Transportation

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-018-9908-1

Identifying factors influencing the slow market diffusion

of electric vehicles in Korea

Moon‑Koo Kim1,2 · Jong‑Hyun Park2 · Kyungsoo Kim1 · Byoungkyu Park3

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Electric vehicles (EVs) are considered as a driving force behind the automotive indus-
try’s transformation based on eco-friendliness and high energy efficiency. Unlike expec-
tations, the diffusion of EVs is proceeding at a slow pace in Korea. This study therefore
aims to identify the factors influencing the slow market diffusion of EVs from a socio-
technical perspective, by comparing the perceptions of the experts and the individuals. We
constructed 15 factors in the five dimensions including costs, automobile characteristics,
charging conditions, policy instruments, and perceptions for the analytic hierarchy process
analysis. Surveys were performed with 58 EV experts and 87 individuals with driver’s
licenses in Korea. The results identified and prioritized charging concerns as the high-
est barrier in both groups, and burden of costs as another critical barrier in the individual
group. All factors in charging concerns, burden of initial costs, insufficient performance,
and insufficient financial incentives were identified as major influential factors in both
groups. While, lack of non-financial supports (for experts), and burden of battery costs
and lack of social empathy (for individuals) were ranked as other upper factors. Statistical
analysis of the analysis of variance results revealed that the burden of costs was more of a
hurdle to the individuals than to the experts. These results suggest implications for policy-
making and practice in promoting a widespread EV market.

Keywords  Electric vehicles · Market diffusion · Technology dissemination · Adoption

barriers · Automobile industry

Introduction

The eco-friendliness of greenhouse gas reduction and the economic benefits from high
energy efficiency have accelerated the spread of EVs since the late 2000s in some Asian,
European countries, and North American (Korea Environment Institute 2015). The replace-
ment of internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) with EVs is expected to be enhanced
in major countries due to strengthening environmental regulations, such as carbon emis-
sions and fuel efficiency improvements, after a climate agreement was adopted at the Paris

* Jong‑Hyun Park
stephanos@etri.re.kr
Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Transportation

climate conference in 2015 (Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology 2016). As

some countries discuss the exit of fossil fuel-based conventional vehicles, including Ger-
many, Norway, and the Netherlands, EVs are more likely to lead the automobile industry’s
future (International Energy Agency 2016).
Market diffusion of EVs is increasing at a rapid rate due to global interest, as well as
policy support in some leading countries, such as Canada, China, European nations, Japan,
and the United States. EVs account for as many as 1% of all new vehicle registrations in
these countries, and the proportion is more than 15% in northern Europe (International
Energy Agency 2016). However, the rate of EV market diffusion is very slow in many
countries, including Korea. Korea, a leading country in automobile production and con-
sumption, has strengthened its government’s support for the industrial development and
dissemination of EVs since the late 2000s, its market share was less than 0.5% in 2015
(Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology 2016; Korea Ministry of Environment
2017). A few studies have been carried out that focus on the adoption barriers that inhibit
EV diffusion, based on the individuals’ concerns about the vehicles (e.g., Egbue and Long
2012; She et al. 2017; Steinhilber et al. 2013), or on expert opinions (e.g., Bakker and Trip
2013; Zubaryeva et  al. 2012). These studies are significant in deepening the understand-
ing of the obstacles to the market diffusion of EVs. However, due to the focus on some
financial or technological barriers, including purchase cost or charging issues, these stud-
ies cannot comprehensively explain why the spread of EVs has not met the expectations
in many countries including Korea. To understand why the public hesitates or refuses to
accept EVs, it is necessary to examine the multidimensional barriers to adoption including
consumers’ psychological burden, technological concerns, and ineffectiveness of policies
on EVs.
This study therefore aims to identify the critical causes of slow market diffusion of EVs
in the context of Korea, focusing on adoption barriers related to consumer, automobile,
government, and society from a socio-technical perspective. This study also intends to fill
the research gap that exists in the literature, which has paid little attention to comparing the
perceptions of barriers between the experts and the individuals.
To achieve this, we selected five dimensions and 15 factors pertaining to costs, automo-
tive characteristics, charging conditions, policy instruments, and perceptions, after review-
ing previous studies and considering experts’ opinions. We adopted the analytic hierarchy
process (AHP) method, which has been utilized as an effective research method for deriv-
ing critical success or failure factors of innovation diffusion, to identify and prioritize criti-
cal factors and attributes, and surveyed EV experts, as well as men and women with driv-
er’s licenses. We employed an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to establish the differences of
perceptions between the groups. Our results have implications for overcoming the barriers
to adoption of EVs and an efficient market diffusion in many countries, including Korea.

Background

The characteristics of EVs

The automobile industry has continuously grown in past decades, and has faced envi-
ronmental pollution problems with its fossil fuel-based internal combustion engines.
The International Energy Agency (2015) reported that the transportation sector accounts
for 23% of greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, and 75% of these were

