Going on a Road-Trip with My Electric Car: Acceptance Criteria for Long-Distance-Use of Electric Vehicles

  • Julian HalbeyEmail author
  • Sylvia Kowalewski
  • Martina Ziefle
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9188)


In this study we report on four focus group discussions to examine cognitions, attitudes of a broad variety of users with respect to battery electric vehicles (BEV). Specifically, we identified relevant criteria for the use of electric cars as a long distance vehicle and gathered first impressions of where users wish to locate such charging stations. Four main aspects were identified as acceptance relevant: The battery’s capacity, given in the driving range in kilometers, the time it takes to regain this given range (charging time), the density of the charging stations grid and the attractiveness of the places where the charging stations are located, which could for example be a service area or a simple parking lot off the highway. Results of this study might provide detailed insights into conditions and technical specifications that have to be met beyond the possibility of quick charging to reach higher acceptance and a broad willingness to use BEVs for more than short-tracks in the city.


Battery electric vehicles (BEV) User acceptance Quick charging Infrastructure Adoption of novel technologies 



This research was funded by the German Ministry of Economics and Technology (Project SLAM, reference no. 01 MX 13007F). Authors thank all focus group participants for their patience and openness to share opinions on a novel technology. Furthermore, thanks to the interdisciplinary SLAM research group for valuable input.


  1. 1.
    Ziefle, M., Beul-Leusmann, S., Kasugai, K., Schwalm, M.: Public perception and acceptance of electric vehicles: exploring users’ perceived benefits and drawbacks. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2014, Part III. LNCS, vol. 8519, pp. 628–639. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hoffmann, C., Hinkeldein, D., Graff, A., Kramer, S.: What do potential users think about electric mobility? In: Hülsmann, M., Fornahl, D. (eds.) Evolutionary Paths Towards the Mobility Patterns of the Future, pp. 85–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kraftfahrtbundesamt. Bestand an Pkw, 1. Januar 2014 nach ausgewählten Kraftstoffarten absolut.
  4. 4.
    Pollok, P., Lüttgens, D., Piller, F.T.: Leading Edge Users and Latent Consumer Needs in Electromobility: Findings from a Nethnographic Study of User Innovation in High-Tech Online Communities. RWTH-TIM Working Paper, Germany (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jarass, J., Frenzel, I., Trommer, S.: Early Adopter der Elektromobilität in Deutschland. Internationales Verkehrswesen 66(2), 70–72 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Infas, DLR. Mobilität in Deutschland 2008 – Tabellenband.
  7. 7.
    Caroll, S., Walsh, C.: The Smart Move Trial: Description and Initial Results. Cenex, Leicestershire (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krems, J.F., et al.: Schlussbericht zum Forschungsvorhaben Verbundprojekt: MINI E powered by Vattenfall V2.0. Technische Universität Chemnitz, Chemnitz (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nilsson, M.: Electric Vehicles – The Phenomenon of Range anxiety (2011).
  10. 10.
    Franke, T., Krems, J.F.: What drives range preferences in electric vehicle users? Transp. Policy 30, 56–62 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Franke, T., Neumann, I., Bühler, F., Cocron, P., Krems, J.F.: Experiencing Range in an electric vehicle – understanding psychological barriers. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 61(3), 368–391 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Franke, T., Krems, J.F.: Interacting with limited mobility resources: psychological range levels in electric vehicle use. Transp. Res. Part A 48, 109–122 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Botsford, C., Szczepanek, A.: Fast Charging vs. Slow Charging: Pros and cons for the New Age of Electric Vehicles. International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium 24.
  14. 14.
    Krueger, R.: Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Sage Publications, London (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sutton, S.G., Arnold, V.: Focus group methods: using interactive and nominal groups to explore emerging technology-driven phenomena in accounting and information systems. Int. J. Acc. Inform. Syst. 14, 81–88 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Patton, M.Q.: Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Greaves, S., Backman, H., Ellison, A.B.: An empirical assessment of the feasibility of battery electric vehicles for day-to-day driving. Transp. Res. Part Policy Pract. 66, 226–237 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pearre, N.S., Kempton, W., Guensler, R.L., Elango, V.V.: Electric vehicles: how much range is required for a day’s driving? Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 19, 1171–1184 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Arning, K., Kowalewski, S., Ziefle, M.: Health concerns vs. mobile data needs: conjoint measurement of preferences for mobile communication network scenarios. Int. J. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 20(5), 1359–1384 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Arning, K., Kowalewski, S., Ziefle, M.: Modelling user acceptance of wireless medical technologies. In: Godara, B., Nikita, K.S. (eds.) MobiHealth. LNICST, vol. 61, pp. 146–153. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julian Halbey
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sylvia Kowalewski
    • 1
  • Martina Ziefle
    • 1
  1. 1.Communication ScienceRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations