Technological Forecasting & Social Change 109 (2016) 6–14

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

Analyzing consumer attitudes towards electric vehicle purchasing

intentions in Spain: Technological limitations and vehicle confidence
Beatriz Junquera a, Blanca Moreno b,⁎, Roberto Álvarez c
a
Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Oviedo, Avd. Cristo s/n, 33006 Oviedo, Spain
b
Regional Economics Laboratory-RegioLab, Department of Applied Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Oviedo, Avd. Cristo s/n, 33006 Oviedo, Spain
c
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Nebrija, Calle Pirineos 55, 28040 Madrid, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The history of the automotive industry was initially linked to electricity. However, the combustion engines would
Received 1 June 2015 become the dominant paradigm later. Nowadays, because of several factors, the automotive industry has been
Received in revised form 26 January 2016 researched on electric vehicles (EVs) for several decades, although this industry will have to overcome important
Accepted 8 May 2016
obstacles to commercialise this kind of vehicles efficiently.
Available online 28 May 2016
In this context, the main aim of this paper is to discover to what extent some issues are key to explain consumers'
Keywords:
willingness to buy an electric vehicle. We focus on consumers' perceptions about technical specifications of elec-
Electric vehicle tric cars, such as charging times, consumers' perception of the price of the electric vehicle, driving range and
Consumer attitudes drivers' ages, among others.
Logit model We design a survey in order to obtain some factors linked to consumers' profile which are later crossed with their
Survey expectations to buy an electric vehicle. A logistic regression analysis was conducted to explain the willingness to
buy an electric car by using the information of 1245 Spanish respondents.
Our results indicate that the higher a consumer's perception of the price of electric vehicles and the longer charg-
ing times are, the less a consumer's willingness to buy a new electric car is.
The results are useful to define key elements linked to the most appropriate industrial policy which helps com-
panies promote the electric vehicle.
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Electric vehicles have become a new alternative in the automotive
industry because of some factors, such as emissions control,1 noise pol-
lution, the ease with which to drive or fuel prices (Beaume and Midler,
2009). However, despite these positive effects, commercializing electric
vehicles has been attempted without major important level of success.
In fact, the failure of electric vehicles has never been benefited from
economies of scale since the beginning of the 20th century when the
first prototypes were developed (Beaume and Midler, 2009). Actually,
the first automobiles were electric vehicles. However, there were differ-
ent paradigms in the market until the combustion engine became the
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: morenob@uniovi.es (B. Moreno).
1 ket. An investment in an entirely new car manufacturer requires a huge
This issue has been discussed for several decades. Several years ago research carried
out addressed that electric vehicles could be more harmful because of emissions,
supporting their arguments on the lack of efficiency of the electric vehicle power storage
device (Adcock and McCusker, 1995). Nevertheless, new research (Álvarez et al., 2015)
has studied the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions derived from the use of battery electric
vehicles and it shows that plug-in electric energy for transportation is one option to reduce
oil use and GHG emissions, although these results reveal the necessity to particularise
emissions according to electricity generation mix, driver's behaviour profile and traffic
density conditions.
leader and, as a result, the other paradigms failed at that moment. One
basic fact was the achievement of scale economies linked to the com-
bustion engine. Nevertheless, this kind of economies became an impor-
tant problem for automobile manufacturers. As a result, they were not
be able to take advantage of economies of scale linked to manufacturing.
A second problem appears after manufacturing. A small number of
electric vehicles lead both to a disadvantage because of economies of
scale and a poor recharge network. In fact, both problems are linked
to each other. As a result, it has become a vicious circle for electric vehi-
cles. That is, as hundreds of thousands of electric vehicles are not
manufactured, economies of scale cannot be achieved, so that compa-
nies have not accepted to invest in a recharge network (Beaume and
Midler, 2009).
Furthermore, in a globalised market, where the level of competition
is extremely high, it is very difficult for a start-up to penetrate the mar-
capital cost. However, some companies are successful. Tesla Motors,2
2
Tesla Motors is a luxury all-electric Silicon Valley-based automaker which currently
designs, manufactures and markets two vehicle models. Tesla was founded in California,
where it invests heavily. It employs nearly 6500 workers at its headquarters in Palo Alto,
primary car and battery factory in Fremont, design studio in Hawthorne and a specialized
production plant in Lathrop.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.05.006
0040-1625/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 B. Junquera et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 109 (2016) 6–14
which has developed strategies to overcome some of these entry bar-
riers to this market as high capital cost or to joint manufacturers efforts
to increase investment profitability (Stringham et al., 2015). One key
factor for Tesla's success is the expansion and invest in an own financed
supercharger infrastructure. The superchargers are charger stations
with the aim that Tesla cars' owners charge their vehicles along high-
ways in North America and Europe in a 200 miles range-30 min free
charging. Tesla Motors hardly invests in expansion of the “free forever”
Tesla supercharger network, open now with 536 superchargers world-
wide and 3053 charge posts.
In any case, the advantages of environmentally-friendly vehicles are
widely recognized. However, a question remains: Why is their
commercialisation so difficult? An answer is that their constraints re-
main: product eco-innovations3 must be perceived more advantageous
than conventional products (Pickett-Baker and Ozaki, 2008). A custom-
er must perceive a value increasing to choose a product eco-innovation
when there are conventional products in the market. That is to say, they
must focus on the most traditional attributes (if we are talking about
cars, safety and reliability), as well as on environmental characteristics,
combination which could become a powerful competitive advantage in
the long term (Jansson, 2011).
Graham-Rowe et al. (2012), Daziano and Bolduc (2011) and
Turcksin et al. (2013) identified some latent attitudes to explain why
people buy electric cars, such as vehicle confidence or environmental at-
titudes, among others. However, they are related to subjective beliefs
and tastes, which cannot be directly observed or objectively derived
from the measurable technical specifications of electric cars. These la-
tent attitudes are related to subjective beliefs and tastes, which cannot
be directly observed or cannot directly lead to behaviours (Oreg and
Katz-Gerro, 2006). One of the limitations of the use of attitudes in
electricity-cars-purchase-intention studies is that they are not enough
to explain why people buy an item.
Moreover, some disadvantages have been pointed out as a limitation
in the electric vehicle market penetration: its limited range, although it
should not been considered an insuperable problem from other authors'
point of view (Beaume and Midler, 2009) and the necessary time to re-
charge the battery, among others (Glerum et al., 2013).
In order to throw light about this issue, Aggeri et al. (2009) have
found out that the path to electrification in the automotive industry
should explore new marketing, technological and business model
concepts. Several topics should still be studied before achieving
some definitive conclusions. It is particularly necessary an increased
understanding of how electric vehicle companies and consumers are
affected by some variables related to those concepts. In that sense, as
Al-Alawi and Bradley (2013) or Daziano and Chiew (2012) have
pointed out, there is a need for more micro-data to properly inform
models of potential electric vehicle market penetration and to im-
prove their usefulness as decision-making tools. In their recent re-
view, Al-Alawi and Bradley (2013) strongly recommended a need
for narrower connection between consumer surveys and electric-
drive vehicle adoption modeling.
Thus, with this paper, our main aim is to discover to what extent
some issues are key to explain Spanish consumers' willingness to buy
an electric vehicle by using a survey and the information obtained by
1245 Spanish respondents.
According to the Association of European Manufacturers (2015)
data, in 2014, the whole market of the European Union reached
75,331 electric vehicles sold. In Spain a total of 1405 electric vehicles
were sold. However, it is not enough, especially if we consider that
the Spanish economy is more than the 8% of the European Union's
economy. Nevertheless, only about 1.8% of the electric vehicles com-
mercialized in the European Union are sold in Spain. That is to say,
3
There are different classifications of innovations according to different criteria. One of
them distinguishes between product innovations and process innovations. When we are
talking about an electric vehicle, we are thinking of a product innovation.
7
this market in Spain is small according to its economic importance
in the European Union. Consequently, it is necessary to carry out
new studies in this country to understand what is happening in a
better way and to find out new ideas to foster the market of electric
vehicles in Spain.
With this aim, the likelihood of consumers' stated willingness to
consider the future purchase of an electric vehicle is explored using lo-
gistic regression. We focus on consumers' perception about technical
specifications of electric cars, such as charging times, their perception
of the price of electric vehicles, driving range, and drivers' ages, among
others.
The present study contributes to the literature on this topic in
three ways: (i) it provides an empirical study about consumers'
decision-making to buy an electric vehicle; (ii) it is the first study
about this topic in the Spanish market; and (iii) it provides useful in-
formation to policy makers to discuss the key elements related to the
most appropriate industrial policy which help to promote the elec-
tric vehicle.
The paper is structured as follows: firstly, we expose our theoretical
framework. Later, an empirical study is carried out. Finally, some con-
cluding remarks and recommendations are presented.
2. Theoretical framework
Some instrumental attributes are key to explain the intention to
adopt electric vehicles because they influence people's emotional re-
sponses to electric vehicles (hedonic function) and are used to form
and express an identity (symbolic function) (Schuitema et al., 2013).
Previous studies have focused on the role of these instrumental attri-
butes linked to the willingness to buy an electric vehicle. Research has
include purchase price, driving range and recharging time, assuming
that they would be the most important determinants of adoption
(Beggs et al., 1981; Bunch et al., 1993; Chéron and Zins, 1997; Lieven
et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2011; Egbue and Long, 2012; Moons and De
Pelsmacker, 2012; Carley et al., 2013; Jensen et al., 2013; Krupa et al.,
2014). We have included those three classical variables. However, we
have added the so-called variable ‘age’.
2.1. Perception of price
Electric vehicles are usually more expensive to be bought. How-
ever, energy-saving technologies could be net-cost savers in the
long run. Despite these savings, consumers may decline to purchase
them. It is the so-called ‘energy-efficiency paradox’ or ‘energy-effi-
ciency gap’ (Gillingham et al., 2009; Allcott and Greenstone, 2012;
Gillingham and Palmer, 2013). In any case, according to the usual re-
lationships, the level of price of electric vehicles may influence con-
sumers' willingness to adoption. As a result, we can deduce our
first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. The higher the perception of the price of an electric vehi-
cle by consumers is, the more their willingness to adopt it is.
2.2. Age
Sustainable products, such as electric vehicles, have pro-
environmental characteristics which correspond to activated environ-
mental values. Hence, when environmental values are activated, con-
sumers should be motivated to pay more for electric vehicles. That is,
value activation is expected to result in higher internal price thresholds
and lower sensitivity towards electric vehicles prices. Moreover, when
product information is provided, activation of environmental values is
expected to influence consumers' information processing regarding
sustainable products resulting in more positive evaluations of provided
electric vehicle attributes (Hahnel et al., 2014). Several reasons may
8 B. Junquera et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 109 (2016) 6–14
explain this phenomenon. Some authors (Gyimesi and Viswanathan,
2011) have discovered that consumers with knowledge and experience
are more assertive in their purchase decisions, so that they show greater
willingness-to-pay a premium for electric vehicles. That is to say, envi-
ronmental values may lead to a lower level of sensitivity towards price.
On the other hand, younger people show higher levels of environmental
values than other groups.
However, other authors (Maxwell, 2002) showed that when their
purchasing prices were higher, environmental value activation was
less effective. In fact, when a company exceeds some levels of its prices,
it could result in disapproval of the product (Han et al., 2001). It may be
related to consumers' income because of the relative value of money.
This group of consumers is not linked to the youngest population.
As a result, we can deduce that some age groupscould be more will-
ing to adopt an innovation, in our case electric vehicles. It would happen
when consumers show two characteristics simultaneously: a) a medi-
um or high level of available income and b) a high level of willingness
to adopt a new innovation because of a high level of environmental
values. That is, our second hypothesis is approached in this way:
Hypothesis 2. People between their mid-twenties and mid-sixties are
less willing to buy an electric car.
2.3. Range
Current electric vehicles show short ranges (in general, b100 miles)
(Pilkington and Dyerson, 2002; Hard and Knie, 2001; Van Haaren, 2011;
Álvarez et al., 2014), although drivers' recharging behaviour has become
more relaxed overtime as they have developed knowledge and confi-
dence in the battery range (Bunce et al., 2014). Although this range
can vary between countries, aforementioned average distance, which
is daily driven in 6 member stages in the European Union, ranges from
an average of 40 km (UK) to an average of 80 km (Poland). On the
other hand, Krumm (2012), supporting his ideas on a representative
study of 150,147 drivers in USA, reported that electric vehicles with
60 miles driving range would satisfy 83% of householders, while
80 miles would be suitable for 90% and 120 miles for 95% of the US
drivers. Such distances can be comfortably covered by battery electric
vehicles which are currently already available on the market and seem
to give little objective reason for concerns about range limitations,
often referred to as ‘range anxiety’ factor is further reduce (Pasaoglu
et al., 2014).
As a result, Franke and Krems (2013) address range as a barrier to
adoption and show that experience from driving all-electric vehicles
produces adaptation, which reduces the practical constraints of range.
Consequently, range limitation can be considered as the adaption de-
mand or the needed change or behaviour relative to conventional inter-
nal combustion engine cars. Moreover, such changes of behaviour make
consumers resistant to the acceptance of battery electric vehicles
(Caperello and Kurani, 2011; Lane and Potter, 2007).
Thus, people who buy electric cars expect to drive less. In fact, for
people owning an electric car as a second or third vehicle there is no dif-
ference in annual mileage compared to combustion engine car owners,
while individuals which own only an electric vehicle report lower annu-
al mileage (Klöckner et al., 2013).
If we considered these contributions, we can deduce that electric ve-
hicles are usually driven by people whose main aim is to drive a limited
distance. As a result, we can deduce the third (a) hypothesis of this
paper:
Hypothesis 3a. People who usually drive a limited distance are less
willing to buy an electric car.
Supporting our discourse on the same arguments, a lower level of
willingness to buy an electric car is shown by those drivers who gener-
ally need a wider range of autonomy for their electric vehicles.
According to Krumm (2012), when somebody usually drives N 200 km
a day, current electric vehicle becomes less useful. As a result, we can
deduce the third (b) hypothesis of this paper:
Hypothesis 3b. People who usually drive a distance N200 km a day are
more willing to buy an electric car.
2.4. Charging times
Literature has considered charging times as a key variable to explain
the willingness to buy an electric car, assuming that they would be the
most important determinants of adoption (Beggs et al., 1981; Bunch
et al., 1993; Chéron and Zins, 1997; Lieven et al., 2011; Zhang et al.,
2011; Egbue and Long, 2012; Moons and De Pelsmacker, 2012; Carley
et al., 2013; Jensen et al., 2013; Krupa et al., 2014). In fact, lengthy charg-
ing times are considered an important handicap to improve the market
share of electric vehicles (Pilkington and Dyerson, 2002; Hard and Knie,
2001).
The electric vehicle charging predicament is a classic chicken and
egg problem. Infrastructure is essential for growing the market, but at
the same time, a strong infrastructure development does not make
sense if there is not a growing electric vehicles number on the road
(Chang et al., 2012).
Consequently, we can include charging times as an issue to explain a
consumer's willingness to buy a new electric car. As a result, we can de-
duce the fourth hypothesis of this paper:
Hypothesis 4. The longer charging times are, the more a consumer's
willingness to buy a new electric car is.
3. Empirical study
In this section, we describe the consumer profile's measures and
how this information has been collected. We design a survey in order
to obtain consumer profile's measures which are later crossed with
their willingness to buy an electric car in order to test the proposed hy-
pothesis of this paper.
Although some studies have used surveys to explain the penetration
rate of new technology vehicles, consumers' intention to buy an electric
vehicle or why people buy electric cars, this paper constitutes the first
study about this topic in the Spanish market.
For example, Bunch et al. (1993) used a mail-back stated preference
survey with approximately 700 respondents in the California South
Coast Air Basin. Moons and De Pelsmacker (2012) used a sample of
1202 Belgians to determine several factors linked to usage intention of
an electric car. Egbue and Long (2012) collect 481 responses by using
an internet-based survey. Hackbarth and Madlener (2013) used a sur-
vey completed by 711 respondents in Germany. Glerum et al. (2013)
evaluated the demand for Renault electric cars on the Swiss market by
using two surveys with around 666 and 593 respondents for each one.
Krupa et al. (2014) administered a survey to 1000 stated US residents,
using Amazon Mechanical Turk to better understand factors influencing
the potential for electric vehicle market penetration. Lieven et al.
(2011), by using 1152 German individuals, identified potential catego-
ries of electric vehicle buyers. Finally, Zhang et al. (2011) conducted a
questionnaire survey with 299 respondents to explain the factors
which are most likely to affect consumers' choice for the electric vehicle
in China.
An empirical study was carried out by using statistical descriptive
measures, correlations and logistic regressions. Several studies have
used logit models of consumer preference to vehicle technology, as
Bunch et al. (1993), Axsen and Kurani (2011) or Zhang et al. (2011),
among others. Statistical methods are performed by using IBM SPSS Sta-
tistics 22.0 software.
 B. Junquera et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 109 (2016) 6–14 9

3.1. Design of the survey Table 1

Principal variables analyzed by the survey.

A self-administered web-based questionnaire was designed and 1245 ID Variable Frequency Percentage
participants from Spain provided information on electric vehicle topics re- WILL Respondents will to buy an electric vehicle in a
quested. Two ways of distribution have been used: mailing and social horizon of 5 years
media. A database from Nebrija University, which includes students, pro- Yes 49 5%
fessors and networking, has been used as a primary distribution source. Yes if the price were accessible 284 31%
Yes if I had places to recharge close her/his 133 15%
Likewise, the survey was sent by email to professional collectives. News-
home
letters and mailing lists have been very effective to reach the audience. Yes. He/she would buy a hybrid electric car 188 21%
The test period began in 06/04/2014 and finished in 12/05/2014. No 255 28%
During this five weeks period, a total of 1800 emails were sent in AGE Respondent's age (years)
batches, with a high response rate: higher than 40%. We have consid- b18 3 0%
18–25 years 214 17%
ered that all those days with a number exceeding thirty responses cor- 26–45 years 624 50%
respond to arrivals of surveys by email. Using internal databases and 46–65 years 370 30%
networking only 18% of e-mail invitations sent were rejected by the N65 34 3%
server due to e-mail addresses being wrongly spelt or no longer valid. TECH Technologies related to electric vehicle known
by the respondent
No questionnaires were received in blank.
Battery electric vehicle 596 48%
Social media has been very useful too. Posting our invitation on cor- Hybrid electric vehicle 764 61%
porative Facebook and LinkedIn pages have allowed to search for groups Hybrid electric vehicle extended range 166 13%
and to invite them to participate. Tweeting about the survey and send- Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle 486 39%
ing a link to followers, including a retweet request at the end of the mes- None 87 7%
BRAN Car brands that respondent associates with
sage, have been used as a viral distribution in order to reach a wider
electric cars
audience. Toyota 703 56%
Renault 364 29%
BMW 271 22%
3.2. Descriptive study
Tesla 271 22%
Nissan 140 11%
In order to study the variability in participants' willingness to con- PRICE Perception of the price of an electric vehicle
sider adopting new electric vehicle technology, individuals were asking (comparing with the combustion engine car)
about their age, their knowledge about the technology, their perception The price of the electric vehicle is higher 763 84%
The price of the electric vehicle is lower 57 6%
about the price of electric vehicles, their perception of the technical
Similar 89 10%
specifications of electric cars, as charging times and driving range, DDIS Daily distance driven by the respondent (km)
among others. The main variables are included on the survey are pre- b50 km 564 62%
sented in Table 1. 50–100 km 276 30%
Regarding to respondents' willingness to buy an electric vehicle in a 100–200 km 58 6%
N200 km 11 1%
five-year horizon, at one extreme, 5% of respondents indicate a willing- AUTON Distance that the respondent believes that
ness to buy it, while at the other extreme 28% of respondents have never electric vehicles can go a maximum without
considered purchasing an EV. recharging (km)
Regarding our respondents profile, the 50% of them are between 26 b50 km 50 6%
50–100 km 315 35%
and 45 years old and the 30% of them are between 46 and 65 years old.
100–200 km 377 41%
The 86% of them like driving. The majority of them (92%) drive b 100 km N200 km 167 18%
daily and the 73% of them do not often use the car to drive N200 km. The FREQ Frequency used by the respondent to cover a
16% of the respondents work in the vehicle sector. distance of over 200 km
About their knowledge about electric car, the 27% of all respondents Low frequency (holiday, sporadic trips) 662 73%
High frequency 200 22%
have sometimes had experience of driving an electric vehicle. Likewise, Never 47 5%
the most known technologies by our respondents are battery and hy- TCHAR Time that the respondent think is used by the
brid electric car and the most known brands linked to electric car are To- electric car to charge (h)
yota, Renault and BMW. b1 h 57 6%
1–3 h 274 30%
The 81% of the respondents think that the price of an electric car is
3–6 h 234 26%
higher than the price of a combustion engine car. The distribution of 6–8 h 253 28%
the answers received about the perception of the time used to charge N9 h 91 10%
an electric car is very uniform (between 1 and 8 h). With regard the life- LIFE Lifetime that the respondent believes it has the
time that respondents believe it has the electric vehicle battery, most of electric vehicle battery (years)
1 year 36 4%
them (31%) think that it is 5 years: 65% of them consider that it is at 2 years 115 13%
most 5 years. Regarding to the autonomy of an electric vehicle, the 3 years 131 14%
41% of the respondents believe that it is lower than 100 km. 4 years 119 13%
5 years 278 31%
6 years 44 5%
3.3. Logistic regression and discussion 7 years 15 2%
8 years 42 5%
In order to test the proposed hypotheses of this paper a logit (or lo- 9 years 4 0%
gistic regression) model4 is estimated. It is used to explain the main var- 10 years 68 7%
N10 years 57 6%
iables (X) affecting to the consumer's willingness to buy a new electric
PLEAS Respondent's pleasure of driving
car. Yes 1065 86%
No 69 6%
4
It is highlighted that logit model not only allows us to reject or not reject our hypoth- It is mandatory 111 9%
esis, but it also allows us a quantification of the impact which our variables (relative to re-
ject hypothesis) have on the willingness to buy an electric car.
10 B. Junquera et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 109 (2016) 6–14

This model provides knowledge about the relationships among the
variables. By using a logit model it is possible to model the probability
of a dichotomous variable (Y) which takes on the value 1 based on a
set of k explanatory variables (X).
A logit model is specified as:
 
p daily distance (km) which an electric car is capable to range covered
ln ¼ logðoddsÞ ¼ α þ βX ¼ α þ β1 X 1 þ … þ βk X k ;
1−p
where p is the probability of a success and the term p/(1 − p) are the
odds of success:
eαþβX eαþβ1 X 1 þ…þβk X k
p ¼ probabilityðY ¼ 1Þ ¼ αþβX
¼ ;
1þe 1 þ eαþβ1 X 1 þ…þβk X k
α and β being estimated by the maximum likelihood method.
In order to estimate our logit model as an independent variable (Y),
we use a binary variable which takes on the value 1 if the respondent
expressed willingness to buy an electric car in the next five years
(“yes-yes if”) and the value on 0 if the respondent expressed no willing-
ness to buy an electric car (“not”).
Before the specification of the model, a preliminary study of the cor-
relation among other variables is done. Table 2 shows the (Spearman)
correlation coefficients.
As it is expected, there are positive correlations between the willing-
ness to buy an electric car and pleasure of driving, battery lifetime, mid-
forties-sixties age and the understanding of a technology. There are neg-
ative correlations between the willingness to buy the price of an electric
car and between the willingness to buy an electric car and the frequency
with which the consumer uses the car to cover longer distances than
200 km (as long trips may not be possible on electric vehicle without
recharging the battery during the trip).
However, the correlation values indicate that the willingness to buy
an electric car decreases with an enough level of experience with an
electric vehicle or being a professional in the automotive industry.
Later, consumers' willingness to purchase an electric vehicle is ex-
plained by using a binary logistic regression models. The explanatory
variables included in logit models are the following ones:
- Number of technologies. This variable measures the number of
technologies related to electric vehicles which are known by the
respondent.
- The perception of the price. This variable measures the perception of
the price of an electric car when it is compared with the price of a
combustion engine car. If the respondent considers the price of an
electric car is higher than the price of a combustion engine car, this
variable takes on the value 1 and zero, otherwise.
- Age. This variable measures the age for people who are supposed to
have more income (people between their mid-twenties and mid-
sixties), but also more willingness to adopt a new technology. If
the respondent is between 25 and 65 years old, the variable takes
on the value 1, zero otherwise.
- Charge times. This variable measures the time (h) which would be
necessary to recharge the battery of an electric car from a
respondent's point of view.
- Battery lifetime. This variable measures a respondent's perception
about the lifetime (years) of the electric car battery.
- Range 1. This variable measures a respondent's perception about the
ð1Þ
by the battery without recharging it. This variable takes on the value
1 if the respondent considers that this distance is less than 100 km,
zero otherwise.
- Range 2. This variable measures the frequency with which the re-
sponder uses his/her car to drive distances greater than 200 km.
The variable takes on the value 1 if a respondent uses the car with
ð2Þ
a high frequency to cover that distances, zero otherwise.
- Driving pleasure. This variable measures respondents' pleasure
when they are driving. The variable takes on the value 1 if respon-
dents likes driving, zero otherwise.
- Experience. This variable measures the experience of driving an
electric car. The variable takes on the value 1 if the respondent has
driven an electric vehicle almost once, zero otherwise.
In order to analyze the goodness of fit of a logit model, we consider
the odds ratio and Wald statistic (both referred to the level of individual
significance of each independent variable) and the coefficients of deter-
mination R2 of Nagelkerke (1991) and Cox and Snell (1989) and the test
of Hosmer and Lemeshow (1980), all of them referred to the overall fit
of the model.
- Odds ratio is Exp(ßi). We can interpret Exp(ßi) in terms of the
change in odds. We can then say that when the independent vari-
able increases one unit, the odds that the case can be predicted to in-
crease by a factor of around Exp(ßi) times, when other variables are
controlled. Values of Exp(ßi) higher than one, related to positive sign
in ßi, mean that a one unit change in xi results in an increment in the
odds of willingness to buy an electric car. On the other hand, a value
of Exp(ßi) lower than one, which is related to negative sign in ßi,
means that a one unit change in xi results in a decrease in the odds
of willingness to buy an electric car.
- Wald Statistic. It refers to the individual significance of each variable
and its interpretation is very similar to the t statistic for multiple lin-
ear regressions. The Wald statistic has a chi-square distribution. The
critical level associated with the statistic indicates individual signifi-
cance of a variable for a given level of significance.
- Nagelkerke-R2 and Cox-Snell-R2 coefficients. They mean the capabil-
ity of a model to explain. These coefficients assume values between
zero and one: the closer to 1 they are, the better the model fit will be.
- Hosmer-Lemeshow test. By using a chi-square, this test analyses
whether there is a significant difference between the observed
values and those predicted by the model for the dependent variable.
The null hypothesis is that the model fits to the real world.

Table 2
Correlations.

Y PLEAS CHARG LIFE PRICE FAGES MIDAGE AUTN FREQ NTEC EXP PROF

Will of buying an electric car (Y) 1 0.005 −0.098 0.009 −0.059 0.063 0.069 −0.049 −0.071 0.008 −0.070 −0.047
Pleasure of driving (PLEAS) 0.005 1 0.069 0.013 0.061 −0.104 −0.119 −0.04 0.096 0.149 0.128 0.104
Charging time (CHARG) −0.098 0.069 1 0.084 0.039 −0.052 −0.056 0.04 −0.028 0.06 0.022 0.04
Battery lifetime (LIFE) 0.009 0.013 0.084 1 0.062 −0.019 0.021 −0.143 −0.05 −0.004 −0.026 0.012
Price is higher (PRICE) −0.059 0.061 0.039 0.062 1 0.069 0.100 −0.046 −0.029 0.166 −0.038 0.049
45–65 years old (FAGES) 0.063 −0.104 −0.052 −0.019 0.069 1 1.000 0.058 0.091 −0.056 0.033 0.055
25–65 years old (MIDAGE) 0.069 −0.119 −0.056 0.021 0.100 1.000 1 0.056 0.109 −0.025 0.022 0.048
Autonomy b100 km (AUTN) −0.049 −0.04 0.04 −0.143 −0.046 0.058 0.056 1 0.043 −0.111 0.017 −0.02
Frequency used distance N 200 (FREQ) −0.071 0.096 −0.028 −0.05 −0.029 0.091 0.109 0.043 1 0.044 −0.01 0.054
Number of technologies known (NTEC) 0.008 0.149 0.06 −0.004 0.166 −0.056 −0.025 −0.111 0.044 1 0.026 0.080
Experience (EXP) −0.070 0.128 0.022 −0.026 −0.038 0.033 0.022 0.017 −0.010 0.026 1 0.364
Professional of car sector (PROF) −0.047 0.104 0.040 0.012 0.049 0.055 0.048 −0.020 0.054 0.080 0.364 1
 B. Junquera et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 109 (2016) 6–14 11

Table 3
Estimated logit model for the willingness to buy an electric vehicle.

xi Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

βi Exp(βi) βi Exp(βi) βi Exp(βi)

Constant 1.43a 4.208 1.520a 4.574 1.404a 4.072

(0.371) (0.376) (0.419)
Perception of price −0.439b 0.645 −0.453b 0.636 −0.494b 0.610
(0.262) (0.263) (0.266)
Age 0.402c 1.494 0.455c 1.576 0.474c 1.607
(0.193) (0.195) (0.197)
Range 1 −0.353b 0.703 −0.330b 0.719 −0.311b 0.732
(0.182) (0.183) (0.183)
Charge times −0.001b 0.999 −0.001b 0.999 −0.001b 0.999
(0.001) (0.001) (0.001)
Battery lifetime −0.003 0.997 −0.007 0.993 −0.008 0.992
(0.025) (0.025) (0.025)
Number of technologies 0.005 1.005 0.014 1.014 0.012 1.012
(0.078) (0.078) (0.080)
Range 2 – – −0.458c 0.632 −0.484c 0.616
(0.207) (0.209)
Pleasure of driving – – – – 0.194 1.214
(0.249)
Experience – – – – −1.323 0.266
(0.934)
Correct classifications 71% 70.8% 71.1%
R2 Nagelkerke 0.031 0.041 0.047
R2 Cox-Snell 0.022 0.029 0.033
Test of Hosmer & Lemeshow X2 X2(8) = 0.331 X2(8) = 5.377 ×2(8) = 5.857
(p = 1) (p = 0.717) (p = 0.663)

Standard deviation on brackets.

a
Stands for estimates significantly different from 0 at a 1% level based on a Wald test.
b
Stands for estimates significantly different from 0 at a 10% level.
c
Stands for estimates significantly different from 0 at a 5% level.