13
Transportation

released from road traffic as of 2013. Major countries have enhanced their eco-friendly pol-
icies after the signed agreement at the 21st Climate Conference of Parties (COP21) in Paris
to respond to rapid climate change (United Nations Environment Program 2015). Some
Asian, North American, and European countries’ automobile industries have pursued regu-
lations to reduce carbon emissions and improve fuel economy for high energy efficiency
(Korea Environment Institute 2015). The Korean government also strengthened its auto-
mobile standards regarding carbon emissions and fuel economy, from 140 g and 17 km in
2015 to 97 g per 1 km driving distance and 24.3 km per 1 L of fuel in 2020, respectively
(Korea Ministry of Environment 2014).
Such changes in this industry have resulted in EVs’ emergence as an alternative to
ICEVs. An EV is a vehicle that has adopted an electric motor to avoid relying entirely on
fossil fuels and an internal combustion engine for its propulsion (Chan and Wong 2004).
Therefore, EVs include battery electric vehicles (BEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
(PHEVs), and fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) (Khaligh and Li 2010). The EVs in this
study are limited to BEVs and PHEVs by applying the criteria established by the Interna-
tional Energy Agency (IEA), as of 2016. FCEVs are not included in the scope of this study,
considering the technical differences in using fuel cells for directly producing electricity
instead of batteries, unlike BEVs and PHEVs.
The main features of EVs are as follows, compared with ICEVs: First, EVs, especially
BEVs, do not or rarely emit greenhouse gases, such as carbon, as they use an electric bat-
tery. Although controversy exists regarding the use of fossil fuels to produce the electric-
ity used to charge BEVs’ batteries, there is a reported 1.2 tons of greenhouse gas reduced
per BEV compared to per ICEV, based on average annual mileage of 15,000  km (Korea
Environment Institute 2015). Note that, depending on the driver’s driving and charging
behavior as well as the vehicle’s all-electric range, this relative advantage can be greatly
diluted in PHEVs partially using fossil raw materials. Second, BEVs are economical to
drive. The United States’ Environmental Protection Agency (2016) reported that ICEVs’
energy efficiency is less than 20%, but BEVs’ approximates 60%. The Korean Ministry of
Environment (2017) also reported that the gasoline fuel cost to travel 100 km based on a
1600 cc car is 11,448 KWR (about 99.8 USD), while the charging rate of a BEV is 1,132
KWR (about 9.87 USD). Therefore, the estimated driving cost of a BEV is only about 10%
of that of a gasoline vehicle. Third, EVs are also economical to maintain and manage, and
produce cost savings of more than 40% compared to ICEVs, due to the relatively fewer
parts incorporated in EVs (Korea Energy Economics Institute 2012). Fourth, EVs are ben-
eficial in that they can easily converge with connected cars or autonomous vehicles because
most of their parts are comprised of electrical components (Korea Evaluation Institute of
Industrial Technology 2016). Finally, EVs do have some challenges for improvement in
terms of driving range, vehicle models, charging time and infrastructures, and battery costs
(Korea Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy 2015; United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency 2016).

The market and policy status of EVs in Korea

Korea is a global leader in both automobile production—with 4.56 million, or 5% of global

manufacturing volumes—and consumption—with 1.83 million, or 2% of global sales vol-
ume, as of 2015 (LMC automotive 2016). However, its EV diffusion has slowly progressed.
The Korea National Statistical Office (2016) noted that EVs accounted for 0.02% of total
number of vehicles registered and 0.32% of new vehicle registrations as of the end of 2015.

13
 Transportation

Table 1  The cumulative sales volume of EVs in major countries (unit: thousands). Source: (International
Energy Agency 2016)
Division 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 CAGR​ Global share Penetration
(2010–15)a (2015) (%) rate to popu-
(%) lation
(2015)b (%)

The Nether- 0.27 1.14 6.26 28.67 43.76 87.53 196.0 7.0 0.51
lands
China 1.43 6.50 16.40 31.74 104.91 312.29 163.3 24.8 0.02
Norway 0.79 2.80 7.21 15.42 35.21 70.82 124.3 5.6 1.35
The United 3.77 21.50 74.74 171.44 290.22 404.09 108.2 32.1 0.12
States
Korea 0.06 0.34 0.85 1.45 1.52 4.33 88.9 0.3 0.01
Japan 3.52 16.14 40.58 69.46 101.74 126.40 67.3 10.1 0.10
a
 CAGR means compound annual growth rate
b
 The population’s penetration rate is calculated using population data from the Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA 2016)

Table 2  The supportive policies of EVs in Korea (as of January 2017). Source: (Korea Ministry of Environ-
ment 2017)
Division Contents

Subsidy for new car purchases Central government: 14 million ­KRWa

Municipal government: 1.4–2.3 million KRW (additional subsidy)
Tax reduction on new car purchases Central government: Up to 4 million KRW including 1.4 million
KRW of acquisition tax
Vehicle models Total seven models
Charging infrastructures Quick charger: 785 units
Normal charger: 9,258 units
Others Toll discount
Central government supporting installation costs for normal
charger in household: 3 million KRW
a
 1,000 KRW = 8.72 USD

In contrast, the EV market continues to grow rapidly in some countries including China,
European nations, Japan, and the United States, as shown in Table 1. The United States,
China, and Japan have been global EV market leaders based on their cumulative sales vol-
ume. The Netherlands, Norway, and China have the most advanced CAGR for the period of
2010–2015 (International Energy Agency 2016).
In order to drive the market growth of EVs, the Korean central government has imple-
mented activation policies for the vehicles, including technology development, test beds,
financial and non-financial incentives, a deployment of charging infrastructure, and legisla-
tion improvement. Korea’s municipal governments have extended supporting policies for
EVs, such as vehicle purchases, additional subsidies and tax decreases, and the reduction
of fees for public parking and toll roads (Korea Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy
2015). Table 2 summarizes the policy instruments for the diffusion of EVs in Korea as of
January 2017.

