Public Perception and Acceptance of Electric Vehicles: Exploring Users’ Perceived Benefits and Drawbacks

  • Martina Ziefle
  • Shirley Beul-Leusmann
  • Kai Kasugai
  • Maximilian Schwalm
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8519)


In this research, we describe an empirical study, which aimed at identifying influencing factors on acceptance of electric vehicles. Understanding individual arguments and to reach a high usage rate of these vehicles in the public and a broad acceptance, the identification of possible pro-using motives as well as perceived drawbacks is essential, which would allow a sensitive and individually-tailored communication and information policy. Using an exploratory approach, a questionnaire study was carried out in which participants were requested to indicate the level of acceptance and the intention to use electric cars. The questionnaire items were taken from several focus groups, which had been carried out prior to the questionnaire study. Outcomes show that the traditional car is perceived still as much more comfortable, and receives a high trustfulness in comparison to electric cars. In addition, user diversity in terms of age and gender was found to considerably the perceived benefits and barriers. Female users but also aged persons show a higher level of acceptance, which might be due to their higher environmental consciousness in contrast to male persons and younger participants. Interestingly, the self-reported level of domain knowledge (significantly higher in men) did not show a large influence on the level of acceptance.


Electro-Mobility electric vehicles technology acceptance user diversity adoption behavior of novel technologies 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Neumann, I., Cocron, P., Franke, T., Krems, J.F.: Electric Vehicles as a Solution for Green Driving in the Future? A Field Study Examining the User Acceptance of Electric Vehicles. In: Proceedings of European Conference on Human Centred Design for Intelligent Transport Systems, pp. 445–453 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Claas, B., Marker, S., Bickert, S., Linssen, J., Strunz, K.: Integration of Plug-In Hybrid and Electric Vehicles: Experience from Germany. In: 2010 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, pp. 1–3. IEEE (2011) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Winter, M., Kunze, M., Lex-Balducci, A.: Into a Future of Electromobility. German Research 32, 20–24 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Werther, B., Hoch, N.: E-Mobility as a Challenge for New ICT Solutions in the Car Industry. In: Bruni, R., Sassone, V. (eds.) TGC 2011. LNCS, vol. 7173, pp. 46–57. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frischknecht, R., Flury, K.: Life Cycle Assessment of Electric Mobility: Answers and Challenges. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 16, 691–695 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Labeye, E., Adrian, J., Hugot, M., Regan, M.A., Brusque, C.: Daily Use of an Electric Vehicle: Behavioural Changes and Potential for ITS Support. IET Intelligent Transport Systems 7, 210–214 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kley, F., Lerch, C., Dallinger, D.: New Business Models for Electric Cars: A Holistic Approach. Energy Policy 39, 3392–3403 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ehrler, V., Hebes, P.: Electromobility for City Logistics: The Solution to Urban Transport Collapse? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 48, 786–795 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sourkounis, C., Ni, B., Broy, A.: Pollution of High Power Charging Electric Vehicles in Urban Distribution Grids. In: 2011 7th International Conference-Workshop on Compatibility and Power Electronics (CPE), pp. 34–39. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schaumann, H.: Development of a Concept for Inner-City Delivery & Supply Utilising Electromobility. In: Efficiency and Logistics, pp. 121–127. Springer, Berlin (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    von Radecki, A.: Transition Management Towards Urban Electro Mobility in the Stuttgart Region. In: Evolutionary Paths Towards the Mobility Patterns of the Future, pp. 203–223. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Solar, A., Bolovinou, A., Heijenk, G., Lasgouttes, J.M., Giménez, R.: Mobility 2.0: Co-Operative ITS Systems for Enhanced Personal Electromobility. In: 27th International Electrical Vehicle Symposium & Exhibition, EVS27 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yu, A.S.O., Silva, L.L.C., Chu, C.L., Nascimento, P.T.S., Camargo, A.S.: Electric Vehicles: Struggles in Creating a Market. In: 2011 Proceedings of PICMET 2011, Technology Management in the Energy Smart World (PICMET), pp. 1–13. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Steinhilber, S., Wells, P., Thankappan, S.: Socio-Technical Inertia: Understanding the Barriers to Electric Vehicles. Energy Policy (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoffmann, C., Hinkeldein, D., Graff, A., Kramer, S.: What Do Potential Users Think About Electric Mobility? In: Evolutionary Paths Towards the Mobility Patterns of the Future, pp. 85–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kirsch, D.A.: The electric vehicle and the burden of history (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Motavalli, J.: Forward Drive: The Race to Build the Clean Car of the Future. Routledge (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scheller, M.: Automotive Emotion: Sensual Velocities and the Ethics of Car Consumption. Department of Sociology, Lancaster University (2002) (under review)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sheller, M.: Automotive emotions feeling the car. Theory, Culture & Society 21(4-5), 221–242 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dohle, S., Keller, C., Siegrist, M.: Conjoint Measurement of Base Station Siting Preferences. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J. 16, 825–836 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Joffe, H.: Risk: From perception to social representation. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 42, 55–73 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kasperson, R.E., Renn, O., Slovic, P.: The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Anal. 8, 177–187 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Arning, K., Kowalewski, S., Ziefle, M.: Health Concerns vs. Mobile Data Needs: Conjoint Measurement of Preferences for Mobile Communication Network Scenarios. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J. (2013), doi:10.1080/10807039.2013.838127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bühler, F., Franke, T., Krems, J.F.: Usage patterns of electric vehicles as a reliable indicator for acceptance? Findings from a German field study. Transportation Research Board 90th Annual Meeting No. 11-0227 (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Callon, M.: The sociology of an actor network: the case of the electric vehicle. In: Callon, M., Law, J., Rip, A. (eds.) Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology, pp. 19–34. MacMillan, London (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Q. 13, 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and Test. Decis. Sci. 27, 451–481 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Melenhorst, A.-S., Rogers, W.A., Bouwhuis, D.G.: Older Adults’ Motivated Choice for Technological Innovation: Evidence for Benefit-Driven Selectivity. Psychol. Aging 21, 190–195 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gaul, S., Ziefle, M.: Smart Home Technologies: Insights into Generation-Specific Acceptance Motives. In: Holzinger, A., Miesenberger, K. (eds.) USAB 2009. LNCS, vol. 5889, pp. 312–332. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: Different Perspectives on Technology Acceptance: The Role of Technology Type and Age. In: Holzinger, A., Miesenberger, K. (eds.) USAB 2009. LNCS, vol. 5889, pp. 20–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: Understanding age differences in PDA acceptance and performance. Comput. Hum. Behav. 23, 2904–2927 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wilkowska, W., Ziefle, M.: Which Factors Form Older Adults’ Acceptance of Mobile Information and Communication Technologies? In: Holzinger, A., Miesenberger, K. (eds.) USAB 2009. LNCS, vol. 5889, pp. 81–101. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wilkowska, W., Ziefle, M.: User diversity as a challenge for the integration of medical technology into future home environments. In: Human-Centred Design of eHealth Technologies, pp. 95–126. IGI Global, Hershey (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Carp, F.M.: Significance of mobility for the well-being of the elderly. In: Transportation in an Aging Society: Improving Mobility and Safety of Older Persons, pp. 1–20 (1988)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wilkowska, W., Farrokhikhiavi, R., Ziefle, M., Vallée, D.: Mobility Requirements for the Use of Carpooling Among Different User Groups. In: 1st International Symposium on Human Factors, Software & Systems Engineering. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2014)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Beul-Leusmann, S., Samsel, C., Wiederhold, M., Krempels, K.-H., Jakobs, E.-M., Ziefle, M.: Usability evaluation of mobile passenger information systems. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2014, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8517, pp. 217–228. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Peischl, B., Ziefle, M., Holzinger, A.: A Mobile Information System for Improved Navigation in Public Transport. In: DCNET/ICE-B/OPTICS, pp. 217–221 (2012)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schaar, A.K., Ziefle, M.: Potential of eTravel Assistants to Increase Older Adults’ Mobility. In: Leitner, G., Hitz, M., Holzinger, A. (eds.) USAB 2010. LNCS, vol. 6389, pp. 138–155. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Samsel, C., Beul, S., Wiederhold, M., Krempels, K.-.H., Ziefle, M., Jakobs, E.-.M.: Cascading Information for Public transport. In: IEEE, WEBIST 2013, pp. 1–12 (2014)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ziefle, M., Pappachan, P., Jakobs, E.-M., Wallentowitz, H.: Visual and Auditory Interfaces of Advanced Driver Assistant Systems for Older Drivers. In: Miesenberger, K., Klaus, J., Zagler, W.L., Karshmer, A.I. (eds.) ICCHP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5105, pp. 62–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ziefle, M.: Modelling Mobile Devices for the Elderly. In: Khalid, H., Hedge, A., Ahram, T.Z. (eds.) Advances in Ergonomics Modeling and Usability Evaluation, pp. 280–290. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2010)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Arning, K., Gaul, S., Ziefle, M.: “Same Same but Different”. How Service Contexts of Mobile Technologies Shape Usage Motives and Barriers. In: Leitner, G., Hitz, M., Holzinger, A. (eds.) USAB 2010. LNCS, vol. 6389, pp. 34–54. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martina Ziefle
    • 1
  • Shirley Beul-Leusmann
    • 1
  • Kai Kasugai
    • 1
  • Maximilian Schwalm
    • 2
  1. 1.Human-Computer-Interaction CenterRWTH Aachen UniversityGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Automotive EngineeringRWTH Aachen UniversityGermany

Personalised recommendations