase price was more important than the environmental attributes of the
vehicle (Broadbent et al., 2018).
Consumer behaviour has been studied from the psychological perspective with particular
attention to symbolic attributes, perceived risks, moral norms and pro-environmental behaviour.
While there is general agreement that symbolic attributes such as self-image, social status or
embarrassment anticipate adoption intention (Singh & Kumar), Coffman et al. (2017) and
Broadbent et al., (2018) find conflicting evidence that consumers' preference for environmental
benefits can significantly influence their decision to purchase an EV as consumers generally
prioritise vehicle utility over environmental impacts (real or perceived).
The socio-economic and demographic factors are used as control variables in many EV adoption
studies and have an influence on the adoption based on the regional profiles (Sovacool et al.,
2018). This dimension is approached as control variables rather than explanatory or moderator
(Kumar & Alok, 2020). The studies reviewed identify the typical profile of potential consumers
who are likely to adopt EVs as male, young or middle age group, married, well-educated,
professional adults, having large households with multicar availability (Coffman et al., 2017b;
Kumar & Alok, 2020b; Singh et al., 2020). However, the results in this area are mixed and vary
across studies and geographical contexts which implies that they are also moderated by the socio-
spatial context.
The relationship strength between these four dimensions and EV adoption intention is moderated
by the socio-spatial context where technology diffusion takes place. The term socio-spatial is the
main concept around which this research pivots. It offers a new analytical lens to study EV uptake
by shedding light on the spatiality of the economic and social processes that take place in the
transition to a low-carbon economy. This approach assumes that the economy is embedded in
society and nature and depends on social and natural resources and processes (Clark et al., 2018).
For this reason, transitions are driven by social relations (socio-economic, socio-political, etc.)
that evolve within specific spatial environments (Soja, 2009). Therefore, the structure of the
environment in which EV adoption occurs is dialectically defined by simultaneously social and
spatial relations. Additionally, the spatial concept refers to the geographical context, i.e. the scale,
the network, the level and the place, as a relational phenomenon where socio-technical systems
are situated (Murphy, 2015).

As an example of how socio-spatial factors influence EV uptake, Kumar & Alok (2020) highlight
that road slopes affect the performance of EVs by discouraging their use. For this reason, the
intention to adopt is moderated by the type of geographical topography where consumers live in.
Following the same argumentation, Sovacool et al., (2019) find variations in user preferences
according to whether they live in urban or rural areas. Urban residents rate higher public
chargers’ availability, and rural respondents' rate range greater. Consumer choices reflect the
socio-spatial characteristics where they are embedded: 1) Urban environments are shaped by the
recent deployment of charging infrastructure in Nordic countries 2) Rural population travel
longer distances due to the location of services.

4
In the academic literature consulted, the theoretical frameworks for EV adoption do not integrate
the socio-spatial dimension in their analysis (Adnan et al., 2017; Asghar et al., 2021; Broadbent et
al., 2018; Coffman et al., 2017; Hardman, 2019; Kumar & Alok, 2020; Rezvani et al., 2015; Singh et
al., 2020). To date, the most studied space-related factors, charging infrastructure and policies and
regulations, are viewed as antecedents situated in a 'neutral' arena. Space is conceived as an
empty container waiting to be filled, following the perspective of traditional positivist geography
(Hansen & Coenen, 2015). Consequently, these literature reviews look at socio-spatial factors as
contextual elements that are detached from territories and the multi-scalar relations between
different geographical levels.

Following the positivist geography approach of space, policies and regulations to foster EV
adoption have been well explored by literature (Hardman, 2019; Singh et al., 2020; Song &
Potoglou, 2020). Monetary incentives are key to reducing the price gap between electric and
conventional vehicles and can be targeted at both consumers and industry or subsidise the
implementation of infrastructure (Song & Potoglou, 2020). All the studies consulted agree that
they are crucial for EV adoption, for instance, in countries such as Norway or the Netherlands,
support policies and incentives explain the higher market share of EVs (Kumar & Alok, 2020).
Regarding non-monetary incentives such as special lane access for PEVs (e.g. HOV/carpool lanes,
bus lanes), parking incentives, road toll fee waivers, and licensing incentives, there are mixed
results on their effectiveness depending on regional characteristics such as traffic conditions,
travel patterns, consumer preferences and other local variations (Hardman, 2019).