13
Transportation

Literature review and research methodology

Literature review of the influential factors of EV diffusion

Many studies since the early 2010s have examined the factors influencing EV market
diffusion, when the spread of EVs began (Rezvani et al. 2015). The studies have exam-
ined the market enablers or barriers in adopting the vehicles, the technological benefit,
risk, policy, and stakeholder aspects (Li et al. 2017). After reviewing the previous stud-
ies, as shown in Table  3, we categorized the factors affecting EV adoption as costs,
automobile characteristics, charging conditions, policies, and perceptions.
The following is a summary of the findings of these studies. First, economic ben-
efits from cost savings in fuel economy or running costs, and financial incentives or
regulatory measures of central or municipal government were identified as enablers or
facilitators for EV diffusion. Second, financial burdens from the vehicle price or bat-
tery replacement cost, automotive competence issues (including performance and safety
risks or lack of models), and infrastructure and technological concerns related to charg-
ing were the critical barriers to the spread of EVs. In addition, perceptions regarding the
need for, and importance of, EVs to consumers, society, and automobile manufacturers
influenced the market diffusion of EVs.
These studies have contributed to evaluating individuals’ expectations and concerns,
and identifying the facilitating conditions and challenges for the successful adoption
of EVs in the market. The adoption barriers that hinder the diffusion of EVs, in a few
of them, were intensively analyzed with focus on financial or technological issues
(e.g., Egbue and Long 2012; She et  al. 2017; Steinhilber et  al. 2013). However, these
empirical results are somewhat limited in that it is difficult to explain comprehensively
why the diffusion of EVs is sluggish in many countries including Korea. Further stud-
ies therefore are needed to identify and prioritize the influence of the adoption barri-
ers in aspects of consumer, technology, government, and society from a socio-technical
perspective.
Most of these studies employed multiple regression analysis or structural equation mod-
eling on the survey data collected from individuals. Some other studies have analyzed the
diffusion factors of EVs based on expert opinions (e.g., Bakker and Trip 2013; Zubaryeva
et al. 2012). However, little to no research has investigated the differences in perception of
enablers or barriers between the experts and the individuals. Comparing the perceptual dif-
ferences between these groups can help to gain a deeper understanding of the influencing
factors of EV diffusion.

AHP analysis methods

The AHP begins by structuring the problem being analyzed into different levels of a hier-
archical system with overall goal, upper-criteria, and sub-criteria, which reflect literature
reviews and expert discussions. After this, a questionnaire is developed for performing
pairwise comparison of items from the criteria or sub-criteria, typically using the sym-
metrical structure of a 9-point scale (Saaty 1990; Vaidya and Kumar 2006). Next, indi-
vidual weights and the consistency of comparisons are calculated for each respondent,
based on the collected data. Finally, the local priorities are aggregated using the arithme-
tic mean or geometric mean of the individual weights (Forman and Peniwati 1998). And

13
 Table 3  The influential factors of EV diffusion in previous studies
Researcher Factors/attributes Costs Automobile charac- Charging conditions Policies Perceptions
teristics

13
Hidrue et al. (2011) Attributes affecting Fuel cost Performance Driving range Perception of pollution
willingness to pay Savings Charging time reduction
Zhang et al. (2011) Factors affecting con- Fuel price Number of vehicles Government policies Opinion of peers
sumers’ choice Maintenance cost Degree of safety Tax incentives
Egbue and Long Barriers to widespread Vehicle cost Performance Battery range
(2012)
Franke et al. (2012) Psychological barriers Driving range
Zubaryeva et al. Factors for identifying Fuel cost savings Availability of charg- State incentives
(2012) the lead markets ing points access to dedicated
lanes
Carley et al. (2013) Purchase intention Battery technology Public perceptions
factors
Bakker and Trip Policy options to sup- Charging infrastruc- Regulatory measures Raising awareness
(2013) port the adoption ture
Steinhilber et al. Socio-technical bar- Infrastructure Relevant regulation
(2013) riers Incentives
Schuitema et al. (2013) Attributes for the Vehicle price Performance Charging Pro-environmental self-
adoption identity
Sierzchula et al. (2014) Financial and socio- Charging infrastruc- Financial incentives
economic factors for ture
the adoption
Haddadian et al. Barriers and drivers Total cost of owner- Safety and resiliency Battery technology Incentives Awareness of incentives
(2015) ship Model diversity Charging stations Standardization Societal skepticism
Electricity costs Range limitations Fleet procurement Innovative business
Fuel economy policies models
Lieven (2015) Promotion factors Charging networks Cash grants
Transportation
 Table 3  (continued)
Researcher Factors/attributes Costs Automobile charac- Charging conditions Policies Perceptions
teristics
Transportation

Bjerkan et al. (2016) Incentives for the Exemptions from

promotion purchase tax
Exemption from road
tolling
Bus lane access
Zhang et al. (2016) Car specifications, Vehicle price Technology improve- Charging station Municipal incentives
prices and incentives ment density
for the adoption
Mohamed et al. (2016) Adopters’ character- Moral and subjective
istics norms
Silvia and Krause Policy factors of the Public charging Subsidies, Increasing the visibility
(2016) adoption network Government fleet and familiarity
purchases
Javid and Nejat (2017) Adoption factors Gas price Charging stations
density
Matthews et al. (2017) Promotion factors at Unavailability at the
point of sale dealership
A salesperson’s positive
attitude
She et al. (2017) Barriers to widespread Financial barrier Vehicle performance Infrastructure barrier
barrier

