Consumer preferences for electric vehicles: a literature review

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of EV preference.

Table 1. Overview of studies.

Author(s) (year)	Country	Time of data collection	Number of respondents	Number of choice tasks for each respondent	New vehicle alternatives included in given choice set^a	Estimation model
Horne, Jaccard, and Tiedemann (2005)	Canada	2002–2003	866	4	NGV (natural gas vehicle), HEV, FCV (fuel cell vehicle)	MNL (MultiNomial logit model)
Potoglou and Kanaroglou (2007)	Canada	2005	482	8	AFV (general), HEV	Nested logit model
Mau, Eyzaguirre, Jaccard, Collins-Dodd, and Tiedemann (2008)	Canada	2002	916HEV 1019FCV	18	HEV, FCV	MNL
Hidrue, Parsons, Kempton, and Gardner (2011)	USA	2009	3029	2	BEV	Latent class model
Mabit and Fosgerau (2011)	Denmark	2007	2146	12	AFVs including BEV, HEV	MXL (MiXed logit model)
Musti and Kockelman (2011)	USA	2009	645	4	HEV, PHEV	MNL
Qian and Soopramanien (2011)	China	2009	527	8	BEV, HEV	Nested logit model
Achtnicht, Bühler, and Hermeling (2012)	Germany	2007–2008	598	6	AFVs including BEV, HEV	MNL
Daziano (2012)	Canada	Same as Horne et al. (2005)			NGV, HEV, FCV	HCM (hybrid choice model)
Hess, Fowler, and Adler (2012)	USA	2008	944	8	AFVs including BEV	Cross-nested logit model
Molin, Van Stralen, and Van Wee (2012)	Netherlands	2011	247	8 or 9	BEV	MXL
Shin, Hong, Jeong, and Lee (2012)	South Korea	2009	250	4	BEV, HEV	Multiple discrete-continuous extreme value choice model
Ziegler (2012)	Germany	Same as Achtnicht et al. (2012)			AFVs including BEV, HEV	Probit model
Chorus, Koetse, and Hoen (2013)	Netherlands	2011	616	8	AFVs including BEV, PHEV	Regret model
Daziano and Achtnicht (2013)	Germany	Same as Achtnicht et al. (2012)			AFVs including BEV, HEV	Probit model
Daziano and Bolduc (2013)	Canada	Same as Horne et al. (2005)			NGV, HEV, FCV	Bayesian HCM
Hackbarth and Madlener (2013)	Germany	2011	711	15	AFVs including BEV, PHEV	MXL
Jensen, Cherchi, and Mabit (2013)	Denmark	2012	369	8	BEV	HCM
Rasouli and Timmermans (2013)	Netherlands	2012	726	16	BEV	MXL
Bockarjova, Knockaert, Rietveld, and Steg (2014)	Netherlands	2012	2977	6	BEV, HEV	Latent class model
Glerum, Stankovikj, and Bierlaire (2014)	Switzerland	2011	593	5	BEV	HCM
Hoen and Koetse (2014)	Netherlands	2011	1903	8	AFVs including BEV, PHEV	MXL
Kim, Rasouli, and Timmermans (2014)	Netherlands	Same as Rasouli and Timmermans (2013)			BEV	HCM
Tanaka, Ida, Murakami, and Friedman (2014)	USA/Japan	2012	4202/4000	8	BEV, PHEV	MXL
Helveston et al. (2015)	USA/China	2012–2013	572/384	15	BEV, PHEV, HEV	MXL
Valeri and Danielis (2015)	Italy	2013	121	12	AFVs including BEV	MXL

Notes: AFV (general): AFV included as a single alternative without specifying fuel type.

AFVs including … : Other AFVs (LPG, biofuel, flexifuel … ) are also included as alternatives.

^aThis column lists the included vehicle alternatives apart from conventional ones (gasoline, diesel).

Table 2. Overview of financial, technical and infrastructure attributes.

