The ever-growing environmental concerns caused due to fossil fuel

depletion and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has paved way for
consumers to consider Electric Vehicles (EV) as a rapidly emerging
operational alternative to vehicles that run on fossil fuels like petrol, diesel
and CNG. The paper aims to identify the possible factors in consumers’
intention of Electric Vehicle adoption. A quantitative approach is adopted
and the data is collected from 172 respondents from Bengaluru through
an online survey method using snowball sampling method. A robust
statistical method, such as exploratory factor analysis is conducted using
IBM SPSS 23 to identify the factors. The study identified factors such as
Financial Barriers, Vehicle Performance Barriers, Lack of charging
infrastructure, Environmental Conservation, Societal Influence, Social
Awareness of Electric Vehicles as influencers towards electric vehicle
adoption. The outcome of the study helps the policymakers to modify the
current policy with respect to electric vehicle in the emerging nations.

Keywords:

 electric vehicles
 adoption
 consumers’ intention
 financial barriers
 vehicle performance
 charging infrastructure

Previous articleNext article

1. Introduction

Climate change issues and its consequences have gained a lot of

importance on political agendas worldwide. Carbon dioxide, one of the
greenhouse gases has had a magnanimous impact on our environment
that has resulted in water supply reduction, rise in coastal flooding and an
increase in malnutrition. Due to the increasing awareness of
environmental concerns, in view of climatic changes and global warming,
consumers have been adopting green measures in order to improve air
quality by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. About 12 percent of
the greenhouse gas emissions across the globe are contributed by private
vehicles. On the whole, the transportation sector contributes to an
approximate value of 22 percent of the GHG emissions. Efforts to reduce
these emissions from this sector are growing at a fast pace (Moataz
Mohamed et al., Citation2016). The automobile industry has begun to
rethink the conventional forms of mobility due to the climate change and
resource shortage. One such measure that is gaining popularity among
consumers is the switch from using internal combustion engines (ICE) to
electric vehicles, EVs (Degirmenci & Breitner, Citation2017).

The re-emergence of electric vehicles in the market are due to reasons

such as improved battery technology and governments’ policies to
maintain vehicle efficiency and the air quality standards. Electric Vehicles
are an important technology which would help in reducing greenhouse
gas emissions, local air pollution and vehicular noise pollution (Brady &
O’Mahony, Citation2011; Hawkins et al., Citation2013). Being cognizant of
these benefits, countries around the world are setting EV adoption targets
(Coffman et al., Citation2016).

When compared to internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), it is

observed that EVs offer substantial environmental and economic benefits
by substituting fossil fuels with electricity (Jaramillo et al., Citation2009;
Larson et al., Citation2014). The transportation fuel used in EVs is
electricity, a clean fuel, which powers a battery, which is bulky. Having
limited energy storage capacity, the EVs must be recharged by plugging
into an electrical source. Based on the technology used EVs are classified
into different types which include plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs),
battery electric vehicles (BEVs), extended-range battery electric vehicles
(E-REVs) and hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs).

Despite them being eco-friendly and providing environmental benefits,

there are several barriers that prevent the consumers from accepting and
adopting EVs. While a lot of effort has been put into the research and
development of improvising the technology used in EVs, less
consideration was shown towards the factors affecting the acceptance of
this technology by customers (Yeh & Liu, Citation2007). A majority of the
consumers still consider Electric Vehicles as disadvantageous as
compared to the conventional cars. However, there will be no
technological shift and long-term success of transport systems that are
sustainable, without consumer acceptance (Wiedmann et
al., Citation2011). It is therefore, indeed important to understand how
consumers perceive electric vehicles and what the possible drivers for and
barriers against consumer Electric Vehicle Adoption are. This will further
enable better promotion of electric vehicle adoption by understanding the
influence the factors have on consumers’ intention of purchasing electric
vehicles.

Achieving high environmental benefits offered by EVs relies thoroughly on

the consumers’ adoption and preferable understanding of the influential
factors that lead to diffusion of EVs in the market. Some of the previously
identified factors include economical, technological, political, social and
environmental factors. Driving range anxiety, charging time, price
sensitivity, lack of infrastructure (charging facilities), personal
characteristics, government policies, demographics, environmental
concern and market are some of these factors.

1.1. Need for study

As the EV technology is picking up pace across the globe, India is yet to

set its mark in this sector. The Indian Government has set out a roadmap
that is ambitious and desirable for pure electric vehicles. It provides a
transformative solution of shared-connected-electric mobility, wherein,
40% of private vehicles and 100% public transport vehicles can become
all electric by 2030 (SIAM, 2017). An expansion of this vision is necessary
to have a future of complete electric mobility by maximising the usage of
electric vehicles. The aim of the study to find the possible factors that can
influence the adoption of EV’s and provide the Government to come out
with the policies and to help the automakers to understand the needs and
wants of the customer. In order to achieve this goal, sufficient market
study needs to be conducted, and this is one drawback that the country
currently faces at present.

1.2. Objective of the work

This study would give an insight to the Indian market’s perception of EV

adoption, thus giving us a deeper understanding of why consumers resist
buying Electric Vehicles. The aim of this study is to provide a
comprehensive market assessment in identifying the potential factors that
influence the Electric Vehicle Adoption.

1.3. Target specifications

The findings of this research may be useful for manufacturers and

suppliers of the automobile industry, the private and public institutions
dealing with e-mobility, sustainability or green business solutions as well
as the governments. This could further help them to develop and provide
strategies with the goal to overcome the adoption barriers currently
existing. Overcoming these barriers would then attract larger number of
consumers to Electric Vehicles.

2. Background theory

The automotive industry across the globe is at the brink of an extensive

transformation given, the heightening concerns for our energy and
environmental conservation. The expeditious advancements in
technologies for power-plant electrification, the digitalization and
innovative business models clubbed with the ever-increasing consumer
expectations are driving the transformation of the automotive sector. An
important facet of this change is the swift development in the area of
electric mobility that could lead to a transformation of the automotive
business like never before. The Indian automobile industry is considering
innovative and pragmatic approaches to soar during this phase of
transformation so that by 2026, it can emerge among the top 3 in
automobile manufacturing. E-mobility is considered to provide a great
scope for the Indian industry to engage and emerge amongst the top in
the automotive business, given the availability of skilled and semi-skilled
technological base, a larger market and relatively cheaper production and
labor cost. Various Indian automotive players like Mahindra and Mahindra,
Tata Motors, Bajaj Auto and TVS Motors are trying to transform at a faster
pace during this period of growth of electric vehicles while maintaining
competitive advantages in the market. This has further led to various
strategic alliances: Mahindra and Mahindra with Renault and Ford, Tata
Motors with Fiat, TVS with Suzuki, Bajaj Auto with Kawasaki, Jaguar Land
Rover by Tata Motors and KTM by Bajaj Auto (Bhalla et al., Citation2018).

Various countries across the globe have developed and adopted long-term
policies that are aligned with that particular nation’s ecological aspects
and goals in attaining decarbonisation of industrial activities. Every
country has its own approach that is based on its per capita income,
market environment, strategic needs and goals and purchasing power.

2.1. Product and market overview

Electric vehicles are classified into three main types: Battery Electric
Vehicles (BEVs), Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs), Hybrid Electric
Vehicles and Autonomous Vehicle (Run on electricity)

2.1.1. Battery electric vehicles

These are termed to be all-electric or pure electric vehicles since they are
solely powered by an electric motor and not the internal combustion
engine (ICE). The battery draws its power, which is electricity, from the
grid. Usually, these EVs are equipped with powerful Lithium-ion batteries
since the battery is the only source of power. These batteries possess a
capacity of 20kWh or more than 50kWh to deliver higher vehicle
performance (Perujo et al., Citation2011).

2.1.2. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles

These vehicles have a combination of an ICE and a battery with up to

40kWh capacity (usually lithium-based). The vehicle can be powered by
either the ICE or can draw power directly from the grid. The vehicles can
alone run on electric power at fast speeds, for shorter distances
(Lytton, Citation2010). The ICE kicks in and provides power once the
battery power reaches its range limit. The range issues experienced in
BEVs are addressed by the PHEVs.

2.1.3. Hybrid electric vehicles

These are also referred to as “Conventional Hybrid” vehicles. These

vehicles have a provision to charge its battery by the ICE using
regenerative braking and not from an external source of electricity.

2.1.4. Autonomous Vehicle (AV)

In the recent years, a new type of vehicle technology, Autonomous
Vehicle’s (AV) have been on the rise. The Investment in the autonomous
vehicle have been increasing by the researchers and the developers. A
study by Othman (Citation2022) on autonomous vehicles have a
significant impact on fleet size, utilisation, and cost. It also discusses the
benefits and drawbacks of AV in developing countries. While AVs have
many benefits, they also introduce new threats. Regulatory actions can
influence how the technology is adopted, which influences how much
impact AVs have on our mother nature.

This research will, however, solely focus on Battery Electric Vehicles

(BEVs). Few electric vehicles (BEVs) available in India are listed below -

1. Hyundai Kona Electric: provides a range of 452 km/charge

2. Tata Tigor EV: provides a range of 140 km/charge

3. Mahindra e20Plus: provides a range of 110 km/charge

4. Mahindra E Verito: provides a range of 140 km/charge.

5. Tata Nexon: Provides a range of 300 km/charge

2.2. Literature review

A study conducted had revealed that in developing countries like India,

Electric Vehicles would be a more natural alternative, than in developed
countries. Given the lack of oil reserves and the driving habits of the
people in India, EV technology appears to be appropriate and
economically viable (Biswas & Biswas, Citation1999). However, the
development of the market of electric vehicles is intrinsically bound to
general awareness, prospective consumers’ choice, and understanding of
potential benefits of using electric vehicles. Although the electric vehicle
market growth continues, its widespread uptake is prevented by various
barriers. Rezvani et al. (Citation2015) have successfully carried out
research in the past and have identified some factors that affect a
consumer’s choice on purchasing an EV. When it comes to Vehicle
Restraint Systems (VRS), researchers have found that including elements
like guardrails, terminals, transitions, and crash cushions in the planning
stages of road and highway construction can boost VRS’s overall
performance (Tahmasseby et al., Citation2021).

Some of the critical factors/barriers have been discussed below.

2.2.1. Technological factors (vehicle performance)

While electricity as a vehicle fuel has many benefits, it has two

disadvantages: it is bulkier to store and costlier, and slower to refill. The
former means that the current electric vehicles would have a smaller
range than diesel, and the latter means that they cannot be refuelled
easily on the road (Pearre et al., Citation2011). This brings us to the major
technological factors.

These include driving range anxiety, recharging time and EV model

variety.

 Range Anxiety: According to studies conducted, range anxiety is

found to be a predominant barrier in a customer’s decision to
buy an EV (Jensen et al., Citation2013). Research suggests that
consumers prefer an ideal driving range, which is expected to
be between 300 km to 450 km (Zhu, Citation2016). However,
this at times is not practically possible thereby giving rise to
range anxiety. This is mainly observed during battery charge
depletion while driving for long hours when the driver fails to
predict the approximate distance that could be covered with the
remaining battery power. The limited and uncertain vehicle
range aroused anxiety among drivers to use EVs for long
journeys (Noel et al., Citation2020). This would decrease the
reliability of these vehicles.

 Recharging time: Here, the time it would take to recharge the

battery would depend on the driver’s battery range choice. The
more the battery is charged; greater range would be offered
(Daziano & Chiew, Citation2012). But this leads to excess
charging time since the refuelling capacity is slow (Egbue &
Long, Citation2012). Although this factor is viewed as the least
problematic, it still contributes to increasing the rejection factor
for EV purchase (Carley et al., Citation2013). Most of the drivers
consider charging an EV to be inconvenient as compared to
refuelling an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicle
(Brückmann et al., Citation2021). They believe that EV charging
time may pose to be a constrain in their everyday routines as
the inability to quickly refill fuel and go on-the-run causes
inconvenience especially for on-road drivers (Graham-Rowe et
al., Citation2012). Also, if a charging station is available at
home, sudden unexpected trips cannot be made by the driver
when the EV is being charged. This reduces flexibility.

In case of taxi drivers, unintelligently controlled charging of electric

vehicles, may lead drivers to return back home and plug-in their vehicles
for charging when the demand is at its peak (Christensen et
al., Citation2012).

 EVmodel variety: Bessenbach and Wallrapp (Citation2013), also

state that model variety of Electric Vehicles is also a significant
barrier in EV adoption.

2.2.2. Economical factors (financial barrier)

These include purchase price of the EV, fuel price and price of battery.

The high purchase price of an EV is found to be a large constraint in many

consumer survey studies (Carley et al., Citation2013; She et
al., Citation2017). The technology used in manufacturing EVs is expensive
and this in turn raises the price value of the vehicle (Noel et
al., Citation2020). As constant efforts are made and newer technologies
are introduced to increase range of EVs, the complexity of battery
material (Lithium-ion batteries) used increases (Biresselioglu et
al., Citation2018). This causes a rise in the battery price (Noel et
al., Citation2020). Thus, replacement of such batteries in the future would
be expensive. Poor understanding of the costs of vehicle fuel and
maintenance also add to this barrier. Basically, the poor economy of scale
causes upcoming technologies to compare unsatisfactorily to existing
dominant price designs.

This has also to do with the customer’s perception about the money value
of the EV. The service and maintenance costs of these are less when
compared to ICE vehicles. But the initial high purchase price becomes a
hindrance to consumers to buy EVs. This shows that the consumers aren’t
fully aware that an advantage of having lower operating costs of EVs is
that it leads to potential savings (Krause et al., Citation2013).

2.2.3. Lack of infrastructure- charging networks

Another relevant risk is the lack of a charging station when travelling

(Krupa et al., Citation2014). As a result, to consider the need of long-
distance drives, consumers would often demand that public charging
stations be made available at more locations (Habla et al., Citation2020).
The cost of setting these networks is again very high (Brückmann et
al., Citation2021). This has led to uncertainty regarding the future
expansion of the infrastructure for charging stations. Investing in
infrastructural facilities by the Government and manufacturers for EVs
could facilitate the consumers’ EV adoption rate (Bhalla et
al., Citation2018).

The lack of a consistent charging system often discourages some drivers

from depending on it. Still, there continues to be some debate as to how
far public charging facilities may be needed to raise the willingness of
consumers to adopt EVs. It is likely that setting up more charging points
thus making them accessible would offer reassurance to consumers to
accept EVs as a viable transportation alternative (Noel et
al., Citation2020). It will be important to monitor how public perceptions of
EVs change in cities where charging points are introduced and thus the
salience of EVs increased (Bunce et al., Citation2014).

2.2.4. Personal characteristics

According to the Theory of Planned Behavior humans make decisions
bases on logical evaluations of stimuli and the plausible outcomes of
decisions (Ajzen, Citation1991). Customer knowledge and experience
have an effect on attitude (Ajzen & Fishbein, Citation1980). Other factors
that influence EV adoption are gender, age, income, educational level,
tastes and environmental awareness.

Consumers who readily adopt EVs are usually highly educated and
environmentally sensitive. Individuals respond to social expectations and
social pressure reflected in statements, such as socially acceptable
behaviour, being considerate of others, expressing shared values and
social responsibility.

Kahn (Citation2007) further goes on to state that a consumer who strongly

believes in environmental conservation purchases an EV for two
incentives. First, driving a more fuel-efficient car would reduce one’s
carbon footprint for any given number of miles driven per year. The
second incentive is that, everybody in the community sees the type of
vehicle that a person drives. In an environmentalist community, driving a
fuel inefficient vehicle may trigger some embarrassment and ostracism.
This would lead to a person’s purchase of an EV due to peer pressure.

In some cases, EVs’ performance, style, size and safety were reported as
barriers.

Lack of awareness regarding EVs and its benefits can also be a barrier in
its adoption (Wang et al., Citation2017). A lack of knowledge about future
market opportunities inhibits innovation in EVs with many manufacturers
(Lieven et al., Citation2011). It is also important for product designers and
marketers to develop and align electric vehicles to elicit positive
emotional reactions (Moons & Pelsmacker, Citation2012).

Providing effective information would increase environmental knowledge.

This will raise more doubt, decrease fatalism and increase consumer
desire to change behaviour (as suggested by the Theory of Planned
Behaviour), but it is often a necessary precursor (Lane &
Potter, Citation2007).

In general, education and environmental consciousness are found to be

mildly associated. Higher education could foster understanding of the
climate-mitigation potential of a purchase of a single vehicle.
Nevertheless, as higher education positively correlates with employment,
higher-educated customers prefer to drive more costly vehicles with
usually higher CO2 emissions (Peters et al., Citation2015).

2.2.5. Environmental concern as a factor

Temperature increase in cities have been linked to increasing population,

urban surface materials, forest removal, man-made heat, noise and air
pollution, concrete buldings and building congested roads(Sampson et
al., Citation2021). This further reinstates the thought that few people are
heavily influenced by the depletion of natural resources and are thus
concerned about environmental conservation (Heffner et al., Citation2007;
Mohamed et al. Citation2018). It was found in a focus group analysis that
most participants did not find any correlation between their choice of
vehicle ownership and their environmental attitudes until the subject was
addressed in structured conversations (Flamm & Agrawal, Citation2012).
According to Asadi et al. (Citation2021), Electric vehicles are considered to
be the future alternatives which will address most of the environmental
concerns. People/consumers accept the idea that by adopting EVs, a lot of
pollution would be reduced (Skippon & Garwood, Citation2011). This
motivates them to buy the EV to reduce the ecological footprint and
“living lighter”, i.e. consuming fewer natural resources (Ozaki &
Sevastyanova, Citation2011; Mohamed et al. Citation2018). An
Environmental Index was employed to conduct this study in order to
measure respondent environmental awareness. Currently, electric
vehicles are mostly used by particular social groups, such as
environmentalists, early adopters, people with above average income,
young urban citizens and technology enthusiasts (Axsen et
al., Citation2015; Talantsev, Citation2017).

Skerlos and Winebrake (Citation2010), in their study discuss the social

benefits of using EVs which include reduction in GHGs emissions and other
air pollutants. EVs have shown substantially lower emissions than
traditional ICE vehicles, while considering the emissions from power plants
used in charging such vehicles. The magnitude of this difference depends
strongly on the source of generation of power for these EVs: natural gas,
coal or renewable fuels.

2.2.6. Policies

The Non-acceptance of policies and consumers’ perception towards them

could also be a barrier in EV adoption (Brückmann et al., Citation2021).
Regulations and incentives put forth by the government regarding fuel
prices, fuel infrastructure development which are environment related
would influence the adoption (David Diamond, Citation2009). Sometimes
these policies aren’t well understood by the consumers. This may be
caused due to frequent changes in policies, thus creating uncertainties for
consumers. This in turn may make them reluctant in adopting EVs (Kester
et al., Citation2018).

In order to facilitate EV diffusion in the market, policymakers are

suggested to allow companies to experiment with automobiles to promote
the spread of EV on the market. This can also be done by providing EVs
for monitoring or removing other possible obstacles, which do not result in
consumers purchasing EVs (Sierzchula, Citation2014).

2.3. Research gap

From the literature (Brückmann et al., Citation2021; Noel et
al., Citation2020), given a particular geographical distribution of a region
and its demographics, the factors influencing EV adoption could vary.
Most of the studies conducted in developed countries had infrastructure,
Technological factors of the EV, and the financial factors available to
them. In this case, India being geographically a large country, it should be
seen if these factors can change the perceptions of people to buy an
Electric Vehicle (EV). This causes a knowledge gap in the study of the
influence of barriers on consumers’ intention to purchase an EV. This gap
gives rise to the attitude-action lag between consumer purchase intention
and actual behaviour.

3. Methodology

This research study seeks to identify the factors that could be potentially
influencing Electric Vehicle adoption by consumers’ in India. The study
was conducted from December 2019 to April 2020 on a small population
in the city of Bengaluru in the state of Karnataka, India. Quantitative
methodology was followed for this research through using a survey
instrument. The analytical method used was Exploratory Factor Analysis.
Since the study uses a small scale, the data was examined to find out if
the research met the required sampling adequacy that allowed a good fit
of a structure using factor analysis. To accomplish this, Bartlett’s test for
correlation adequacy and the KMO sampling adequacy test was used.

3.1. Sampling

There isn’t a fixed consensus on the required sample size for conducting
an Exploratory Factor Analysis (Costello & Osborne, Citation2005).
Nevertheless, some researchers generally recommend having a minimum
of 100 samples, in order to go ahead and conduct a factor analysis
(Coakes & Ong, Citation2011 Gorsuch, Citation1988; MacCallum et
al., Citation1999). In this research study, a sample size ratio of 1:5 is
considered (Bujang et al., Citation2012). Initially, a pilot study was
conducted with 52 responses, the results of which implied collecting large
number of samples. For the main study, snow balling method was used to
collect the responses and a total of 172 responses were collected from the
respondents. The data was collected from the metropolitan city of
Bengaluru of the state of Karnataka, India. The required sample size of
this study was 130 samples. The questionnaire was circulated through
offline and online (Google Forms) modes to around 230 respondents and
172 responses were collected. This was done to make up for the error at
the time of data collection. The targeted population mainly consisted of
businessmen, corporate workers and self-employed workers. Socio-
demographic factors like age, gender, occupation, annual income and
number of cars owned were considered for the survey.
3.2. Questionnaire design

To conduct this study, the research instrument used is a questionnaire.

The questionnaire is designed based on past literature. The factors
influencing consumers’ adoption of Electric Vehicles are measured. The
questionnaire has been divided into two parts. In the first part, basic
information of the respondents like age, gender, occupation, annual
income and number of cars; was taken. The second part included
questions pertaining to the assumed factors such as price, vehicle
performance, market awareness, recharging facilities, etc. For the
prepared questionnaire, a 7- point Likert scale is used.

1 = “Strongly disagree”

2 = “Disagree”

3 = “Moderately disagree”

4 = “Neutral”

5 = “Moderately agree”

6 = “Agree”

7 = “Strongly agree”

3.3. Factor analysis

Factor Analysis is a significant instrument for analyzing data which could

be used in the development, refinement and evaluation of tests, scales
and measures (Williams et al., Citation2010). It is a multivariate statistical
procedure and is commonly used in the fields of information system,
psychology, commerce and education. It is also considered as the
approach of choice for the interpretation of self-reporting survey (Bryant
et al., Citation1999).

Factor analysis reduces a large number of variables (factors) into smaller

sets. It also provides the validity of the constructs. It is used to convert a
large data set into a smaller one and is known as a data reduction
technique. It is used to find the number of factors that affect the variables
and to check if the variables have any relationship between them (Yong &
Pearce, Citation2013). It is divided into two main types, namely,
Exploratory Factor Analysis and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. If the
researcher has no expectations of the number or nature of factors,
Exploratory Factor Analysis is used. It helps the researcher to explore the
main variables to create a theory or model from a set of items. It is
employed when there is no theory regarding possible connections
between variables (Hurley et al., Citation1997). Confirmatory Factor
Analysis, on the other hand, is a form of structural equation modelling and
is used to test a proposed theory or model by a researcher. This study
considers the approach of Exploratory Factor Analysis.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Test and Bartlett’s sphericity test are used to

check sample adequacy. When the variable to participants’ ratio is about
1:5, the KMO test for adequacy of samples is recommended (Williams et
al., Citation2012). According to the KMO measure of sampling adequacy, a
0.5 KMO value for sample study should be the minimum considerable
value for proceeding with factor analysis (Kaiser, Citation1974). The value
of significance for Bartlett’s sphericity test should be less than 0.05, after
which the sample can be considered adequate. Therefore, in this research
a KMO test and Bartlett’s sphericity test were carried out to measure the
sample adequacy to conduct the factor analysis.

To assess the internal consistency of variables determined by the factor

analysis, conducting a reliability test is necessary. The reliability of a scale
is defined to be the amount of variation in a scale’s score
(DeVellis, Citation2003). Cronbach’s alpha is used to check the internal
consistency reliability.

4. Result analysis

4.1. Reliability test

The Cronbach alpha is used for calculating the study ‘s reliability. It’s used
to test the reliability of the scale used when there are many Likert
questions in a questionnaire (Table 1).

Table 1. Reliability test result

Download CSVDisplay Table

A Cronbach alpha of the value 0.720 is obtained from the study result
which suggests a good consistency level for the selected Likert scale of 7
with 26 items and a sample size of 172. A value greater than 0.7 is
considered to be good for internal consistency. However, values above
0.51 are also considered to be up to the mark (Straub et
al., Citation2004). A Cronbach alpha value of 0.720 suggests a strong
consistency level for the instrument (Gliem & Gliem, Citation2003).

4.2. Demographic distribution of consumers

4.2.1. On Gender basis

The data collected shows that out of the sample of 172, 56.4% are males
(97 respondents) and 43.6% are females (75 respondents). Since a
majority of this study were males, it can be interpreted that the EV
automobile industry should focus on the male counterpart of the society
while designing the features of the product and the marketing strategies
(Table 2).

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics

Download CSVDisplay Table

4.2.2. On age basis

In the data analysis, it was observed that a maximum percentage of

respondents, that is 62.8% (108 respondents) belonged to the age group
of 25–34 years followed by 33.1% (57 respondents) belonging to the age
group 35–44 years and 4.1% (7 respondents) in the age group of 45 and
above.

4.2.3. On occupation basis

98.3% of the sample (169 respondents) were salaried employees and

1.7% (3 respondents) had their own business.

4.2.4. On annual income basis

A majority of the sample which is 34.9% (60 respondents) have their

annual income above 6 Lac and less than 10 Lac. This is followed by those
having an annual income of at most 6 Lac, which formed 29.7% (51
respondents) of the sample. Next to that, were those having an annual
income of 10 Lac to 20 Lac, 21.5% (37 respondents) and lowest belonged
to those whose income was above 20 Lac, which formed 13.9% of the
sample size (24 respondents).

4.2.5. On number of cars owned basis

16.9% of the sample size (29 respondents) did not own a car of their own.
However, these respondents could be potential buyers of electric vehicles.
The majority of the sample strength, 58.1% (100 respondents) owned one
car. This was followed by 22.7% (39 respondents) who owned two cars. A
minimum percentage of the sample size, 2.3% (4 respondents) owned
three or more cars.

4.2.6. KMO and Bartlett’s test

The KMO-Bartlett’s test is conducted to measure the sampling adequacy

to check the suitability of the data used in the questionnaire. The
sampling adequacy provides the researcher with information related to
classifying or grouping of the survey items. Grouping of the items helps
the researcher to categorize the set into interpretable factors that can
better explain the constructs that are being investigated. The sampling
adequacy explains how strongly an item is correlated with other items in
EFA correlation matrix (Burton & Mazerolle, Citation2011).

The results of this study obtained here indicate a KMO value of 0.764
which is greater than the acceptable index of 0.5. Hence, the number of
samples used is sufficient and is accepted (Williams et al., Citation2010).
This indicates that some pattern of correlations exists in the data.

The level of significance obtained is 0.000 which is significant (p < 0.05),

indicating that the correlation matrix is not an identity matrix, thus
suggesting that clusters of items are correlated. This indicates that we can
now proceed with the EFA.

Communalities were measured to find the proportion of the variance of

variable that each factor can explain. The initial values show the variance
estimates for all factors. It is always 1 for the Principal Component
Extraction. The extraction value is the estimation of all components of the
variable’s variance. A high value for extraction indicates that all variables
have been well represented. The respective results are shown in the Table
3 and 4 below:

Table 3. KMO and Bartlett’s test result

Download CSVDisplay Table

Table 4. Communalities
Download CSVDisplay Table

The Extraction Method used is Principal Component Analysis. From the

table above, it is observed that the communalities extracted are above
0.3 which is the minimum acceptable level (Costello &
Osborne, Citation2005). The value of Total Variance Explained obtained is
65.764% which is acceptable.

4.2.7. Scree plot

The scree plot is a graph that shows the eigenvalue versus the number of
factors in the study. The factors that cause the line to become flat show
that the magnitude of variance is decreasing. As a result, the first six
variables explain the greatest amount of variance, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Scree plot.

Display full size

The rotation is performed in the Rotated Component Matrix to reduce the

number of factors on which the variables have high loadings (Table 5).
The study shows different values of variance above 0.5 from the variables
that have been extracted by Principal Component Analysis. The Principal
Component Analysis extracts maximum variance from the data, thereby
reducing a large number of variables into smaller groups of components.

Table 5. Rotated component matrix

Download CSVDisplay Table

Using Principal component analysis extraction method with eigen values

greater than 1 along with Varimax with Kaiser Normalization rotation
method, the rotation was found to converge in six iterations. It has formed
six factors out of 26 items. One of the items (Q10) had factor loadings less
than 0.5 and was hence suppressed. Hence, we can consider deleting Q10
(Table 6).

Below is the rotated component matrix after deleting Q10:Components

Table 6. Factor grouping results

Download CSVDisplay Table

It is observed that all items have loadings above 0.5 and the factor
loadings have not cross-loaded and 6 components have been identified.
Eight items were loaded onto the first factor, followed by six items on the
second factor, three items on the third, fourth and fifth factor each. Only
two questions were loaded onto the last factor.

5. Findings and discussions of the study

India has started off late on the path to electrification and thus a strong
policy is required to catch-up and move rapidly towards the stated goal of
hundred percent pure electric technology regime. Currently, the
penetration of Electric vehicles in the market remains quite low in India,
~0.1% in Private Vehicles, ~0.2% in two-wheelers and practically nil for
commercial vehicles. This could be due to several reasons including
significant affordability gap and low level of consumers’ acceptance (i.e.
lack of demand), low level of electric vehicle manufacturing activities (i.e.
lack of supply), non-existent public charging infrastructure, etc. However,
it may be expected that with a concerted policy and an enough time for
such a policy to bear fruits, all these aspects could be well taken care of.

Most of the personal vehicle buyers consider upfront purchase price, fuel
efficiency, maintenance and service cost, comfort features as the key
buying criteria. The single major factor for EVs’ market penetration to be
slow is its high price which is around 2 to 2.5 times more than the
comparable conventional vehicles. Besides this, the other concern that
consumers usually face with regard to electric vehicles is the range per
charge offered. A higher battery capacity would be required to offer a
higher range amount in the electric vehicle. An improved battery capacity
would mean an increase in the price of the EV, which then increases the
price gap. However, EVs would offer a significant advantage on operating
costs as compared to the conventional ICE vehicles. In India, the
affordability index is lower than developed economies due to lower per
capita income. Manufacturers will hence have to offer medium range
electric vehicles so that the cost of the vehicles remain affordable for the
masses. Studies from the past literature have also suggested that
awareness of electric vehicles is low among the society. This included
familiarity with technology, lack of knowledge concerning government
schemes and economic benefits. Studies have also indicated that there is
a direct correlation between knowledge of electric vehicles and its
adoption.

From the data analysis, six unique components/factors were identified

which were grouped and named, based on the items loaded in each of the
following factors. Conceptually, these factors make sense within the
context of what the literature review stated. The factors identified were
similar to the factors considered in other studies and these factors will
play a major role for setting the road map for EV’s in the country. The
study is conducted in Bengaluru which boasts of Major IT hub, Education,
Textile, Automobile and other manufacturing companies. The identified
factors were labelled as: Financial barriers, vehicle performance barriers,
lack of charging infrastructure, environmental concern, societal influence
and awareness of electric vehicles and the details of the factors are listed
below.

5.1. Financial barriers/ factors

The financial factors mainly include pricing concerns. This includes the
overall EV cost due to its superior design, the maintenance cost as
compared to ICE vehicles and the cost of the EV battery
(Sierzchula, Citation2014). Some consumers consider buying an Electric
Vehicle for the same price as that of the ICE vehicles. They do not
consider purchasing EVs as of now, assuming that its price would drop
down in the future. Considering electricity as a fuel would help them
spend less on exhaustible fossil fuels like petroleum, diesel and CNG
(Krause et al., Citation2013). The cost of battery replacement of EVs is
also high and this concerns the consumers (She et al., Citation2017). The
unknown cost of service and maintenance adds to this list as well. The
price of the electric vehicle and battery was also found to be a key factor
and overall, in line with that of Noel et al. (Citation2020).

5.2. Vehicle Performance barriers/ factors

Under vehicle performance factors, consumers are mainly concerned with

the maximum range offered by electric vehicles in a single charge and the
lengthy charging times. They consider being worried about running out of
charge when driving an EV and would hence have to plan their trips
carefully. This makes them to consider using EVs only for short-distance
journeys (Noel et al., Citation2020; Zhu, Citation2016). Repeated
recharging of Electric Vehicles makes it unpractical for everyday use due
to its lengthy charging time (Rowe et al., Citation2012).

5.3. Lack of charging infrastructure

The unavailability of recharging facilities at home as well as along

highways was also found to be a factor for not purchasing an Electric
vehicle. Lack of recharging facilities at home for overnight charging and
along the highways causes inconvenience while using Electric Vehicles
(Lane & Potter, Citation2007). This factor was noted in the previous
studies and supports the results by Kester et al. (Citation2018) and Noel
et al. (Citation2020).

5.4. Environmental concern

Consumers believe that driving an electric vehicle would express their

awareness towards environmental conservation. They believe that it
would reduce the consumption of natural resources, thus reducing climate
change (Heffner et al., Citation2007).

5.5. Societal influence

Due to the increasing awareness on environmental conservation around

the consumers they feel influenced by their peers, family or society to
consider the environment while purchasing an electric vehicle. They feel
socially responsible while driving electric vehicles (Kahn, Citation2007).

5.6. Awareness of electric vehicles

Market awareness also plays a role in adopting electric vehicles (Wang et

al., Citation2017). The people are aware of the technology used in electric
vehicles and are aware of what makes EVs different from the ICE vehicles.
This is majorly to do with how electric vehicles have been marketed to the
consumers.

6. Conclusion, limitations and future scope of

work

With India’s aim to transform its automobile industry by focussing on e-

mobility, it is mandatory to address the knowledge gap as lack of
awareness of potential barriers in EV adoption. As a limited study has
been conducted in this field in India, identifying and classifying these
barriers into various groups is necessary. The aim of this project is to
determine the factors influencing consumers’ intention of electric vehicle
adoption in India. Based on the components grouped, six factors were
identified and named as financial factors, vehicle performance factors,
lack of charging infrastructure, environmental concern, societal influence
and awareness of electric vehicles. Based on the results the factors found
in this study are similar to some of the factors found by Noel et al.
(Citation2020). Financial barriers, vehicle performance barriers and lack of
charging infrastructure facilities are found to be the major factor in
adoption of EV’s in Indian context.

The findings of this research can be used by manufacturers and suppliers

of the automobile industry, the private and public institutions dealing with
e-mobility, sustainability or green business solutions as well as the
governments. This could further help them to develop and provide
strategies with the goal to overcome the adoption barriers currently
existing. Overcoming these barriers would then attract larger number of
consumers to Electric Vehicles.

The study was restricted to one metropolitan city in India, which is an IT

hub. The sample size was limited to only 172 respondents and mostly in
the age group of 25–34 with salaried people. There is a need to replicate
the study in other cities to understand the influencing factors. Further
studies can focus on the influence of the factors identified in this study
and also on acceptance of new technology when buying electric vehicles
(Table 6).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no direct funding for this research.

Previous articleNext article

References
1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and
predicting social behaviour. Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar]
2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–
21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T [Crossref], [Web
of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
3. Asadi, S., Nilashi, M., Samad, S., Abdullah, R., Mahmoud, M., Alkinani
, M. H., & Yadegaridehkordi, E. (2021). Factors impacting
consumers’ intention toward adoption of electric vehicles in
Malaysia. Journal of Cleaner Production,
282, 124474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124474 [Crossre
f], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
4. Axsen, J., Bailey, J., & Castro, M. Andrea. (2015). Preference and
lifestyle heterogeneity among potential plug-in electric vehicle
buyers. Energy Economics, 50, 190–
201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.05.003 [Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]
5. Bessenbach, N., & Wallrapp, S. (2013). Why do consumers resist
buying Electric Vehicles? An empirical study of innovation
perception and the effect of consumer characteristics, innovation
exposure and buying incentives. Copenhagen Business
School. [Google Scholar]
6. Bhalla, P., Ali, I. S., & Nazneen, A. (2018). A study of consumer
perception and purchase intention of electric vehicles. European
Journal of Scientific Research, 149(4), 362–
368. https://www.europeanjournalofscientificresearch.com/issues/
EJSR_149_4.html [Google Scholar]
7. Biresselioglu, M. E., Kaplan, M. D., & Yilmaz, B. K. (2018). Electric
mobility in Europe: A comprehensive review of motivators and
barriers in decision making processes. Transportation Research Part
A: Policy and Practice, 109, 1–
13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.01.017 [Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]
8. Biswas, T. K., & Biswas, N. M. (1999). Electric vehicle: A natural
option for India? IETE Technical Review, 16(3–4), 367–
373. https://doi.org/10.1080/02564602.1999.11416852 [Taylor &
Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
9. Brady, J., & O’Mahony, M. (2011). Introduction of electric vehicles to
Ireland: socioeconomic analysis. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2242(1), 64–
71. https://doi.org/10.3141/2242-08 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
10. Brückmann, G., Willibald, F., & Blanco, V. (2021). Battery
Electric Vehicle adoption in regions without strong
policies. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment,
90, 102615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102615 [Crossref], [W
eb of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
11. Bryant, F. B., Yarnold, P. R., & Michelson, E. A.
(1999). Statistical methodology: VIII. using Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (CFA) in emergency medicine research. Academic
Emergency Medicine, 6(1), 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-
2712.1999.tb00096.x [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science
®], [Google Scholar]
12. Bujang, M. A., Ghani, P. A., Soelar, S. A., & Zulkifli, N.
A. (2012). Sample size guideline for exploratory factor analysis
when using small sample: taking into considerations of different
measurement scales. 2012 International Conference on Statistics in
Science, Business and Engineering (ICSSBE), Langkawi, 1–
5. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
13. Bunce, L., Harris, M., & Burgess, M. (2014). Charge up then
charge out? Drivers’ perceptions and experiences of electric
vehicles in the UK. Transportation Research Part A, 59, 278–
287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.12.001 [Google Scholar]
14. Burton, L. J., & Mazerolle, S. M. (2011). Survey instrument
validity part i: principles of survey instrument development and
validation in athletic training education research. Athletic Training
Education Journal, 6(1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.4085/1947-380X-
6.1.27 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
15. Carley, S., Krause, R. M., Lane, B. W., & Graham, J. D.
(2013). Intent to purchase plug-in electric vehicle: A survey of early
impressions in large US cities. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, 18, 39–
45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2012.09.007 [Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]
16. Christensen, T. B., Wells, P., & Cipcigan, L. (2012). Can
innovative business models overcome resistance to electric
vehicles? Better place and battery electric cars in Denmark. Energy
Policy, 48, 498–
505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.054 [Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]
17. Coakes, J. C., & Ong, C. (2011). SPSS version 18.0 for windows
analysis without anguish (1st ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Australia,
Ltd. [Google Scholar]
18. Coffman, M., Bernstein, P., Wee, S., & Goodman, A.
(2016). Electric vehicles revisited: A review of the factors that affect
adoption. Transport Reviews, 37(1), 29–
 55. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1200156 [PubMed], [We
b of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
19. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in
exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the
most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and
Evaluation, 10(7), 498–
505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.054 [Google Scholar]
20. Daziano, R. A., & Chiew, E. (2012). Electric vehicles rising from
the dead: data needs for forecasting consumer response towards
sustainable energy sources in personal transportation. Energy
Policy, 51, 876–
894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.09.040 [Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]
21. Degirmenci, K., & Breitner, M. H. (2017). Consumer purchase
intentions for electric vehicles: Is green more important than price
and range. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 51, 250–
260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.01.001 [Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]
22. DeVellis, R. (2003). Scale development: Theory and
applications. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
23. Diamond, D. (2009). The impact of government incentives for
hybrid-electric vehicles: evidence from US states. Energy Policy,
37(3), 972–983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.094 [Crossr
ef], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
24. Egbue, O., & Long, S. (2012). Barriers to widespread adoption
of electric vehicles: an analysis of consumer attitudes and
perceptions. Energy Policy, 48, 717–
729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.06.009 [Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]
25. Flamm, B. J., & Agrawal, A. W. (2012). Constraints to green
vehicle ownership: A focus group study. Transportation Research
Part D: Transport and Environment, 17(2), 108–
115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2011.09.013 [Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]
26. Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting,
and reporting cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for likert-type
scales. Columbus: Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in
Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, 82–88. [Google
Scholar]
27. Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Exploratory Factor Analysis. In J.
R. Nesselroade & R. B. Cattell (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate
experimental psychology. perspectives on individual
differences (pp. 231–258). Springer. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
28. Graham-Rowe E, Gardner B, Abraham C, Skippon S, Dittmar H,
Hutchins R and Stannard J. (2012). Mainstream consumers driving
plug-in battery-electric and plug-in hybrid electric cars: A qualitative
analysis of responses and evaluations. Transportation Research Part
A: Policy and Practice, 46(1), 140–
 153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2011.09.008 [Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]
29. Graham-Rowe, E., Gardner, B., Abraham, C., Skippon, S., Dittm
ar, H., Hutchins, R., & Stannard, J. (2012). Mainstream consumers
driving plug-in battery-electric and plug-in hybrid electric cars: A
quantitative analysis of responses and evaluations. Transportation
Research Part A, 46, 140–
153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2011.09.008 [Google Scholar]
30. Habla W, Huwe V and Kesternich M. Beyond Monetary Barriers
to Electric Vehicle Adoption: Evidence From Observed Usage of
Private and Shared Cars. SSRN
Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3625452 [Google Scholar]
31. Hawkins, T. R., Singh, B., Majeau-Bettez, G., & Stromman, A.
H. (2013). Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of
conventional and electric vehicles. Journal of Industrial Ecology,
17(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x [Cr
ossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
32. Heffner, R. R., Kurani, K. S., & Turrentine, T. S.
(2007). Symbolism in California’s early market for hybrid electric
vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 12(6), 396–
413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2007.04.003 [Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]
33. Hurley, A. E., Scandura, T. A., Schreisheim, C. A., Brannick, M.
T., Seers, A., Vandenberg, R. J., & Williams, L. J. (1997). Exploratory
and confirmatory factor analysis: guidelines, issues, and
alternatives. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(6), 667–
683. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-
1379(199711)18:6<667::AID-JOB874>3.0.CO;2-T [Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]
34. Jaramillo, P., Samaras, C., Wakeley, H., & Meisterling, K.
(2009). Greenhouse gas implications of using coal for
transportation: Life cycle assessment of coal-to-liquids, plug-in
hybrids and hydrogen pathways. Energy Policy, 37(7), 2689–
2695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.03.001 [Crossref], [Web
of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
35. Jensen, A. F., Cherchi, E., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.07.006 [Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]
36. Kahn, M. E. (2007). Do greens drive hummers or hybrids?
Environmental ideology as a determinant of consumer
choice. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,
54(2), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2007.05.001 [Crossre
f], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
37. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial
simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–
 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575 [Crossref], [Web of Science
®], [Google Scholar]
38. Kester, J., Noel, L., de Rubens, G. Z., & Sovacool, B. K.
(2018). Policy mechanisms to accelerate electric vehicle adoption: A
qualitative review from the Nordic region. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 94, 719–
731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.067 [Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]
39. Krause, R. M., Carley, S. R., Lane, B. W., & Graham, J. D.
(2013). Perception and reality: public knowledge of plug-in electric
vehicles in 21 U.S. cities. Energy Policy, 63, 433–
440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.018 [Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]
40. Krupa, J. S., Rizzo, D. M., Eppstein, M. J., Lanute, D.
B., Gaalema, D. E., Lakkaraju, K., & Warrender, C. E.
(2014). Analysis of a consumer survey on plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles. Transportation Research Part A, 64, 14–
31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.02.019 [Google Scholar]
41. Lane, B., & Potter, S. (2007). The adoption of cleaner vehicles
in the UK: Exploring the consumer attitude-action gap. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 15(11–12), 1085–
1092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.05.026 [Crossref], [Web
of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
42. Larson, P. D., Viafara, J., Parsons, R. V., & Elias, A.
(2014). Consumer attitudes about electric cars: pricing analysis and
policy implications. Transportation Research Part A, 69, 299–
314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.09.002 [Google Scholar]
43. Lieven, T., Muhlmeier, S., Henkel, S., & Waller, J. F.
(2011). Who will buy electric cars? An empirical study in
Germany. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 16(3), 236–
243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2010.12.001 [Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]
44. Lytton, L. (2010). Driving down emissions: the potential of low
carbon vehicle technology. Royal Automobile Club Foundation for
Motoring Limited. [Google Scholar]
45. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S.
(1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods,
4(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84 [Crossref], [W
eb of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
46. Mohamed, M., Higgins, C., Ferguson, M., & Kanaroglou, P.
(2016). Identifying and characterizing potential electric vehicle
adopters in Canada: A two-stage modelling approach. Transport
Policy, 52, 100–
112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.07.006 [Crossref], [Web
of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
47. Mohamed M, Higgins C D, Ferguson M and Réquia W J.
(2018). The influence of vehicle body type in shaping behavioural
intention to acquire electric vehicles: A multi-group structural
 equation approach. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 116 54–72. 10.1016/j.tra.2018.05.011 [Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]
48. Moons, M., & Pelsmacker, P. D. (2012). Emotions as
determinants of electric car usage intention. Journal of Marketing
Management, 28(3–4), 195–
237. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2012.659007 [Taylor &
Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
49. Noel, L., de Rubens, G. Z., Kester, J., & Sovacool, B. K.
(2020). Understanding the socio-technical nexus of Nordic electric
vehicle (EV) barriers: A qualitative discussion of range, price,
charging and knowledge. Energy Policy,
138, 111292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111292 [Crossref]
, [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
50. Othman, K. (2022). Multidimension analysis of autonomous
vehicles: the future of mobility. Civil Engineering Journal, 7, 71–
93. https://doi.org/10.28991/CEJ-SP2021-07-06 [Crossref], [Google
Scholar]
51. Ozaki, R., & Sevastyanova, K. (2011). Going hybrid: an
analysis of consumer purchase motivations. Energy Policy,
39(5), 2217–2227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.024 [Cros
sref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
52. Pearre, N. S., Kempton, W., Guensler, R. L., & Elango, V. V.
(2011). Electric vehicles: how much range is required for a day’s
driving? Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies,
19(6), 1171–1184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2010.12.010 [Crossre
f], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
53. Perujo, A., Thiel, C., & Nemry, F. (2011). . Electric Vehicles–
the Benefits and Barriers, 1, 19–
34. https://doi.org/10.5772/20760 [Google Scholar]
54. Peters, A., Haan, P., & Scholz, R. W. (2015). Understanding
car-buying behavior: psychological determinants of energy
efficiency and practical implications. International Journal of
Sustainable Transportation, 9(1), 59–
72. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2012.732672 [Taylor &
Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
55. 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 [Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]
56. Sampson, A. P., Weli, V. E., Nwagbara, M. O., & Eludoyin, O. S.
(2021). Sensations of air temperature variability and mitigation
strategies in urban environments. Journal of Human, Earth, and
Future, 2(2), 100–113. https://doi.org/10.28991/HEF-2021-02-02-
02 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
57. She, Z., Sun, Q., Ma, J., & Xie, B. (2017). What are the barriers
to widespread adoption of battery electric vehicles? A survey of
 public perception in Tianjin China. Transport Policy, 56, 29–
40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.03.001 [Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]
58. SIAM.
(2017). Accessed 20 May 2021. https://www.siam.in/uploads/fileman
ager/114SIAMWhitePaperonElectricVehicles.pdf [Google Scholar]
59. Sierzchula, W. (2014). Factors influencing fleet manager
adoption of electric vehicles. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, 31, 126–
134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.05.022 [Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]
60. Skerlos, S. J., & Winebrake, J. J. (2010). Targeting plug-in
hybrid electric vehicle policies to increase social benefits. Energy
Policy, 38(2), 705–
708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.014 [Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]
61. Skippon, S., & Garwood, M. (2011). Responses to battery
electric vehicles: UK consumer attitudes and attributions of symbolic
meaning following direct experience to reduce psychological
distance. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 16(7), 525–
531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2011.05.005 [Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]
62. Straub, D., Boudreau, M., & Gefen, D. (2004). Validation
guidelines for IS positivist research. Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, 13(24), 380–
427. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01324 [Google Scholar]
63. Tahmasseby, S., Muley, D., & Wink, B. W. (2021). Performance
evaluation of vehicle restraint systems in the context of design and
installation. Civil Engineering Journal, 7(3), 449–
460. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-2021-03091665 [Crossref], [Googl
e Scholar]
64. Talantsev, A. (2017). Who gains and who loses in the shift to
electric vehicles: impact assessment through multi-criteria multi-
stakeholder analysis. , 37, 257–
268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2017.03.057 [Google Scholar]
65. Wang, F., Yu, J., Yang, P., Miao, L., & Ye, B. (2017). Analysis of
the barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles in Shenzhen
China. Sustainability,
9(4), 522. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040522 [Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]
66. Wiedmann, K., Hennigs, N., Schmidt, S., & Wuestefeld, T.
(2011). Drivers and outcomes of brand heritage: consumers’
perception of heritage brands in the automotive industry. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 205–
220. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190206 [Taylor & Francis
Online], [Google Scholar]
67. Williams, B., Brown, T., & Onsman, A. (2010). Exploratory
Factor Analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Journal of Emergency
 Primary Health Care (JEPHC),
8(3), 1. https://doi.org/10.33151/ajp.8.3.93 [Google Scholar]
68. Williams J
H, DeBenedictis A, Ghanadan R, Mahone A, Moore J, Morrow W
R, Price S and Torn M S. (2012). The Technology Path to Deep
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cuts by 2050: The Pivotal Role of
Electricity. Science, 335(6064), 53–
59. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1208365 [Crossref], [PubMed], [
Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
69. Yeh, Z., & Liu, S. (2007). Depressive realism: evidence from
false interpersonal perception. Psychiatry and Clinical
Neurosciences, 61(2), 135–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-
1819.2007.01628.x [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science
®], [Google Scholar]
70. Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor
analysis: focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in
Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9(2), 79–
94. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079 [Crossref], [Google
Scholar]
71. Zhu, J. (2016). Analysis of the New Zealand specific electric
vehicle adoption barriers and government
policy. http://hdl.handle.net/10063/6190 [Google Scholar]