13
 Transportation

global weights are calculated by multiplying the local weight of each dimension by the
local weight of the sub-factor.
The AHP is an analytical method to support complex decisions or to identify the critical
success or failure factors (Saaty 1990). This method is a more useful approach than other
statistical approaches in terms of the pairwise comparison of the multiple attributes, as well
as representing and qualifying their relative priorities and rankings. The AHP method, in
particular, has relative advantages as a research technique in provide a hierarchical analy-
sis, which makes complex judgments and decisions easy to access, and a systematic inves-
tigation by horizontally and vertically structuring the tasks to be solved. Another advan-
tage is that it becomes possible to grasp the relations among factors and their impact on
the whole system, and this make it possible to more easily and symmetrically identify and
prioritize the relative importance or relevance of each construct for the overall or targeted
objective (Saaty 2004; Tai et al. 2011). Thus, the AHP is a flexible and efficient method
for providing both qualitative and quantitative solutions, by hierarchically structuring the
problem and prioritizing the components (Vaidya and Kumar 2006).
Therefore, this method has been widely applied in the evaluation, selection, and prior-
itization of considerations or alternatives in the fields of forecasting, resource allocation,
decision making, risk evaluation, and quality management in various industries (Brunelli
2014). The AHP method has also been adopted to identify and prioritize success or risk
factors in an industry or promotion of issues relating to innovative technologies (Bruder-
mann et al. 2015; Chen and Wang 2010; Farid et al. 2015; Park et al. 2017). Brudermann
et al. (2015) systematically analyzed the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats
related to agricultural biogas plants through the AHP by using data collected from experts.
Chen and Wang (2010) used the AHP method to classify and calculate the quantitative
weights of 20 success factors for developing the market in the information service industry,
using interviews with executives, experts, and consultants. Farid et al. (2015) also used the
AHP method to identify the promotional factors of e-learning in Pakistan, comprising 16
critical issues in five dimensions, through interviews with experts. Park et al. (2017) identi-
fied and ranked the success or failure factors affecting the market performance of new IT
services.

Research objectives and procedures

This study aims to identify the factors influencing slow market diffusion of EVs in the
context of Korea. In particular, we intend to identify and prioritize the importance and
relevance of the barriers to the acceptance of EV from a socio-technical perspective. We
further intend to analyze the perception differences of barriers between experts and indi-
viduals. For this, we employed the AHP analysis and ANOVA as research methods.
Most studies on consumer acceptance of EVs adopt regression analysis or structural
equation modeling as a methodology; however, this study employs the AHP analysis for
the following reasons. First, we intend to investigate the hierarchical structure of the causes
for the low diffusion of EVs. Through the AHP method, we try to identify the upper-level
barriers with respect to consumer, technology, government, and society, and the sub-factors
constituting the specific barriers in each dimension. Second, it is effective to prioritize the
diffusion barriers of EVs, based on the pairwise comparisons of the AHP. Through this
method, we identify the partial and relative ratios of each factor among all the diffusion
barriers. Third, the AHP method is more effective than the other methods in identifying the

13
Transportation

preferences or opinions of experts and related individuals (Nikou and Mezei 2013; Saaty
1990).
We established the following research procedures for AHP analysis. The first step
involves establishing a research framework composed of research dimensions and factors,
referring to a literature review and expert discussions. At this step, we decompose the five
dimensions of upper-level constructs, which are related to consumer, automobile, govern-
ment, and society, into a total of 15 factors corresponding to the dimensions. The next step
includes collecting data through expert and individual surveys, and analyzing statistically
this data using an AHP. For this, we constructed a questionnaire that compares the multiple
items belonging to the dimensions and factors in pairs. The third step involves prioritizing,
according to their importance and relevance, the dimensions and factors that resulted in the
low market diffusion of EVs.
We further employed the methods of ANOVA, in order to compare the perceptions of
the influential factors between the experts and individuals, referring to the analysis method
performed by Ryu et al. (2011). By comparing the means in the weights of the dimensions
and factors obtained from the AHP analysis, we attempt to identify how much difference
there was between the two groups in recognizing the importance and relevance of these
constructs as barriers to the diffusion of EVs.

Research framework and variables

We identify the causes for the slow diffusion of EVs in Korea, from a socio-technical
perspective that includes consumer, automobile, government, and society. According to
the socio-technical perspective, the success or failure of a new innovation in the market
is determined by the social factors, as well as the characteristics of the technology itself
(Sawyer et al. 2003; Shin and Jung 2012; Yun and Lee 2015). Thus, the theory framework
proposes that the combination of technological improvement and social demand leads to
diffusion of new innovations in society. Conversely, if technological concerns or social bar-
riers exist, new innovation may not succeed or its market diffusion may get delayed. Some
studies have investigated the technological factors (including benefits, risks, infrastructure,
and costs) and social factors (including consumer psychology, marketing activities, policy,
and social influence) of the new innovation diffusion and its success from a socio-technical
perspective, in the context of broadband convergence network (Shin and Jung 2012), Inter-
net-of-Things (Shin 2014), low and zero carbon technologies (Downey 2014), new water
system (Quezada et  al. 2016), renewable energy system (Yun and Lee 2015), and smart
TVs (Yu et al. 2016). Along with this theoretical background, we selected the technologi-
cal and social factors affecting the slow market diffusion of EVs in Korea, by employing
the following procedure.
Figure  1 display the established research frame and factors, derived after referring to
the related literature noted in “Literature review of the influential factors of EV diffusion”
section and considering discussions with five EV experts. The five experts in EVs hold a
master’s degree or higher qualification in the automotive field, and have been working in
research institutes or automobile companies engaged in research and development, mar-
keting, and production development in Korea, for at least 10  years. The expert discus-
sions were held twice, in January and February of 2017. The selected research constructs
and variables were examined in the first meeting, and the constructed questionnaire was
reviewed comprehensively in the second meeting.