Attributes	Operationalisation	References^a
Purchase price	Price	All studies in Table 1
Operation cost	Price per 100 km	All studies in Table 1
	Fuel efficiency
Driving range	Range after full charge	Chorus et al. (2013); Hackbarth and Madlener (2013); Helveston et al. (2015); Hidrue et al. (2011); Hoen and Koetse (2014); Jensen et al. (2013); Mabit and Fosgerau (2011); Mau et al. (2008); Molin et al. (2012); Qian and Soopramanien (2011); Tanaka et al. (2014); Rasouli and Timmermans (2013); Valeri and Danielis (2015) Insignificant: Hess et al. (2012)
	Maximum/minimum range	Bockarjova et al. (2014)
	All-electric range (PHEV)	Helveston et al. (2015)
Charging time	Time for a full charge	Bockarjova et al. (2014); Chorus et al. (2013); Hackbarth and Madlener (2013); Hidrue et al. (2011); Hoen and Koetse (2014); Rasouli and Timmermans (2013)
Engine power	Horsepower	Achtnicht et al. (2012); Horne et al. (2005)
Acceleration time	Time from 0–100 km/h	Helveston et al. (2015); Hess et al. (2012); Hidrue et al. (2011); Potoglou and Kanaroglou (2007); Valeri and Danielis (2015) Insignificant: Mabit and Fosgerau (2011)
Maximum speed	Speed (km/h)	Rasouli and Timmermans (2013)
CO2 emission	Emission per km	Achtnicht et al. (2012); Jensen et al. (2013)
	Percentage relative to reference vehicle	Hackbarth and Madlener (2013); Hidrue et al. (2011); Potoglou and Kanaroglou (2007); Tanaka et al. (2014)
Brand	Country origin of brand	Helveston et al. (2015)
Brand diversity	Number of brands available	Chorus et al. (2013); Hoen and Koetse (2014)
Warranty	Period/range covered by warranty	Mau et al. (2008)
Charging availability	Distance from home to charging station	Rasouli and Timmermans (2013) Insignificant: Valeri and Danielis (2015)
	Detour time than to gas station	Bockarjova et al. (2014); Chorus et al. (2013); Hoen and Koetse (2014)
	Percentage of the number of gas stations	Achtnicht et al. (2012); Hackbarth and Madlener (2013); Horne et al. (2005); Mau et al. (2008); Potoglou and Kanaroglou (2007); Qian and Soopramanien (2011); Shin et al. (2012); Tanaka et al. (2014)
	Presence in different areas	Molin et al. (2012); Jensen et al. (2013) Insignificant: Hess et al. (2012)

^aIf not marked, all references listed find the attribute significant. As for studies which use the same dataset, only the earliest published study is listed here.

Table 3. Overview of policy attributes.

Policy	Studies which find it effective	Studies which find it ineffective
Pricing policies: One-time reduction
Reduce/exemption of purchase tax	Hess et al. (2012); Potoglou and Kanaroglou (2007)
Reduce purchase price	Glerum et al. (2014); Mau et al. (2008)	Hess et al. (2012); Qian and Soopramanien (2011)
Pricing policies: usage cost reduction
Reduce/exemption of road tax	Chorus et al. (2013); Hackbarth and Madlener (2013); Hoen and Koetse (2014)
Free parking		Chorus et al. (2013); Hess et al. (2012); Hoen and Koetse (2014); Potoglou and Kanaroglou (2007); Qian and Soopramanien (2011)
Reduce toll		Hess et al. (2012)
Land-use policy
Access to HOV (high occupancy vehicle)/express/priority/bus lane	Hackbarth and Madlener (2013); Horne et al. (2005)	Chorus et al. (2013); Hess et al. (2012); Hoen and Koetse (2014); Potoglou and Kanaroglou (2007); Qian and Soopramanien (2011)

Table 4. Individual-specific variables influential for EV preference.