The development of charging infrastructure is another significant space-related predictor of e-

mobility uptake (Coffman et al., 2017; Hardman, 2019; Kumar & Alok, 2020; Rezvani et al., 2015;
Singh et al., 2020; Song & Potoglou, 2020). This is because EVs have a limited driving range and,
therefore, drivers need both public and private charging points to travel long distances. The
relationship between charging points and adoption has a chicken-and-egg dynamic, where limited
infrastructure is a barrier to EV adoption, but investment in charging networks depends on the
number of EVs in circulation (Coffman et al., 2017). For this reason, the role of public authorities
is key to boosting technology diffusion and avoiding territorial unbalances.
Another socio-spatial factor studied is the price of energy or fuel. In the literature, there is no clear
trend on how fuel prices influence EV diffusion (Coffman et al., 2017; Hardman, 2019). The most
recent literature review by Hardman (2019) finds that rising gas prices are significantly related
to the market share of electric vehicles. However, Coffman et al. (2017) identify several studies
with opposing results. A 2012 study found no correlation between fuel price and EV market share
in the 30 countries analysed while three other studies conducted between 2009 and 2011 found
fuel prices to be a key driver of EV adoption (Coffman et al., 2017).
Finally, how social norms, travel patterns and neighbourhood effects influence adoption have little
mention in the theoretical frameworks revised. Coffman et al. (2017) find that social interactions
are important for developing demand for EVs because interpersonal relationships with friends,
family, coworkers or neighbours influence opinions about EVs. This is in line with Singh et al.
(2020) who identify that innovative technology adoption results from gaining recognition from
others for doing so. As for the green neighbourhood effect, while the studies consulted by Rezvani
et al. (2015) confirm its positive effect on consumer behaviour, the mechanisms that cause its
positive effect have not been much studied. One possible theory is that the "neighbourhood effect"
decreases the intangible costs of adoption and increases the market share of HEVs (Coffman et al.,
2017). Finally, a link is also found between EV uptake and travel patterns such as individual
carpooling behaviour, frequency of road trips and driving patterns. While preferring carpooling

5
is positively related to the use of an EV (Singh et al., 2020). No data have been found on how other
travel patterns influence it.
As it has been shown, extensive academic literature has investigated the EV diffusion process
building multidisciplinary theoretical frameworks. However, not all dimensions have been
equally addressed. There are differences between dimensions but also within a dimension itself.
This is clear for the socio-spatial dimension where research on regulations and charging
infrastructure stands out (Coenen et al., 2012, 2021b; Hansen & Coenen, 2015; Kanger et al., 2019;
Kester et al., 2020; Pucci, 2021; Sovacool et al., 2020). Elements such as social norms,
neighbourhood effects or travel patterns, which are key elements in understanding the socio-
spatial dimension, have been little considered. This leads us to identify a gap in the literature
when it comes to identifying which and how socio-spatial elements influence EV adoption in
recent empirical studies.
Theoretical frameworks explaining the adoption of EVs should incorporate the socio-spatial
dimension as elements that moderate adoption to prevent the EV diffusion process from unfolding
unevenly. However, there is no systematic review of the recent literature on EV adoption that
provides clarity on which socio-spatial factors are considered in empirical models of adoption and
what are the relationships between socio-spatial factors and uptake. Furthermore, there is no
synthesis on whether these empirical models take into account the multi-scalar aspects of
mobility. Our research aims to fill this gap in the literature.

Research objective and questions

This research aims to foster the adoption of EVs by investigating the influence of the socio-spatial
dimension in its diffusion process. For this objective, this study answers the following research
questions:

• Research Question 1: What are the socio-spatial factors used in EV empirical adoption
models?
• Research Question 2: How do the socio-spatial factors influence the uptake of EV based on
literature evidence?
• Research Question 3: What multi-scalar levels are considered in the EV empirical adoption
models?

Methodology1
To answer the research questions, a literature review has been conducted based on a mapping
systematic approach (Mengist et al., 2020; Petticrew & Roberts, 2008; Sutton et al., 2014). The
logic behind this is to map and categorise the socio-spatial factors that have been used in the
academic literature on the adoption of EVs with the two-fold goal of 1) detecting which variables
are most used by the authors and 2) identifying how these variables affect adoption. With these
objectives in mind, this study will follow the PSALSAR methodology proposed by Mengist et al.
(2020) to produce a systematic review that limits author bias and obtain results based on a
scientific methodology.

1The methodological section has been written in the past tense until step 4, as it has already been carried
out.

6
Step 1: Protocol

The first step of the PSALSAR methodology is to identify the research scope to ensure
transparency, transferability and replicability of the work (Mengist et al., 2020; Sutton et al.,
2014). The research scope of this study has been defined by answering three key elements: what
is the research problem, what objective does this research aim to achieve, and what are the
research questions that respond to the research problem. Following this purpose, the literature
review focuses on the concept of the socio-spatial dimension explained in the previous section.

Step 2: Search

The search process of the articles followed temporal and methodological criteria. First, we
selected the keywords based on the concepts addressed by the research objective. As can be seen
in table 1, the main concepts used for the technological aspect were " electric vehicle", "EV" and
"electric car" and in terms of their element within the socio-technical configuration: "ownership",
"adoption", "adaptation" and "uptake". Next, we chose the time frame, 2015 to 2022, because
socio-spatial aspects have mainly been incorporated in the last decade (Murphy, 2015).
Furthermore, as the research scope focuses on social science and empirical studies, we added
these two criteria to the search engine. Finally, we chose Web of Science and Scopus as the search
engines because they include articles and journals with a high impact factor. Following this search
criteria, we identify 617 studies.
Table 1: Search engines, main keywords, and results

Search Keywords Number

Engine of
results

Scopus ( TITLE ( "electric vehicle" ) OR TITLE ( "EV" ) AND TITLE ( 26

ownership" ) )
Scopus ( TITLE ( "electric vehicle" ) AND TITLE ( "ownership" ) ) 26

Scopus ( TITLE ( "electric car" ) AND TITLE ( "ownership" ) ) 5

Web of (TITLE ( "EV" ) AND TITLE ( "ownership" )) 1

Science
Web of ( TITLE ( "electric vehicle" ) AND TITLE ( "ownership" ) ) 22
Science
Web of ( TITLE ( "electric car" ) AND TITLE ( "ownership" ) ) 6
Science
Scopus ( TITLE ( "electric vehicle" ) OR TITLE ( "EV" ) AND TITLE ( 161
"adoption" ) )
Scopus ( TITLE ( "electric vehicle" ) AND TITLE ( "adoption" ) ) 150

Scopus ( TITLE ( "electric car" ) AND TITLE ( "adoption" ) ) 8

Web of ( TITLE ( "electric vehicle" ) OR TITLE ( "EV" ) AND TITLE ( 5

Science "adoption" ) )
Web of ( TITLE ( "electric vehicle" ) AND TITLE ( "adoption" ) ) 138
Science
Web of ( TITLE ( "electric car" ) AND TITLE ( "adoption" ) ) 9
Science

7
 Scopus ( TITLE ( "electric vehicle" ) OR TITLE ( "EV" ) AND TITLE ( 3
"adaptation" ) )
Scopus ( TITLE ( "electric vehicle" ) AND TITLE ( "adaptation" ) ) 3

Scopus ( TITLE ( "electric car" ) AND TITLE ( "adaptation" ) ) 0

Web of ( TITLE ( "EV" ) AND TITLE ( "adaptation" ) ) 0

Science
Web of ( TITLE ( "electric vehicle" ) AND TITLE ( "adaptation" ) ) 5
Science
Web of ( TITLE ( "electric vehicle" ) AND TITLE ( "adaptation" ) ) 0
Science
Scopus ( TITLE ( "electric vehicle" ) OR TITLE ( "EV" ) AND TITLE ( 12
"uptake" ) )
Scopus ( TITLE ( "electric vehicle" ) AND TITLE ( "uptake" ) ) 11

Scopus ( TITLE ( "electric car" ) AND TITLE ( "uptake" ) ) 7

Web of ( TITLE ( "electric vehicle" ) OR TITLE ( "EV" ) AND TITLE ( 1

Science "uptake" ) )
Web of ( TITLE ( "electric vehicle" ) AND TITLE ( "uptake" ) ) 11
Science
Web of ( TITLE ( "electric car" ) AND TITLE ( "uptake" ) ) 7
Science

Step 3: Appraisal and Quality Assessment

The next step was to assess the relevance and quality of the retrieved publications to decide which
ones to examine in detail. This was undertaken by identifying the following inclusion and
exclusion criteria:

Table 2: Exclusion & Inclusion Criteria for Publications

Criteria Decision Reason

Articles that answer the question: what factors Inclusion The research objective is to analyse
explain the adoption of EVs? how the socio-spatial dimension is
considered in EV adoption models.
Papers focused on identifying barriers to EV Inclusion Barriers to EV uptake imply no
adoption adoption. Identifying barriers
contribute to answering the question:
what factors explain the adoption of
EVs?
Articles published between 2015-2022 Inclusion Boost in the integration of the socio-
spatial dimension in the field of
transition studies over the last decade
Papers published in a scientific peer-reviewed Inclusion Ensure quality
journal
Articles employing empirical research methods Inclusion The research scope focuses on
empirical methods
Papers using qualitative and quantitative Inclusion Both research methods are
research methods complementary to identifying different
dimensions of EV uptake and its effects.
Articles based on simulations such as agent- Exclusion This review builds on the empirical
based modelling literature to draw results on how the

8
 adoption of EVs is being articulated in
real contexts. The simulations are
based on assumptions so depart from
the research scope.
Articles that research EV business models Exclusion They seek to increase the EV demand
but not why the adoption takes place
Papers that analyse the impacts of EV uptake Exclusion It goes beyond the research scope.
Articles that research sharing programs (EV-car Exclusion The research scope focuses on private
sharing or rental) or other types of e-mobility (e- EVs because it assesses the transition
bikes, electric scooters, autonomous EV or between ICV and EVs.
electric buses)
Geographical scope Indifferent Not relevant because the first step of
the study is a global assessment of EV
adoption models.

Applying the selection criteria, the final sample consisted of 122 papers. Regarding the
geographical distribution of the papers selected, there is a strong concentration from the USA,
China, India and Europe, with no articles from countries in Africa or Latin America. Also, there are
only 9 articles, about 7% of the sample, which includes several countries. Finally, as for the quality
assessment, the criteria and the selection of articles have been reviewed by the supervisors of this
master thesis.

Steps 4 and 5: Synthesis and Analysis

The last two steps of the literature review will consist of synthesising the content of the articles
and critically analysing them. To achieve this goal, two Microsoft Excel spreadsheets will be
prepared as a tool to organise and identify patterns among the studies and variables examined.
The first summary sheet will provide a general overview of the articles and their scalar-level
approaches, including author & year, country, type of EV, method, scale (territorial level) and if
multilevel approach is considered. This first assessment lets us to examine and compare which
survey methodologies predominate, in which territorial levels are the models embedded and
whether a multilevel perspective is considered. Finally, the second level of analysis seeks to
identify which socio-spatial variables are used in the literature, the frequency with which they are
studied in the literature and the main results in terms of how they explain the adoption of EVs.

Plan of work & time schedule

The duration of this Master thesis is planned for a period of 8 months. The analysis of the data
collected in the literature review will take place between October and February, followed by the
writing phase (March and April). Finally, the thesis will be presented in mid-May.

9
 Table 3: Master Thesis Timeline and Tasks

2022 2023
Month September October November December January February March April May
Weeks 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Phase 1 - Start and
Proposal
Fill-in learning agreement
Meet supervisor
Submit learning agreement
Draft research questions
Review related literature
Gather and explore datasets
needed
Write proposal
Finalize proposal
Create presentation slides
Practice presentation
Actual presentation
Phase 2 - Analysis
Writing Theoretical
Background
Improve methods section
Analysis of literature
Christmas break

Write draft discussion section

Progress evaluation
Incorporate supervisor
feedback
Phase 3 - Writing
Write limitations and future
directions
Rewrite introduction section
Write conclusion section
Write abstract
Phase 4 - Finalizing
Submit pre-final draft
Incorporate supervisor
feedback
SUBMIT THESIS
Create presentation slides
Practice presentation
Actual presentation
(Colloquium)
DEFENSE
Submit all materials for
storage

10
References
Adnan, N., Nordin, S. M., Rahman, I., & Amini, M. H. (2017). A market modeling review study on
predicting Malaysian consumer behavior towards widespread adoption of PHEV/EV.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(22), 17955–17975.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9153-8
Aoyama, Yuko, Hanson, Susan, Murphy, & James T. (2011). Key Concepts in Economic Geography.
SAGE Publications Ltd.
Asghar, R., Rehman, F., Ullah, Z., Qamar, A., Ullah, K., Iqbal, K., Aman, A., & Nawaz, A. A. (2021).
Electric vehicles and key adaptation challenges and prospects in Pakistan: A
comprehensive review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123375
Broadbent, G. H., Drozdzewski, D., & Metternicht, G. (2018). Electric vehicle adoption: An
analysis of best practice and pitfalls for policy making from experiences of Europe and the
US. Geography Compass, 12(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12358
Clark, G. L., Feldman, M. P., Gertler, M. S., & Wójcik, D. (2018). Introduction: Economic geography
in the twenty-first century. In The New Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography (pp. 1–16).
Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198755609.013.100
Coenen, L., Benneworth, P., & Truffer, B. (2012). Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability
transitions. Research Policy, 41(6), 968–979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.014
Coenen, L., Hansen, T., Glasmeier, A., & Hassink, R. (2021). Regional foundations of energy
transitions. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 14(2), 219–233.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsab010
Coffman, M., Bernstein, P., & Wee, S. (2017). Electric vehicles revisited: a review of factors that
affect adoption. Transport Reviews, 37(1), 79–93.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1217282
European Commission. (2020). Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy – putting European
transport on track for the future. https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr1996017
Hansen, T., & Coenen, L. (2015). The geography of sustainability transitions: Review, synthesis
and reflections on an emergent research field. Environmental Innovation and Societal
Transitions, 17, 92–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2014.11.001
Hardman, S. (2019). Understanding the impact of reoccurring and non-financial incentives on
plug-in electric vehicle adoption – A review. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 119(November 2018), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.11.002
Hardman, S., Fleming, K., Kare, E., & Ramadan, M. (2021). A perspective on equity in the
transition to electric vehicle. MIT Science Policy Review, 2, 46–54.
https://doi.org/10.38105/spr.e10rdoaoup
International Energy Agency. (2022a). CO2 Transport and Storage. Paris.
https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-transport-and-storage
International Energy Agency. (2022b). Electric Vehicles – Analysis . Paris.
https://www.iea.org/reports/electric-vehicles

11
IPCC. (2022). Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Climate
Change 2022. Mitigation of Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003264705-7
Kanger, L., Geels, F. W., Sovacool, B., & Schot, J. (2019). Technological diffusion as a process of
societal embedding: Lessons from historical automobile transitions for future electric
mobility. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 71(December 2018),
47–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.11.012
Kester, J., Sovacool, B. K., Noel, L., & Zarazua de Rubens, G. (2020). Rethinking the spatiality of
Nordic electric vehicles and their popularity in urban environments: Moving beyond the
city? Journal of Transport Geography, 82(October 2019), 102557.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.102557
Kumar, R. R., & Alok, K. (2020). Adoption of electric vehicle: A literature review and prospects
for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 253, 119911.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119911
Lee, R., & Brown, S. (2021). Social & locational impacts on electric vehicle ownership and
charging profiles. Energy Reports, 7, 42–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.02.057
Liu, X., Roberts, M. C., & Sioshansi, R. (2017). Spatial effects on hybrid electric vehicle adoption.
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 52, 85–97.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.02.014
Mengist, W., Soromessa, T., & Legese, G. (2020). Method for conducting systematic literature
review and meta-analysis for environmental science research. MethodsX, 7, 100777.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2019.100777
Murphy, J. T. (2015). Human geography and socio-technical transition studies: Promising
intersections. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 17, 73–91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.03.002
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide.
In Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754887
Pucci, P. (2021). Spatial dimensions of electric mobility—Scenarios for efficient and fair diffusion
of electric vehicles in the Milan Urban Region. Cities, 110(December 2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.103069
Rezvani, Z., Jansson, J., & Bodin, J. (2015). Advances in consumer electric vehicle adoption
research: A review and research agenda. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 34, 122–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.10.010
Rodrigue, J.-P. (2020). The Geography of Transport Systems (5th Edition). Routledge.
http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans.
Singh, V., Singh, V., & Vaibhav, S. (2020). A review and simple meta-analysis of factors
influencing adoption of electric vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 86(August), 102436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102436
Soja, E. W. (2009). The Socio-Spatial Dialectic Author ( s ): Edward W . Soja Source : Annals of the
Association of American Geographers , Vol . 70 , No . 2 ( Jun ., 1980 ), pp . Published by :
Taylor & Francis , Ltd . on behalf of the Association of American Geographers Sta. Annals of
the Association of American Geographers, 70(2), 207–225.

12
Song, R., & Potoglou, D. (2020). Are existing battery electric vehicles adoption studies able to
inform policy? A review for policymakers. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(16).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166494
Sovacool, B. K., Hess, D. J., Amir, S., Geels, F. W., Hirsh, R., Rodriguez Medina, L., Miller, C., Alvial
Palavicino, C., Phadke, R., Ryghaug, M., Schot, J., Silvast, A., Stephens, J., Stirling, A.,
Turnheim, B., van der Vleuten, E., van Lente, H., & Yearley, S. (2020). Sociotechnical
agendas: Reviewing future directions for energy and climate research. Energy Research and
Social Science, 70(September), 101617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101617
Sovacool, B. K., Kester, J., Noel, L., & de Rubens, G. Z. (2018). The demographics of decarbonizing
transport: The influence of gender, education, occupation, age, and household size on
electric mobility preferences in the Nordic region. Global Environmental Change,
52(January), 86–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.06.008
Sovacool, B. K., Kester, J., Noel, L., & de Rubens, G. Z. (2019). Income, political affiliation,
urbanism and geography in stated preferences for electric vehicles (EVs) and vehicle-to-
grid (V2G) technologies in Northern Europe. Journal of Transport Geography, 78(April),
214–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.06.006
Sutton, A., Booth, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2014). Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature
Review. In Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l’Association des
bibliothèques de la santé du Canada (Vol. 34, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.5596/c13-009
Wesseling, J. H. (2016). Explaining variance in national electric vehicle policies. Environmental
Innovation and Societal Transitions, 21(2016), 28–38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.03.001

13