13
 Transportation

Fig. 1  The research framework for AHP analysis

We firstly established five dimensions as upper criteria, including the burden of costs,
insufficient vehicle competences, charging concerns, insufficient polices, and lack of per-
ceptions, from a socio-technical perspective. Next, we constructed 15 factors constituting
the dimensions, as follows. Because we aim to identify the reasons for the slow growth of
EVs in the market, the detailed factors selected in this study also focused on barriers or
obstacles in terms of technical or social aspects.
First, we set burden of initial costs, burden of operation costs, and burden of battery
costs as sub-factors of the burden of costs by considering EVs’ purchase, fuel (or electric-
ity), and battery-changing costs from a literature review of related studies (Haddadian et al.
2015; Hagman et al. 2016; Jensen et al., 2013). Second, insufficient vehicle competences
refer to EVs’ insufficient performance, concerns about safety, and lack of models compared
to ICEVs (Haddadian et al. 2015; Schuitema et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2011). Third, charg-
ing concerns include concerns about EV charging infrastructures and their required charg-
ing time and limited driving range (Bakker and Trip 2013; Hidrue et al. 2011; Javid and
Nejat 2017). Fourth, we selected insufficient policies, including insufficient financial incen-
tives, lack of non-financial supports, and inefficient industrial policies of government agen-
cies (Bakker and Trip 2013; Bjerkan et al. 2016; Zhang et al. 2011). Finally, we established
lack of perceptions, including lack of individual awareness, lack of social empathy, and low
willingness of automakers regarding EVs (Matthews et al. 2017; Zhang et al. 2013).

Data collection

We constructed two structured questionnaires to target experts and individuals by applying

the AHP method. Prior to the full survey, we conducted preliminary tests of five experts
in the EV sector and 20 individuals with driver’s licenses; the questionnaires were revised
and supplemented by incorporating their opinions.
We then selected Korean experts working in research and development, policy, and mar-
keting, business in the automobile sector, including EVs, during at least 5 years, and who
possess a bachelor’s degree or higher. The individual survey targeted adults having prior

13
Transportation

knowledge of EVs with over 2 years’ driving experience. For individuals who have prior
knowledge of EVs, we set the following categories in advance: An adult man or woman
who (1) has been exposed to EVs in the media at least five times, (2) has heard of EV
charging systems, and (3) is aware that he or she may receive some subsidies from central
or local government when buying EVs. The reason for limiting the survey sample is that
the purpose of this study is not to grasp the adoption intention of the public, but to identify
the causes of the sluggish market of EVs recognized by the individuals. Without knowl-
edge of EVs, respondents may have difficulty understanding the questions of the survey
itself. Therefore, we selected the sample subjects through some questions about their prior
knowledge presented above. We refer to previous studies on EVs that limit respondents to
the purpose of research. For example, Egbue and Long (2012) targeted the sample popu-
lation of technology enthusiasts who are likely to purchase EVs. Schuitema et al. (2013)
chose individuals who had a driving license in their household and had purchased a new or
nearly new car within the last 5 years. Zhang et al. (2011) conducted their survey on train-
ees in driving schools, who are prospective owners of EVs.
Surveys and interviews were carried out by a survey-specialized company in March and
May 2017, with structured questionnaires to compare constructs in pairs using a 9-point
scale with values 1–9 denoting the linguistic terms into (1) equally important, (5) strongly
important, and (9) extremely important, respectively. Detailed information on question-
naires and scales is included in the “Appendix”.
In total, the questionnaires of 85 experts and 175 individuals were obtained, but the
questionnaires of only 58 experts and 87 individuals satisfied pre-defined consistency crite-
ria and were found to be valid for further analysis.
In the AHP, respondents evaluate the weights or rankings of the items by pairwise com-
parisons. Maintaining consistency in the relative comparison of objectives is an important
issue in ensuring the reliability of the evaluation (Wedley 1993). For example, if a respond-
ent evaluates the importance or relevance of A > B and B > C, and then responds with
A > C, the results or values obtained through it will gain reliability. The consistency ratio
(CR) proposed by Saaty (1990) is widely used as a guidance for checking the quality of
evaluation. CR is calculated as the ratio of the consistency index (CI = (λmax − n)/(n − 1)) to
the random index (RI). λmax denotes the largest eigenvalue of the pair comparison matrix,
and n denotes the number of criteria to be compared. In addition, RI is the random consist-
ency index of a randomly extracted pair-wise comparison matrix (Saaty 1990).
Saaty (1990) and Saaty and Kearns (1985) suggested a CR value of less than 0.1 as a
reasonable criterion, and a value between 0.1 and 0.2 as a tolerable criterion. This criterion
depends on the size of the matrix of the pairwise comparisons (Wedley 1993), and individ-
ual questionnaires with CR values in the range of 0.1–0.2 are acceptable in practice (Nikou
and Mezei 2013; Ryu et al. 2011).
In this study, 0.125 was set as the upper limit of individual CR, and the questionnaire
data that did not meet the criteria were removed from the AHP statistical analysis. Unlike
conventional consumer surveys, sample size or representation are not critical issues in the
AHP, because the questionnaire is conducted for the experts and individuals with prior
knowledge or experience of the topic (Nikou and Mezei 2013).
Expert surveys (n = 58) were conducted for those belonging to universities (27.6%),
research institutes (22.4%), related industries (34.5%), and others (15.5%). All of the
experts at the university held positions higher than associate professor in general uni-
versity. Experts at research institutes belonged to government founded research insti-
tutes, or affiliated research institutes of automobile and battery manufacturers. Experts
from the related companies were involved in automobile makers, parts companies, and

13
 Transportation

battery manufacturers. Others included automotive consultants and government officials.

Their final education includes bachelor’s (32.8%), master’s (37.9%), and doctoral degrees
(29.3%). They possess an average working period in the automotive industry of 11.8 years,
with a standard deviation (s.d.) of 5.3 years. Their average EV experience is 5.4 years (s.d.:
2.6  years). They majored in automobile-related engineering (automotive, mechanical, or
battery-related engineering: 56.9%), business administration, public administration or eco-
nomics (27.6%), and others (law or IT engineering: 15.5%).
Table 4 displays the individual survey respondents’ characteristics (n = 87). There were
slightly more males than females, and relatively more respondents were in the 30s age
group than others. Of the respondents, the proportion of office or factory workers was rela-
tively higher than those in other occupations. The respondents had an average 11.2 years of
driving experience (s.d.: 6.2 years), and the average monthly fuel costs per household were
26.1 ten thousand KRW (s.d.: 10.4 ten thousand KRW).

Results

Local weights by dimensions and factors

Table  5 indicates the AHP results for the data collected from the experts and the indi-
viduals, with the local weights by dimensions and factors. The means of CR calculated by

Table 4  Individual respondent profile

Category Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 47 54.0

Female 40 46.0
Age 20–29 10 11.5
30–39 40 46.0
40–49 37 42.5
Occupation Self-employed 12 13.8
Office or factory worker 38 43.7
House worker 18 20.7
Professional 10 11.5
Others 9 10.3
Driving experience (unit: years) 2–4 16 18.4
5–9 18 20.7
10–19 44 50.6
20 or more 9 10.3
Monthly fuel costs per household 2–9 10 11.5
­ RWa)
(unit: then thousand K 10–19 16 18.4
20–29 24 27.6
30–39 27 31.0
40 or more 10 11.5
a
 1 ten thousand KRW = 8.72 USD

13
 Table 5  Comparisons of results between experts and individuals in local weights
Dimension Expert Individual t value Factor Expert Individual t value
(p value) (p value)
Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d.
Transportation

Burden of costs 0.152 0.123 0.203 0.170 − 1.978* Burden of initial costs 0.457 0.273 0.382 0.256 1.685
(0.050) (0.094)
Burden of operation costs 0.193 0.172 0.186 0.158 0.244
(0.808)
Burden of battery costs 0.350 0.204 0.431 0.304 − 1.799
(0.074)
Insufficient vehicle competences 0.129 0.104 0.157 0.157 − 1.166 Insufficient performance 0.433 0.306 0.467 0.262 − 0.720
(0.245) (0.473)
Concern about safety 0.193 0.129 0.311 0.248 − 3.342***
(0.001)
Lack of models 0.374 0.234 0.222 0.201 4.190***
(0.000)
Charging concerns 0.437 0.187 0.324 0.179 3.653*** Lack of charging infrastructures 0.516 0.240 0.469 0.284 1.046
(0.000) (0.297)
Long charging time 0.206 0.124 0.213 0.177 − 0.260
(0.795)
Limited driving range 0.278 0.213 0.318 0.236 − 1.050
(0.295)
Insufficient policies 0.161 0.138 0.166 0.138 − 0.193 Insufficient financial incentives 0.370 0.230 0.520 0.280 − 3.382***
(0.847) (0.001)
Lack of non-financial supports 0.399 0.274 0.273 0.211 3.121**
(0.002)
Inefficient industrial policies 0.230 0.201 0.206 0.173 0.766
(0.445)

13
 Table 5  (continued)
Dimension Expert Individual t value Factor Expert Individual t value
(p value) (p value)
Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d.

13
Lack of perceptions 0.121 0.142 0.151 0.157 − 1.164 Lack of individual awareness 0.352 0.265 0.316 0.255 0.818
(0.246) (0.415)
Lack of social empathy 0.370 0.248 0.424 0.231 − 1.351
(0.179)
Low willingness of automakers 0.278 0.234 0.259 0.202 0.507
(0.613)

s.d. standard deviation

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Transportation
Transportation

aggregating the individual responses (CR = 0.03–0.07) all satisfied the reasonable criterion
of 0.10, as suggested by Saaty (1990).
The results of the AHP analysis of dimensions and factors are summarized as follows.
First, analyzing the results of the expert group showed that charging concerns were the
most important of the five dimensions, followed by insufficient policies, burden of costs,
insufficient vehicle competences, and lack of perceptions. Therefore, the experts identified
charging concerns and insufficient policies as the core dimensions influencing EVs’ slug-
gish market performance in Korea. Second, The AHP results of the group of individuals
revealed that charging concerns were the most important among the five dimensions, fol-
lowed by burden of costs, insufficient policies, insufficient vehicle competences, and lack
of perceptions. Therefore, the individuals identified charging concerns and the burden of
costs as the core determinants of EVs’ poor market performance in Korea.
Table 5 also illustrates the comparisons of the analysis results between the expert and
individual opinions, by performing ANOVA on the local weights for dimensions and
factors.
First, both the experts and the individuals identified charging concerns as the strong-
est barrier of EV market diffusion in Korea. However, the experts were significantly and
relatively more aware of the importance of the construct than the individuals. Second, there
were statistically significant difference in the opinions of the experts and the individuals
over the burden of costs. Economic burden as a barrier to the spread of EVs was thought
to be relatively important among the individuals. Third, there were significant differences
in the opinions of the experts and the individual on some sub-factors included in the five
dimensions. In the dimension of insufficient vehicle competences, both groups identified
insufficient performance as the strongest barrier, but lack of models and concern about
safety were judged by the experts and individuals, respectively, to be relatively significant
as EV diffusion barriers. In the insufficient policies dimension, the individuals concen-
trated on insufficient financial incentives. On the other hands, the experts perceived lack of
non-financial supports as relatively more important in this dimension.

Global weights of all factors

We calculated the global weights of all factors, by multiplying the local weight of each
dimension by the local weight of the sub-factor, as shown in Table 6.
First, regarding global rankings by the expert group, most highly ranked were charging
concerns, which included lack of charging infrastructures, limited driving range, and long
charging time; insufficient policies, lack of non-financial supports and insufficient finan-
cial incentives; burden of costs, the burden of initial costs; and insufficient vehicle compe-
tences, insufficient performance. In summary, the experts perceived that all charging con-
ditions, ownership costs, insufficient government support more significantly impact EVs’
slow market diffusion than the factors involving perceptions or automobile competence.
Second, regarding global rankings by the individuals, individuals ranked charging con-
cerns most highly, including lack of charging infrastructures and limited driving range, and
long charging time; burden of costs, including burden of battery costs and burden of initial
costs; insufficient policies, with insufficient financial incentives; insufficient vehicle com-
petences, with insufficient performance; and lack of perceptions, with lack of social empa-
thy. Individuals with driver’s licenses indicated that all charging conditions, ownership and
battery change costs, insufficient government support, concern about low performance, and
low social awareness significantly impacted EVs’ slow market diffusion.

13
 Transportation

Table 6  Comparisons of results between experts and individuals in global weights

Dimension Factor Expert Individual t value
(p value)
Mean s.d. Weights s.d.

Burden of costs Burden of initial costs 0.079 0.090 0.069 0.077 0.675
(0.501)
Burden of operation costs 0.028 0.034 0.038 0.052 − 1.243
(0.216)
Burden of battery costs 0.045 0.043 0.096 0.123 − 3.037**
(0.003)
Insufficient vehicle compe- Insufficient performance 0.065 0.080 0.080 0.098 − 0.991
tences (0.323)
Concern about safety 0.020 0.018 0.046 0.072 − 2.663**
(0.009)
Lack of models 0.044 0.046 0.031 0.040 1.880
(0.062)
Charging concerns Lack of charging infrastruc- 0.231 0.153 0.153 0.133 3.261**
tures (0.001)
Long charging time 0.089 0.070 0.071 0.076 1.483
(0.140)
Limited driving range 0.117 0.103 0.100 0.101 0.949
(0.344)
Insufficient policies Insufficient financial incen- 0.061 0.067 0.086 0.096 − 1.708
tives (0.090)
Lack of non-financial sup- 0.064 0.092 0.046 0.057 1.481
ports (0.141)
Inefficient industrial policies 0.036 0.046 0.034 0.044 0.263
(0.793)
Lack of perceptions Lack of individual awareness 0.043 0.068 0.049 0.078 − 0.412
(0.681)
Lack of social empathy 0.044 0.056 0.062 0.080 − 1.549
(0.124)
Low willingness of automak- 0.034 0.062 0.040 0.065 − 0.534
ers (0.594)

s.d. standard deviation

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

Table  6 also shows the comparisons of the analysis results between the expert and
individual opinions, by performing ANOVA on the global weights for all factors. First,
the perception differences on most of the factors between the experts and the individuals
were not statistically significant in the global weights. Second, experts recognized lack
of charging infrastructures as having a higher proportion than individuals did. Third, in
contrast to the expert group, the individuals perceived burden of battery costs and con-
cern about safety as relatively high barriers.
Figures 2 and 3 show the local and global weights of the constructs derived through
the AHP on the causes of the slow diffusion of EVs by experts and individuals, which
we analyzed and described above. In these figures, the shaded highlight shows dimen-
sions with a global weight greater than or equal to 0.20 and factors with a local weight
of greater than or equal to 0.05.

13
Transportation

Fig. 2  The AHP analysis results of the experts

Fig. 3  The AHP analysis results of the individuals

In sum, charging concerns were recognized as the biggest obstacle to EV diffusion

in all the groups. The individuals also perceived the burden of costs as a major obsta-
cle. In the detailed factors of both groups, charging concerns, burden of initial costs,
insufficient performance, and insufficient financial incentives accounted for the upper
ranked factors as barriers. While, for experts, lack of non-financial supports, burden
of battery costs, and lack of social empathy were ranked as factors having somewhat
higher weights.