Factors	Specific variables	Studies which find it has significant positive effect	Studies which find it has significant negative effect
Socio-economic and demographic variables
Gender	Male	Kim et al. (2014); Rasouli and Timmermans (2013)	Jensen et al. (2013); Qian and Soopramanien (2011); Rasouli and Timmermans (2013)
Age		PHEV: Musti and Kockelman (2011)	Achtnicht et al. (2012); Hackbarth and Madlener (2013); Hidrue et al. (2011); Qian and Soopramanien (2011); Ziegler (2012)
		Non-monotonous: Qian and Soopramanien (2013)
Income		Qian and Soopramanien (2011); Rasouli and Timmermans (2013); PHEV: Musti and Kockelman (2011)	Helveston et al. (2015) (US) PHEV: Helveston et al. (2015) (US)
Education level		Hidrue et al. (2011); Kim et al. (2014) PHEV: Hackbarth and Madlener (2013)
		Non-monotonous: Rasouli and Timmermans (2013)
Household composition	Household size	Qian and Soopramanien (2011)
	Number of kids	Kim et al. (2014); Rasouli and Timmermans (2013)	Qian and Soopramanien (2011)
	Number of drivers in household		Qian and Soopramanien (2011)
Psychological factors
Pro-environmental attitude		Achtnicht et al. (2012); Daziano and Bolduc (2013); Hackbarth and Madlener (2013); Hidrue et al. (2011); Jensen et al. (2013); Kim et al. (2014); Ziegler (2012) PHEV: Hackbarth and Madlener (2013)
Concern for battery
			Perception of high expense
			Concern for technical risk
Innovativeness		Bockarjova et al. (2014); Hidrue et al. (2011); Kim et al. (2014)
Car as a status symbol		Helveston et al. (2015) (US)	Helveston et al. (2015) (China)
Mobility and car-related condition
Current car Condition	Car owner	Qian and Soopramanien (2011)
	Second-hand car	Jensen et al. (2013)
	Small or mini	Jensen et al. (2013)
	Number of vehicles	Helveston et al. (2015) (Only in China); Jensen et al. (2013); Qian and Soopramanien (2011); Ziegler (2012)	PHEV: Musti and Kockelman (2011)
Expected car condition	Small or mini	Hackbarth and Madlener (2013); Hidrue et al. (2011)
	Horsepower		Ziegler (2012)
	Driving range	Ziegler (2012)
Current mobility habit	Percentage of urban trips	Hackbarth and Madlener (2013)
	Annual mileage	Ziegler (2012) (expected mileage)	Hoen and Koetse (2014)
	Frequency of long trips	Hidrue et al. (2011)
	Commuting distance		Qian and Soopramanien (2011)
	Commuting frequency		PHEV: Hoen and Koetse (2014)
Spatial variables
Charging capability	Having charging facilities at home	Hackbarth and Madlener (2013); Helveston et al. (2015) (China); Hidrue et al. (2011); Hoen and Koetse (2014) PHEV: Hackbarth and Madlener (2013)
	Having a garage		Valeri and Danielis (2015)
Living in urban area		PHEV: Musti and Kockelman (2011)
Countries and regions		Tanaka et al. (2014); Helveston et al. (2015)
Experience
Trial period			Jensen et al. (2013)
Social influence
Market share		HEV: Mau et al. (2008)
Market share in social network
Positive reviews		Kim et al. (2014); Rasouli and Timmermans (2013)

Note: If not marked, the effect is on BEV preference.

Horne, M., Jaccard, M., & Tiedemann, K. (2005). Improving behavioral realism in hybrid energy-economy models using discrete choice studies of personal transportation decisions. Energy Economics, 27(1), 59–77. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2004.11.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Potoglou, D., & Kanaroglou, P. S. (2007). Household demand and willingness to pay for clean vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 12(4), 264–274. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2007.03.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mau, P., Eyzaguirre, J., Jaccard, M., Collins-Dodd, C., & Tiedemann, K. (2008). The “neighbor effect”: Simulating dynamics in consumer preferences for new vehicle technologies. Ecological Economics, 68(1–2), 504–516. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.05.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hidrue, M. K., Parsons, G. R., Kempton, W., & Gardner, M. P. (2011). Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and their attributes. Resource and Energy Economics, 33(3), 686–705. doi: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.02.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mabit, S. L., & Fosgerau, M. (2011). Demand for alternative-fuel vehicles when registration taxes are high. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 16(3), 225–231. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2010.11.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Musti, S., & Kockelman, K. M. (2011). Evolution of the household vehicle fleet: Anticipating fleet composition, PHEV adoption and GHG emissions in Austin, Texas. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45(8), 707–720.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Qian, L., & Soopramanien, D. (2011). Heterogeneous consumer preferences for alternative fuel cars in China. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 16(8), 607–613. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2011.08.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Achtnicht, M., Bühler, G., & Hermeling, C. (2012). The impact of fuel availability on demand for alternative-fuel vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 17(3), 262–269. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2011.12.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Daziano, R. A. (2012). Taking account of the role of safety on vehicle choice using a new generation of discrete choice models. Safety Science, 50(1), 103–112. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2011.07.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hess, S., Fowler, M., & Adler, T. (2012). A joint model for vehicle type and fuel type choice: Evidence from a cross-nested logit study. Transportation, 39(3), 593–625. doi: 10.1007/s11116-011-9366-5

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Molin, E., Van Stralen, W., & Van Wee, B. (2012). Car drivers preferences for electric cars. 91th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.

 Google Scholar

Shin, J., Hong, J., Jeong, G., & Lee, J. (2012). Impact of electric vehicles on existing car usage: A mixed multiple discrete–continuous extreme value model approach. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 17(2), 138–144. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2011.10.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ziegler, A. (2012). Individual characteristics and stated preferences for alternative energy sources and propulsion technologies in vehicles: A discrete choice analysis for Germany. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46(8), 1372–1385.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chorus, C. G., Koetse, M. J., & Hoen, A. (2013). Consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles: Comparing a utility maximization and a regret minimization model. Energy Policy, 61, 901–908. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.064

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Daziano, R. A., & Achtnicht, M. (2013). Forecasting adoption of ultra-low-emission vehicles using Bayes estimates of a multinomial probit model and the GHK simulator. Transportation Science, 48(4), 671–683. doi: 10.1287/trsc.2013.0464

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Daziano, R. A., & Bolduc, D. (2013). Incorporating pro-environmental preferences towards green automobile technologies through a Bayesian hybrid choice model. Transportmetrica, 9(1), 74–106.

 Google Scholar

Hackbarth, A., & Madlener, R. (2013). Consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles: A discrete choice analysis. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 25, 5–17. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2013.07.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2013.07.006

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rasouli, S., & Timmermans, H. (2013). Influence of social networks on latent choice of electric cars: A mixed logit specification using experimental design data. Networks and Spatial Economics, 13, 1–32. doi: 10.1007/s11067-012-9171-5

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bockarjova, M., Knockaert, J., Rietveld, P., & Steg, L. (2014). Dynamic consumer heterogeneity in electric vehicle adoption. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting 2014 Paper.

 Google Scholar

Glerum, A., Stankovikj, L., & Bierlaire, M. (2014). Forecasting the demand for electric vehicles: Accounting for attitudes and perceptions. Transportation Science, 48(4), 483–499. doi: 10.1287/trsc.2013.0487

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hoen, A., & Koetse, M. J. (2014). A choice experiment on alternative fuel vehicle preferences of private car owners in the Netherlands. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 61, 199–215.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kim, J., Rasouli, S., & Timmermans, H. (2014). Expanding scope of hybrid choice models allowing for mixture of social influences and latent attitudes: Application to intended purchase of electric cars. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 69, 71–85.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tanaka, M., Ida, T., Murakami, K., & Friedman, L. (2014). Consumers’ willingness to pay for alternative fuel vehicles: A comparative discrete choice analysis between the US and Japan. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 70, 194–209.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Helveston, J. P., Liu, Y., Feit, E. M., Fuchs, E., Klampfl, E., & Michalek, J. J. (2015). Will subsidies drive electric vehicle adoption? Measuring consumer preferences in the U.S. and China. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 73, 96–112. doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2014.11.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Valeri, E., & Danielis, R. (2015). Simulating the market penetration of cars with alternative fuel powertrain technologies in Italy. Transport Policy, 37, 44–56. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.10.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar