Identifying and bridging the attitude-behavior gap in sustainable transportation adoption

  • Syed Waqar HaiderEmail author
  • Guijun Zhuang
  • Shahid Ali
Original Research


Future of the automobile industry in such testing times of global climate change, ever-increasing pollution/carbon emission levels and depleting natural resources, rests in the electrification of the vehicles. The situation in developing countries like India with political and demographical challenges adding to such global crisis raises the concern of sustainable development in the transportation system by manifolds. Electric vehicles (EV) though come across as a rescue towards mitigating this risk of natural disaster, but several barriers are still to be analyzed between EV adoption and consumers’ expectations to leverage this opportunity fully. Although, the literature suggests that consumers today show their concern about the environmental and social performance of products, however, this concern may not necessarily translate to them buying the products. Focusing on this gap, the study proposes an intuitionistic fuzzy set with decision making trial and evaluation laboratory based barrier analysis to identify and analyze real barriers to EV adoption in Indian consumers’ context. Research outcomes are quite intriguing with issues as unique and specific to India like power availability in the country, vehicles’ battery life and most common issue across the globe, lack of charging infrastructure evolving out as the three most pertinent barriers to EV adoption. Results of the present study can surely provide for theoretical support to both the public and private sector in framing their policies.


Electric vehicle Sustainable transport Adoption Barriers IFS-DEMATEL India 

JEL Classification

R41 Q01 Q52 Q57 



This research received no external funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Acker RH, Kammen DM (1996) The quiet (energy) revolution. Energy Policy 24:81–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aggarwal P, Cha T, Wilemon D (1998) Barriers to the adoption of really-new products and the role of surrogate buyers. J Consum Market 15:358–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altuntas S, Dereli T (2015) A novel approach based on the DEMATEL method and patent citation analysis for prioritizing a portfolio of investment projects. Expert Syst Appl 42:1003–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amiri M, Sadaghiyani J, Payani, N, Shafieezadeh M (2011) Developing a DEMATEL method to prioritize distribution centers in supply chain. Manag Sci Lett 1(3):279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atanassov K (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20:87–96zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Axsen J, Kurani SK (2013) Hybrid, plug-in hybrid, or electric—what do car buyers want? Energy Policy 61:532–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Axsen J, Mountain DC, Jaccard M (2009) Combining stated and revealed choice research to simulate the neighbor effect: the case of hybrid-electric vehicles. Resour Energy Econ 31:221–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bansal A, Kumar P, Issar S (2014) Evaluation of a 3PL company: an approach of fuzzy modeling. Int J Adv Oper Manag 6:131–161Google Scholar
  9. Bellman RE, Zadeh LA (1970) Decision making in a fuzzy environment. J Manag Sci 17:141–164MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Bessenbach N, Wallrap 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 SchoolGoogle Scholar
  11. Brady J, O’Mahony M (2011) Travel to work in Dublin. The potential impacts of electric vehicles on climate change and urban air quality. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 16:188–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown D, O’Mahony M, Caulfield B (2012) How should barriers to alternative fuels and vehicles be classified, and potential policies to promote innovative technologies be evaluated? J Clean Prod 35:140–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. California Environmental Protection Agency (2017) Factors affecting plug-in electric vehicle sales in California. Accessed 07 June 2017
  14. Chang B, Chang CW, Wu CH (2011) Fuzzy DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection criteria. Expert Syst Appl 38:1850–1858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chiu YJ, Chen HC, Tzeng GH, Shyu JZ (2006) Marketing strategy based on customer behavior for the LCD-TV. Int J Manag Decis Mak 7:143–165Google Scholar
  16. Datta S, Samanta C, Mahapatra SS, Mondal G, Chakraborty PS, Majumdar G (2013) Selection of internet assessment vendor using the TOPSIS method in a fuzzy environment. Int J Bus Perform Supply Chain Model 5:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Detcharat S, Pongpun A (2013) Using the DEMATEL method to analyze the causal relations on technological innovation capability evaluation factors in thai technology-based firms. Int Trans J Eng Manag Appl Sci Technol 4:81–102Google Scholar
  18. Dimitris P, Kanaroglou PS (2007) Household demand and willingness to pay for clean vehicles. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 12:264–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dou Y, Sarkis J (2013) Multiple stakeholder perspectives on barriers to implementing China RoHS regulations. Resour Conserv Recycle 81:92–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Enerdata (2015) CO2 emissions from fuel combustion. Accessed 30 Dec 2015
  21. Eurostat (2015) Greenhouse gas emission statistics. Accessed 30 Dec 2015
  22. Faisal F (2017) An analysis of electric vehicle trends in developed nations: a sustainable solution for India. J Undergrad Res Univ Ill Chicago. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Falatoonitoosi E, Leman Z, Sorooshian S, Salimi M (2013) Decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory. Res J Appl Sci Eng Technol 5:3476–3480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fontela E, Gabus A (1976) The DEMATEL observer. DEMATEL 1976 report, Switzerland, Geneva: Battelle Geneva Research CenterGoogle Scholar
  25. Gabus A, Fontela E (1973) Perceptions of the world problematic: communication procedure, communicating with those bearing collective responsibility DEMATEL, report no. 1. Switzerland, Geneva: Battelle Geneva Research CentreGoogle Scholar
  26. Gabus A, Fontela E, World Problems (1972) An invitation to further thought within the framework of DEMATEL. Battelle Geneva Research Centre, Switzerland, Geneva. Accessed 20 Mar 2018
  27. Gallagher KS, Muehlegger E (2011) Giving green to get green? Incentives and consumer adoption of hybrid vehicle technology. J Environ Econ Manag 61:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Govindan K, Kannan D, Shankar KM (2014) Evaluating the drivers of corporate social responsibility in the mining industry with a multi-criteria approach: A multi-stakeholder perspective. J Clean Prod 84:214–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Graham-Rowe Ella et al (2012) Mainstream consumers driving plug-in battery-electric and plug-in hybrid electric cars: a qualitative analysis of responses and evaluations”. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 46:140–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grzegrorzewski P (2003) The hamming distance between intuitionistic fuzzy sets. In: Proceedings of the 10th IFSA world congress, Istanbul, Turkey, pp 35–38Google Scholar
  31. Hori S, Shimizu Y (1999) Designing methods of human interface for supervisory control systems. Control Eng Pract 7:1413–1419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. International Energy Agency (2016) U.S. Energy Information Administration. Accessed 20 Dec 2016
  33. Islam AKMS, Islam M, Rahman T (2006) Effective renewable energy activities in Bangladesh. Renew Energy 31:677–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jalalifar S, Hafshejani KF, Movahedi MM (2013) Evaluation of the effective barriers in GSCM implementation using DEMATEL method. Nat Sci 11:95–102Google Scholar
  35. Kahn ME (2007) Do greens drive hummers or hybrids? Environmental ideology as a determinant of consumer choice. J Environ Econ Manag 54:129–145zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kannan G, Roohollah K, Vafadarnikjoo A (2015) Intuitionistic fuzzy based DEMATEL method for developing green practices and performances in a green supply chain. Expert Syst Appl 42:7207–7220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kim S, Lee J, Lee C (2017) Does driving range of electric vehicles influence electric vehicle adoption? Sustainability 9:1783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kjærland F (2007) A real options analysis of investments in hydropower—the case of Norway. Energy Policy 35:5901–5908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kurani KS, Turrentine TS, Heffner RR (2007) Narrative self-identity and societal goals: automotive fuel economy and global warming policy. In: Driving climate change. Academic Press, pp 217–238Google Scholar
  40. Lane B, Potter S (2007) The adoption of cleaner vehicles in the UK: exploring the consumer attitude-action gap. J Clean Prod 15:1085–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lebel L, Lorek S (2008) Enabling sustainable production–consumption systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 33:241–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Leire C, Thidell Å (2006) Product-related environmental information to guide consumer purchases—a review and analysis of research on perceptions, understanding, and use among Nordic consumers. J Clean Prod 13:1061–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Li X, Chen X (2015) Multi-attribute group decision making based on trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy information. Appl Soft Comput 30:454–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Li Y, Hu Y, Zhang X, Deng Y, Mahadevan S (2014) An evidential DEMATEL method to identify critical success factors in emergency management. Appl Soft Comput 22:504–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lin RJ (2013) Using fuzzy DEMATEL to evaluate the green supply chain management practices. J Clean Prod 40:32–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lin C-J, Wu W-W (2008) A causal analytical method for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 2008(34):205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Liou JJH, Tzeng G-H, Chang H-C (2007) Airline safety measurement using a hybrid model. Air Transp Manag 13:243–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Liu HW, Wang GJ (2007) Multi-criteria decision-making methods based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Eur J Oper Res 179:220–233zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lund H, Mathiesen BV (2009) Energy system analysis of 100% renewable energy systems—the case of Denmark in the years 2030 and 2050. Energy 34:524–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Matulka R (2016) Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  51. Moisander J (2007) Motivational complexity of green consumerism. Int J Consum Stud 4:404–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nehi HM, Maleki HR (2005) Intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and its applications in the fuzzy optimization problem. In: Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS international conference on systems, Athens, Greece, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  53. Nikjoo AV, Saeedpoor M (2014) An intuitionistic fuzzy DEMATEL methodology for prioritizing the components of the SWOT matrix in the Iranian insurance industry. Int J Oper Res 20:439–452MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Oliver JD, Rosen DE (2010) Applying the environmental propensity framework: a segmented approach to hybrid electric vehicle marketing strategies. J Market Theory Pract 18:377–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pegels A (2009) Renewable energy in South Africa: potentials, barriers, and options for support. Energy Policy 38:4945–4954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rex E, Baumann H (2007) Beyond ecolabels: what green marketing can learn from conventional marketing. J Clean Prod 15:567–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rokka J, Uusitalo L (2008) Preference for green packaging in consumer product choices—do consumers care? Int J Consum Stud 32:516–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Röös E, Tjärnemo H (2011) Challenges of carbon labeling of food products: a consumer research perspective. Br Food J 113:982–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sachdeva N, Singh O, Kapur PK, Galar D (2016) Multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision analysis with TOPSIS method for selecting appropriate cloud solution to manage big data projects. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 7:316–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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 Policy Pract 48:39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shu MS, Cheng CH, Chang JR (2006) Using intuitionistic fuzzy sets for fault tree analysis on printed circuit board assembly. Microelectron Reliab 46:2139–2148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Silvester S et al (2013) Exploring design scenarios for large-scale implementation of electric vehicles; the Amsterdam Airport Schiphol case. J Clean Prod 48:211–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sovacool B, Hirsh R (2009) Beyond batteries: an examination of the benefits and barriers to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) transition. Energy Policy 37:1095–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. The Times of India (2015) India looks to put hybrid and electric vehicles on the fast track. Accessed 18 Mar 2016
  65. Tseng ML (2009a) A causal and affect decision-making model of service quality expectation using grey-fuzzy DEMATEL approach. Expert Syst Appl 36:7738–7748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tseng ML (2009b) Using the extension of DEMATEL to integrate hotel service quality perceptions into a cause-effect model in uncertainty. Expert Syst Appl 36:9015–9023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Turrentine TS, Kurani SK (2007) Car buyers and fuel economy? Energy Policy 35:1213–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tzeng GH, Chiang CH, Li CW (2007) Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: a novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Syst Appl 32:1028–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vermeir I, Verbeke W (2006) Sustainable food consumption: exploring the consumer attitude behavioral intention gap. J Agric Environ Ethics 19:169–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wang Z, Li KW, Xu J (2011) A mathematical programming approach to multi-attribute decision making with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy assessment information. Expert Syst Appl 38:12462–12469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Warfield JN (ed) (1976) Societal systems, planning, policy and complexity. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  72. Wirth H (2013) Recent facts about photovoltaics in Germany. Fraunhofer ISE. Accessed 01 Feb 2018
  73. Wu WW, Lee YT (2007) Developing global managers’ competencies using the fuzzy DEMATEL method. Expert Syst Appl 32:499–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wu HH, Tsai YN (2011) A DEMATEL method to evaluate the causal relations among the criteria in the auto spare parts industry. Appl Math Comput 218:2334–2342Google Scholar
  75. Xu T (2012) The identification of potential consumers on domestic electric vehicles and the research of consumer behavior. Wuhan University of Technology, WuhanGoogle Scholar
  76. Xu Z, Liao H (2013) Intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 22:749–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Xu Z, Liao H (2015) A survey of approaches to decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations. Knowl Based Syst 80:131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Xu Z, Yager RR (2008) Dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute decision making. Int J Approx Reason 48:246–262zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Yang YP, Shieh HM, Leu JD, Tzeng GH (2008) A novel hybrid MCDM model combined with DEMATEL and ANP with applications. Int J Oper Res 5:160–168Google Scholar
  80. Ye F (2010) An extended TOPSIS method with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy numbers for virtual enterprise partner selection. Expert Syst Appl 37:7050–7055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ye J (2011) Expected value method for intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy multicriteria decision-making problems. Expert Syst Appl 38:11730–11734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zhang Y, Yifeng Y, Zou B (2011) Analyzing public awareness and acceptance of alternative fuel vehicles in China: the case of EV. Energy Policy 39:7015–7024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zhang X, Jin F, Liu P (2013) A grey relational projection method for multi-attribute decision making based on the intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy number. Appl Math Model 37:3467–3477MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zhang X, Xie J, Rao R, Liang Y (2014) Policy incentives for the adoption of electric vehicles across countries. Sustainability 6:8056–8078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zhu Q, Sarkis J, Lai K (2008) Green supply chain management implications for “closing the loop”. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 44:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ManagementXi’an Jiaotong UniversityXi’anChina

Personalised recommendations