In addition to the goodness-of-fit statistics, we also look at the pro-
portion of cases we have managed to classify properly. Correct classifi-
cations tell us how many of the cases where the observed values of
the dependent variable were 1 or 0, respectively, have been correctly
predicted according to the estimated probabilities. However, since this
model refers to probabilities, a criterion to assign the values 0 and 1
from these probabilities is necessary. In general, it is assumed that
over 0.5 odds the dependent variable takes on the value 1 while for
lower probabilities than 0.5 takes on the value 0. In a perfect model,
the overall percent correct will be 100%.
The results of the logistic models are shown in Table 3. Each equation
predicts the impact of the independent variables on encouraging the
consumer to take the desired action: willingness to buy an electric car
or not willingness to buy an electric car.5
Interpreting a βi in logistic regression is to use its conversion to an
odds ratio using the corresponding Exp(βi) value. Values of odds ratios,
Exp(βi) higher than one mean that a one unit change in xi results in an
increment in the odds of willingness to buy an electric car equal to the
value of the Exp(βi). On the other hand, a value of odds ratios lower
than one means that a one unit change in xi results in a decrease in
the odds of willingness to buy an electric car equal to 1/Exp(βi).
Focusing on model (2), which includes more variables than (1) and
all hypotheses which we are interested in, the significant variables and
its interpretation are the following ones:
- The perception of the price. The Exp(βi) value associated with price
comparison variable is 0.636. Hence, when consumers consider that
the price of an electric car is higher than the price of a combustion
engine car, the odds ratio of willingness to buy an electric car
5
We would like to point out that in our preliminary analysis we have carried out
models including interaction effects to describe how the effect of an explanatory variable
depends on the level/value of another explanatory variables. The following ones were in-
cluded in our models: Number of technologies- Price, Number of technologies- Age, Num-
ber of technologies- Charge times, Number of technologies- Battery lifetime, Number of
technologies- Range 1, Age - Perception of price, Age - Range 2, Experience- Range 2. How-
ever, none of the interactions were significant.
decreases by 1.572 and, therefore, consumers are 1.572 less times
likely to buy an electric car, when other variables are controlled.
- Age. The Exp(βi) value associated with age-income variable is 1.576.
Thus, when consumers are between mid-twenties and mid-sixties
years old, the odds ratio of willingness to buy an electric car in-
creases by 1.576 and, therefore, consumers are 1.576 more times
likely to buy an electric car, when other variables are controlled.
- Charge times. The Exp(βi) value associated with charge time vari-
able is 0.999. Hence, when the time which consumers think that it
is necessary to recharge the electric vehicle increases in 1 h, the
odds ratio of willingness to buy an electric car decreases by 1.001
and, therefore, consumers are 1.001 less times likely to buy an elec-
tric vehicle, when other variables are controlled.
- Range 1. The Exp(βi) value associated with distance-range variable
is 0.719. Hence, when consumers think that the distance which an
electric vehicle can go without recharging is b100 km, the odds
ratio of willingness to buy an electric car decreases by 1.391 and,
therefore, consumers are 1.391 less times likely to buy an electric
car, when other variables are controlled.
- Range 2. The Exp(βi) value associated with frequency variable is
0.632. Thus, when consumers use his/her car to cover distances
N200 km, the odds ratio of willingness to buy an electric car de-
creases by 1.582 and, therefore, consumers are 1.582 less times like-
ly to buy an electric car, when other variables are controlled.
The battery lifetime is not significant to explain the willingness to
buy an electric car.
From these results, we obtain a proportion of consumers correctly
identified by the logit model of 70.8%. The global goodness-of-fit statis-
tics R2 are low. However, as Allison (2014) points out for logistic regres-
sion, it is possible to have a low R2 and still have a model which is
correctly specified. Thus, Hosmer-Lemeshow's test is the ultimate mea-
sure to assess the fit of a model. Regarding this test, the p-value for the
goodness-of-fit statistic indicate that the logit model 3 represents the
data properly (null hypothesis is not rejected as p value = 0.717).
12 B. Junquera et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 109 (2016) 6–14
The results obtained from model (3), which also includes ‘pleasure
of driving’ and ‘experience’ as explanatory variables, are quite similar
to those obtained in model (2), in all cases, when other variables are
controlled. In fact, firstly odds ratios indicate that when consumers con-
sider that the price of an electric car is higher than the price of a combus-
tion engine car, consumers are 1.639 less times likely to buy an electric
car. Secondly, when consumers are between mid-twenties and mid-
sixties years old, they are 1.607 more times likely to buy an electric
car, when other variables are controlled. Thirdly, when the time which
consumers consider necessary to recharge an electric vehicle increases
in 1 h, consumers are 1.001 less times likely to buy an electric vehicle.
Fourthly, when consumers think that the distance which an electric ve-
hicle can be driven without recharging is b100 km, consumers are 1.366
less times likely to buy an electric car. Finally, when consumers use his/
her car to cover distances N200 km, consumers are 1.623 less times like-
ly to buy an electric car. The battery lifetime, pleasure of driving and ex-
perience are not significant to explain the willingness to buy an electric
car.
Therefore, according to our logit models estimation, the following
conclusions related to our hypotheses are showed in Table 4.
Firstly, Hypothesis 1 (“the higher the perception of the price of an elec-
tric vehicle is, the more their willingness to adopt it is”) is rejected at 10% of
significant level. We would like to point out that the consumers' percep-
tion could change if they would take into account the fuel prices. In that
sense, the higher price could be compensated for differences in fuel
prices. Moreover, incentives on the purchase price of an electric vehicle
can promote its choice, as Glerum et al. (2013) have stated.
Secondly, Hypothesis 2 (“people between their mid-twenties and mid-
sixties (25–65) are less willing to buy an electric car”) is rejected at 5% of
significant level. That is, some age clusters are more willing to buy an
electric car, because they must be old enough to have a given level of in-
come and, on the other hand, they must be young enough to show a
high level of environmental values, as Hahnel et al. (2014) addressed.
Thirdly, Hypothesis 3a (“people who usually drive a limited distance
are less willing to buy an electric car”) is rejected at 10% of significant
level; Hypothesis 3b (“people who usually drive a distance greater than
200 km a day are more willing to buy an electric car”) is rejected at 5%
of significant level. In this sense, our results match with previous litera-
ture (Bunce et al., 2014) again.
Finally, Hypothesis 4 (“the longer charging times are, the less a con-
sumer's willingness to buy a new electric car is”) is rejected at 10% of sig-
nificant level. Consequently, as Bunce et al. (2014) demonstrated,
drivers became more relaxed overtime about the recharging frequency
as they developed knowledge and confidence in the battery range.
Another factor linked to the battery's recharge is the charging infra-
structure. In that sense, although at-home recharge facilities make be
easier to recharge and increase the comfort level of an electric vehicle,
a public infrastructure development may be desirable to promote the
use of these vehicles. As Krupa et al. (2014) pointed out, some factors
which individuals reported as important related to battery recharging
or lifetime are the availability of home recharging capability, good bat-
tery warranties, public recharging stations, battery exchange programs,
battery leasing programs or concerns about battery replacement costs
or battery lifetime.
4. Conclusions
Our main aim is to discover to what extent some issues are key to ex-
plain Spanish consumers' willingness to buy an electric vehicle. We de-
sign a survey in order to obtain consumer profile's factors which are
later crossed with their expectative to buy an electric vehicle by using
multivariate techniques.
A logistic regression analysis was conducted to explain the willing-
ness to buy an electric car for 1245 respondents using perception of
the price, age, battery lifetime, charge times and range as explanatory
variables.
The Wald criterion demonstrated that perception of the price, age,
battery lifetime, charge times and range made a significant contribution
to explain the willingness to buy an electric car. In general, all the con-
sidered logit models have a proportion of consumers properly identified
around 71%.
The estimated logit models indicate that increasing the battery life-
time, reducing charging times and increasing electric vehicle autonomy
(range) could increase the willingness to buy an electric car. Thus, tech-
nological advancements linked to recharge facilities and ranges of batte-
ries are important to increase the penetration of EVs. Increasing battery
autonomy is one of the biggest challenges, with the majority setting
their sights on the gold medal of a 500 mile (800 km) range (for exam-
ple, IBM started the Battery 500 project in 2009 to develop a new type of
lithium-air battery technology). Current contenders in this field include
Carbon Nanotube Electrode Lithium and Lithium Air Carbon batteries
(Son et al., 2015; Nelson et al., 2015).
Advances in charging standardization and the multiple charger
types and sockets have become a new goal, especially for the identifica-
tion and billing system. Owners of electric vehicles have not enjoyed the
benefits of the standardized refueling facilities familiar to the drivers of
internal combustion motor vehicles yet. The development of standards
to support the infrastructure has been slow and frequently interrupted,
but all organizations involved have worked hard to harmonize their
standards and to avoid serious conflicts. A significant level of standard-
ization has been achieved (Bakker, 2013), but there is still an open de-
bate about the standardization of the DC Fast Charge device, which is
used to connect the charging station to the vehicle. In 2015 a multi-
way electric car fast charging standards battle and the acceptance of a
standard to recharge finds itself at an interesting intersection (Kettles,
2015).
Moreover, the logit estimated models indicate that reducing an electric
vehicle price (regarding to combustion vehicles), could increase the
willingness to buy an electric car. The reduction than an EV price should
be a priority for manufacturers. In that sense, technological challenges are
currently focused on reducing costs in order to achieve a lower price per
usable kW h per km cost of the battery (Sakti et al., 2015).
In addition, our model indicates that people between their mid-
twenties and mid-sixties are more willing to buy an electric car. Thus,
electric car manufacturers and advertising campaigns should focus on
attracting younger people. One way could be to manufacture a cheaper
EV model with the most basic facilities for young people. In addition,
carsharing could be a strategy to change travel behaviour towards
more sustainable transport, as some authors have pointed out
(Shaheen and Chan, 2015). At the same time, it could be an instrument
for young people to be able to know EVs without expending money.
Carsharing, carsharing (US) or car clubs (UK) is an emerging class of
‘mobility services’ which draw on modern technology to enable access
to car-mobility without owning the car. Carsharing operators have cur-
rently supplemented with EVs their carsharing fleets or have started out
with merely electric cars. There are examples of a battery powered ve-
hicles forming an operator's fleet: Autolib in Paris and Car2go in
Madrid are two examples where carsharing operator's entire fleet is
electrically-propelled. Carsharing schemes are giving urban citizens a
first-hand experience driving EVs, braking barriers and allowing to
make informed decisions about EV purchasing (for example, in United
States cities- Lutsey et al., 2015).
The implications of our results can inspire the design and imple-
mentation of public policies aimed at making our lives greener and,
specifically, at fostering the purchasing of electric cars. Carley et al.
(2013) pointed out that interest in electric vehicles is shaped pri-
marily by consumers' perceptions of electric vehicle disadvantages.
As previously mentioned, some major limitations to electricity vehi-
cle market penetration include consumers' perception about battery
technology, range and price. Thus, policy programs which consider
these critical concerns would positively influence the willingness to
buy an electric vehicle.
 B. Junquera et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 109 (2016) 6–14
Table 4
Hypotheses testing of electric vehicles.
Electric vehicle characteristic Null hypothesis
Percep. price Hypothesis 1 The higher the perception of the price of an electric vehicle is, the more their willingness to adopt it is.
Age Hypothesis 2 People between their mid-twenties and mid-sixties (25–65) are less willing to buy an electric car.
Ranges Hypothesis 3a People who usually drive a limited distance are less willing to buy an electric car.
Hypothesis 3b People who usually drive a distance N200 km a day are more willing to buy an electric car.
Charging times Hypothesis 4 The longer charging times are, the less a consumer's willingness to buy a new electric car is.
a
For a maximum of 10% signification level.
In that sense, as consumers' concern about the battery recharging
time, vehicle manufacturers should directly provide valuable informa-
tion about its replacement costs, lifetime and warranties. Moreover,
programs about battery exchange or battery leasing could have a strong
positive influence on purchasing intentions. In fact, a stream for future
research could be supported on this idea.
Likewise, public or private programs to raise awareness of future
savings due to reduced fuel cost could be favorable. As some authors
(Krupa et al., 2014, among others) have demonstrated, the most sensi-
tive individuals towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions may be
more willing to buy an electric vehicle than the least sensitive con-
sumers. As a result, our results make governments more conscious of
creating a framework to promote ‘green attitudes’ among consumers.
There is currently a hard debate about the convenience of a stronger
system of tax incentives and subsidies in order to increase the willing-
ness to buy electric vehicles. For example, Wolf et al. (2015) suggest
that introducing an exclusive zone for electric vehicle in the city
would accelerate the early-phase diffusion of electric vehicle more ef-
fectively than financial incentives only. Future research should make a
strong effort to know more about this debate.
Moreover, as it is showed, travel distance patterns may influence the
choice of an electric car as consumer's value positively its autonomy.
Not only the autonomy of an electric car may influence consumers' will-
ingness to buy this kind of vehicle, but even factors related to their way
of driving. That is, some factors, but specially speed, could be key (Hill
et al., 2014), because, if a vehicle is driven at the most efficient way,
its autonomy will increase: the less time spent breaking, the more effi-
cient the driving would be. Future research should analyze how these
factors could influence a driver's willingness to buy an electric vehicle.
The study herein presented is the first analysis about the effects of
several a consumer's factors on its willingness to buy an electric vehicle
in the Spanish market and an important evidence which corroborates
the role played by price, age, autonomy, charging time, among others,
on that willingness. Nevertheless, this is our first study about this
topic, although it will not be the last one, as we are going further in
the investigation by analyzing the impact of other factors on the willing-
ness to buy an electric vehicle in Spanish market, as availability of charg-
ing stations, service stations availability, maintenance costs frequency
and environmental impact. Moreover, identifying the net impact stem-
ming from combining, and even conflicting variables, on buying an elec-
tric versus a petrol-based car could also be desirable in further research.
For example, quantifying the price of an electric vehicle (versus com-
bustion engine cars) justifies the improvement of energy efficiency
and reduced fuel cost before the potential customer turns again to tradi-
tional cars.
Finally, we would like to point out other limitations of our research.
We aware that the major obstacle in online survey is its external validity
and, specifically, how to obtain a representative sample (Braithwaite
et al., 2003), because, for example, electronic communications media
may influence the bias of the sample, by attracting, for instance, younger
people, which generally use more new technologies. Regarding our re-
spondents age-profile, the 17% of them are between 18–25 years old,
the 50% of them are between 26–45 years old and the 30% of them are
between 46–65 years old (as it is showed in Table 1).
We must also consider that response rates to web-mail mixed-mode
surveys are usually very much lower than those obtained when using
13
Resulta
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
on-paper surveys (Shih and Fan, 2007). Moreover, Cook et al. (2000)
and Nulty (2008) have showed that response rates to online surveys
are nearly always lower than those obtained when using on-paper sur-
veys. However, sometimes online surveys are the best or even the only
way to achieve the necessary data as, for example, paper surveys have
higher data collection costs and disadvantages in how questionnaires
can be administered. Online survey allowed us to collect data from
1245 which would be very difficult to collect by using paper question-
naires because of our budget constraints. Anyway, it is demonstrated
that with a carefully developed strategy, planning, and execution, an on-
line survey data can be equivalent to a paper survey data (Chang and
Vowles, 2013) and that e-mail invitation containing a link to the
Internet-based questionnaire is a valid method too (Cobanoglu et al.,
2001).
This paper has allowed us to achieve some results about Spain. How-
ever, every country shows particular characteristics, so that new re-
search should be done and replicated in other geographical areas. As a
result, a more accurate perspective can be achieved.
Acknowledgments
The authors belong to the research teams funded by the Spanish
Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (grant numbers MINECO-
16-ECO2015-68257-R).
References
Adcock, P.L., McCusker, P., 1995. How beneficial are EVs to the environment. Electr. Hy-
brid Veh. Technol. 95, 232–238 (Dorking).
Aggeri, F., Elmquist, M., Pohl, H., 2009. Managing learning in the automotive industry –
the innovation race for electric vehicles. Int. J. Automot. Technol. Manag. 9 (2),
123–147.
Al-Alawi, B.M., Bradley, T.H., 2013. Review of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric vehicle
market modeling studies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 21, 190–203.
Allcott, H., Greenstone, M., 2012. Is there an energy efficiency gap? J. Econ. Perspect. 26
(1), 3–28.
Allison, P.D., 2014. Measures of fit for logistic regression. Paper 1485–2014. SAS Global
Forum.
Álvarez, R., López, A., De la Torre, N., 2014. Evaluating the effect of a driver's behaviour on
the range of a battery electric vehicle. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part D J. Automob. Eng.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0954407014561483 (in press).
Álvarez, R., Zubelzu, S., Díaz, G., López, A., 2015. Analysis of low carbon super credit policy
efficiency in European Union greenhouse emissions gas. Energy 82, 996–1010.
Association of European Manufacturers, 2015. Electric and Alternative Vehicle Statistics.
Axsen, J., Kurani, K.S., 2011. Interpersonal influence in the early plug-in hybrid market:
observing social interactions with an exploratory multi-method approach. Transp.
Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 16, 150–159.
Bakker, S., 2013. Standardization of EV recharging infrastructures. E-mobility NSR, Report.
Beaume, R., Midler, C., 2009. From technology competition to reinventing individual
ecomobility: new design strategies for electric vehicles. Int. J. Automot. Technol.
Manag. 9 (2), 174–190.
Beggs, S., Cardell, S., Hausman, J., 1981. Assessing the potential demand for electric cars.
J. Econ. 17, 1–19.
Braithwaite, D., Emery, J., De Lusignana, S., Sutton, S., 2003. Using the Internet to conduct
surveys of health professionals: a valid alternative? Fam. Pract. 20, 545–551.
Bunce, L., Harris, M., Burgess, M., 2014. Charge up then charge out? Drivers' perceptions
and experiences of electric vehicles in the UK. Transp. Res. A 59, 278–287.
Bunch, D.S., Bradley, M., Golob, T.F., Kitamura, R., Occhiuzzo, G.P., 1993. Demand for clean-
fuel vehicles in California: a discrete-choice stated preference pilot project. Transp.
Res. A 27, 237–253.
Caperello, N.D., Kurani, K.S., 2011. Households' stories of their encounters with a plug-in
hybrid electric vehicle. Environ. Behav. 44, 1–16.
Carley, S., Krause, R.M., Lane, B.W., Graham, J.D., 2013. Intent to purchase a plug-in electric
vehicle: a survey of early impressions in large US cities. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp.
Environ. 18, 39–45.
14 B. Junquera et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 109 (2016) 6–14
Chang, T.-Z.D., Vowles, N., 2013. Strategies for improving data reliability for online sur-
veys: a case study. Int. J. Electron. Commer. Stud. 4, 121–130.
Chang, D., Erstad, D., Lin, E., Rice, A.F., Goh, C.T., Tsao, A.A., Snyder, J., 2012. Financial Via-
bility of Non-Residential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. Luskin Center for Innova-
tion, Los Angeles.
Chéron, E., Zins, M., 1997. Electric vehicle purchasing intentions: the concern over battery
charge duration. Transp. Res. A 31, 235–243.
Cobanoglu, C., Warde, B., Moreo, P.J., 2001. A comparison of mail, fax and web-based sur-
vey methods. Int. J. Mark. Res. 43, 441–452.
Cook, C., Heath, F., Thompson, R.L., 2000. A meta-analysis of response rates in web or In-
ternet-based surveys. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 60, 821–836.
Cox, D.R., Snell, E.J., 1989. Analysis of Binary Data. Chapman & Hall, Second edition.
Daziano, R.A., Bolduc, D., 2011. Incorporating pro-environmental preferences towards green
automobile technologies through a Bayesian hybrid choice model. Transpormetrica A 9,
74–106.
Daziano, R.A., Chiew, E., 2012. Electric vehicles rising from the dead: data needs for fore-
casting consumer response toward sustainable energy sources in personal transpor-
tation. Energ Policy 51, 876–894.
Egbue, O., Long, S., 2012. Barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles: an analysis
of consumer attitudes and perceptions. Energ Policy 48, 717–729.
Franke, T., Krems, J.F., 2013. Interacting with limiting mobility resources: psychological
range levels in electric vehicle use. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 48, 109–122.
Gillingham, K., Palmer, K., 2013. Bringing the energy-efficiency gap: Insights for policy
from theory and empirical analysis. Discussion Paper RFF DP 13–02. Resources for
the Future (January).
Gillingham, K., Newell, R.G., Palmer, K., 2009. Energy efficiency economics and policy.
Ann. Rev. Resour. Econ. 1, 597–620.
Glerum, A., Stankovikj, L., Thémans, M., Bierlaire, M., 2013. Forecasting the demand for elec-
tric vehicles: Accounting for attitudes and perceptions. Report TRANSP-OR 120217.
Transport and Mobility Laboratory, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne.
Graham-Rowe, E., Gardner, B., Abraham, C., Skippon, S., Dittmar, H., Hutchins, R.,
Stannard, J., 2012. Mainstream consumers driving plug-in battery-electric and plug-
in hybrid electric cars: a qualitative analysis of responses and evaluations. Transp.
Res. A 46, 140–153.
Gyimesi, K., Viswanathan, R., 2011. The Shift to Electric Vehicles: Putting Consumers in
the Driver's Seat. IBM Institute for Business Value, New York.
Hackbarth, A., Madlener, R., 2013. Consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles: a
discrete choice analysis. Transp. Res. D 25, 5–17.
Hahnel, U.J.J., Ortmann, C., Korcaj, L., Spada, H., 2014. What is green worth to you? Activat-
ing environmental values lowers price sensitivity towards electric vehicles. J. Environ.
Psychol. 40, 306–319.
Han, S., Gupta, S., Lehmann, D.R., 2001. Consumer price sensitivity and price threshold.
J. Retail. 77, 435–456.
Hard, M., Knie, A., 2001. The cultural dimension of technology management: lessons from
the history of the automobile. Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag. 13, 91–103.
Hill, G.A., Blythe, P.T., Suresh, V., 2014. How does the use of a continuously updating da-
tabase allow for the analysis of a user's changing behaviour in electric vehicles? IET
Intell. Transp. Syst. 8, 36–42.
Hosmer, D.W., Lemeshow, S., 1980. A goodness-of-fit test for the multiple logistic regres-
sion model. Commun. Stat. A10, 1043–1069.
Jansson, J., 2011. Consumer eco-innovation adoption: assessing attitudinal factors and
perceived product characteristics. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 20, 192–210.
Jensen, A.F., Cherchi, E., Mabit, S.L., 2013. On the stability of preferences and attitudes be-
fore and after experiencing an electric vehicle. Transp. Res. D 25, 24–32.
Kettles, D., 2015. Electric vehicle charging technology analysis and standards. FSEC Report
No. FSEC-CR-1996-15.
Klöckner, C.A., Nayum, A., Mehmetoglu, M., 2013. Positive and negative spillover effects
from electric car purchase to car use. Transp. Res. D 21, 32–38.
Krumm, J., 2012. How people use their vehicles: statistics from the 2009 national house-
hold travel survey. Technical Report, SAE Technical Paper.
Krupa, J.S., Rizzo, D.M., Eppstein, M.J., Brad Lanute, D., Gaalema, D.E., Lakkaraju, K.,
Warrender, C.E., 2014. Analysis of a consumer survey on plug-in hybrid electric vehi-
cles. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 64, 14–31.
Lane, B., Potter, S., 2007. The adoption of cleaner vehicles in the UK: exploring the con-
sumer attitude-action gap. J. Clean. Prod. 15, 1085–1092.
Lieven, T., Mühlmeier, S., Henkel, S., Waller, J.F., 2011. Who will buy electric cars? An em-
pirical study in Germany. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 16, 236–243.
Lutsey, N., Searle, S., Chambliss, S., Bandivadekar, A., 2015. Assessment of leading electric
vehicle promotion activities in United States cities. Working Paper ICCT. The Interna-
tional Council of Clean Transportation (http://theicct.org/leading-us-city-electric-
vehicle-activities).
Maxwell, S., 2002. Rule-based fairness and its effects on willingness to purchase. J. Econ.
Psychol. 23, 191–212.
Moons, I., De Pelsmacker, P., 2012. Emotions as determinants of electric car usage inten-
tion. J. Mark. Manag. 28, 195–237.
Nagelkerke, N.J.D., 1991. A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination.
Biometrika 78, 691–692.
Nelson, P.A., Ahmed, S., Gallagher, K.G., Dees, D.W., 2015. Cost savings for manufacturing
lithium batteries in a flexible plant. J. Power Sources 283, 506–516.
Nulty, D.D., 2008. The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can
be done? Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 33, 301–314.
Oreg, S., Katz-Gerro, T., 2006. Predicting proenvironmental behavior cross-nationally
values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environ.
Behav. 38, 462–483.
Pasaoglu, G., Fiorello, D., Martino, A., Zani, L., Zubaryeva, A., Thiel, C., 2014. Travel patterns
and the potential use of electric cars – results from a direct survey in six European
countries. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 87, 51–59.
Pickett-Baker, J., Ozaki, R., 2008. Pro-environmental products: marketing influence on
consumer purchase-decision. J. Consum. Mark. 25, 281–293.
Pilkington, A., Dyerson, R., 2002. Extending simultaneous engineering: electric vehicle
supply chains and new product development. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 23, 74–88.
Sakti, A., Michalek, J.J., Fuchs, E.R., Whitacre, J.F., 2015. A techno-economic analysis and
optimization of Li-ion batteries for light-duty passenger vehicle electrification.
J. Power Sources 273, 966–980.
Schuitema, G., Anable, J., Skippon, S., Kinnear, N., 2013. The role of instrumental hedonic
and symbolic attributes in the intention to adopt electric vehicles. Transp. Res. A 48,
39–49.
Shaheen, S.A., Chan, N.D., 2015. Evolution of E-mobility in carsharing business models. In:
Beeton, D., Meyer, G. (Eds.), Electric Vehicle Business Model. Springer International
Publishing, pp. 169–178.
Shih, T.H., Fan, X., 2007. Response rates and mode preferences in web-mail mixed-mode
surveys: a meta-analysis. Int. J. Internet Sci. 2, 59–82.
Son, Y., Lee, J.S., Son, Y., Jang, J.H., Cho, J., 2015. Recent advances in lithium sulfide cathode
materials and their use in lithium sulfur batteries. Adv. Energy Mater. 5 (n/a).
Stringham, E.P., Miller, J.K., Clark, J.R., 2015. Overcoming barriers to entry in an established
industry: Tesla Motors. Calif. Manag. Rev. 57, 85–103.
Turcksin, L., Mairesse, O., Macharis, C., 2013. Private household demand for vehicles on al-
ternative fuels and drive trains: a review. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 5, 149–164.
Van Haaren, R., 2011. Assessment of Electric cars' Range Requirements and Usage Pat-
terns Based on Driving Behavior Recorded in the National Household Travel Survey
of 2009. Earth and Environmental Engineering Department, Columbia University,
Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science, New York.
Wolf, I., Schröder, T., Neumann, J., de Haan, G., 2015. Changing minds about electric cars:
an empirically grounded agent-based modeling approach. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Chang. 94, 269–285.
Zhang, Y., Yu, Y., Zhou, B., 2011. Analyzing public awareness and acceptance of alternative
fuel vehicles in China: the case of EV. Energ Policy 39, 7015–7024.
Beatriz Junquera is Professor of Management. Beatriz Junquera's specialization is: tech-
nology and innovation management, environmental management, human resource man-
agement, social corporate responsibility and entrepreneurship. Her papers have been
published in international journals as Technovation, Journal of Cleaner Production, Ecolog-
ical Economics, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Journal
of Environmental Management, International Journal of Environmental Research, Interna-
tional Journal of Technology Management, among others.
Blanca Moreno is asociatte professor of Applied Economics (statistics and econometrics
area). Her specialization is energy economics and environmental management and fore-
casting. Her papers have been published in Applied Energy, Energy, Journal of Environ-
mental Management, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Energy conversion
and Management, Journal of forecasting, among others.
Roberto Álvarez is professor of Electric Engineering and Phd. Manufacturing Processes
Engineer. He is currently focused in research the industrial Lean manufacturing imple-
mentation as a way to reduce energy consumption and emissions. Other line of research
is the study of GHG emissions derived of the manufacturing and use of battery electric ve-
hicles. He has published articles in prestigious journals as Cleaner Production, Energy, En-
ergy Policy and Journal of Automobile Engineering.