13
 Transportation

Discussions and implications

Discussions

This study investigates the determinants of EVs’ slow market diffusion in Korea from a
socio-technical perspective, including technological issues, polices, and perceptions. We
identify and prioritize the dimensions and factors according to their relevance and impor-
tance using data collected from interviews and surveys targeting experts in the EV sector
and individuals with driver’s licenses. Adopting the AHP method, this study clearly grasps
the hierarchical structure of the barriers to EV diffusion, and the relative weighting and
ranking of each barrier.
We also analyzed the perception differences on the barriers between the experts and the
individuals, through the ANOVA methods. These findings deepen the understanding of the
social and technological factors that impede the diffusion of EVs, and provide practical
implications for critical and important challenges to promote the EV market. Detailed dis-
cussions based on our results are suggested as follows:
First, charging concerns are a core dimension with the highest impact on low EV diffu-
sion compared to other dimensions; these include lack of charging infrastructures, a limited
driving range, and long charging time. Most previous studies also have identified charging
concerns as critical factors for EV diffusion (Bakker and Trip 2013; Egbue and Long 2012;
Franke et al. 2012; Haddadian et al. 2015; Hidrue et al. 2011; Javid and Nejat 2017; Zhang
et al. 2016). In detail, both experts and individuals selected lack of charging infrastructures
(1st ranked among the factors) as the biggest impediment to the spread of EVs in Korea.
Limited driving range (2nd ranked) was identified as very powerful barriers, following lack
of charging infrastructures. It may be explained that the situation of insufficient charging
equipment in Korea and the continuous improvement in the driving ranges have resulted in
this ranking.
Second, burden of costs required to purchase and operate EVs has a relatively high
impact on driving individuals. Such results are highly consistent with previous studies that
identify ownership (Adepetu and Keshav 2017; Egbue and Long 2012; Haddadian et  al.
2015; Zhang et al. 2016), electricity fees (Haddadian et al. 2015; Jensen et al. 2013), and
battery maintenance costs (Jensen et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2011). Careful analysis is neces-
sary to determine whether the burden of battery costs has a relatively higher influence than
the burdens of initial purchase cost or fuel cost on the general public’s low EV adoption.
Third, EVs’ low competence is a somewhat sensitive topic for driving individuals; pre-
vious studies confirm these results regarding vehicle performance (Egbue and Long 2012;
Schuitema et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2016), vehicle safety (Haddadian et al. 2015), and vehi-
cle models (Zhang et  al. 2011). Individuals especially indicated relatively high concern
regarding vehicles’ low performance and safety, compared to lack of models. Improving
performance and safety and expanding vehicle models relate to consumers’ choice of EVs,
and are likely to become key factors in the EV market’s expansion.
Fourth, individuals and experts highly perceive the dimension of government policies,
and specifically, the relative influence of insufficient financial incentives and lack of non-
financial supports on the low diffusion of EVs. These results are compatible with previous
studies on the roles of government policies (Bjerkan et  al. 2016; Sierzchula et  al. 2014;
Zhang et al., 2011; Zubaryeva et al. 2012). Previous studies have also confirmed the impact
of industrial policies, including research and development, charging equipment standardi-
zation (Bakker and Trip 2013; Haddadian et al. 2015; Steinhilber et al. 2013); however, this

13
Transportation

factor exhibits low influence in our study. We interpret these as industrial policies could
play a more substantial role in a market or industry formation than in market diffusion.
Fifth, previous studies have identified the role of perceptions, including personal per-
ception (Beck et al. 2017; Mohamed et al. 2016; Noppers et al. 2014; Zhang et al. 2013),
social awareness (Carley et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2011), and automakers’ willingness (Mat-
thews et al. 2017; Silvia and Krause 2016). Although low, the influence of a lack of per-
ceptions on low EV diffusion is also partially confirmed, with a focus on social empathy
regarding EVs’ eco-friendliness or economic benefits.
Finally, unlike previous studies (e.g., Egbue and Long 2012; Haddadian et al. 2015; She
et al. 2017; Steinhilber et al. 2013), which identified the barriers to EV market diffusion
based on public awareness, this study focuses on the difference of recognition between
the two groups of experts and individuals. We found that there are some differences in
obstacles perceived by the experts and the individuals. Comparing the perceptions of these
groups is likely to contribute to identifying the drivers and barriers of the diffusion of inno-
vative products and services, including the transportation sector.

Implications

We will suggest several implications for EVs’ successful and effective diffusion, both in
Korea and worldwide, based on these findings:
First, the most important factor impeding EVs’ market growth involves charging con-
cerns over all other factors. Thus, resolving consumers’ charging concerns is the most
urgent and crucial task for EVs’ market success. Many countries have expanded their
charging infrastructures, and companies are investing in technology development to
improve charging performance, but consumers still have concerns. In particular, by the end
of 2016, the number of publicly accessible slow and quick chargers per million population
of Korea was only 34.7, which is much lower than that in China (102.4), Japan (183.1),
Norway (1631.4), the Netherlands (479.8), and the United States (125.3) (International
Energy Agency 2017). In many countries, including Korea, where there is a lack of charg-
ing facilities, government direct investment and incentives for facilitating private invest-
ment should be strengthened in order to reduce the driver’s anxieties and inconvenience
caused by charging problems (Javid and Nejat 2017; Zubaryeva et al. 2012). Due to recent
technological advances, by the end of 2017, the mileage of EVs has increased to more than
300  km with a single charge. However, there are technical issues, such as differences in
driving ranges due to different driving patterns in city and long distance travel, and prob-
lems of battery size increase, that still need to be solved. Therefore, the issue of the expan-
sion of the driving range is not limited to the quantitative improvement of the distance; it is
necessary to increase the subjective satisfaction of the driver and simultaneously solve the
battery-related technical issues (Egbue and Long 2012; Haddadian et al. 2015; Silvia and
Krause 2016).
Second, consumers are sensitive to economic burdens, including ownership, operating,
and battery maintenance costs. Thus, it is necessary to enhance the cost–benefit effects in
changing from ICEVs to EVs, to decrease consumers’ resistance in terms of economy. In
particular, the results of this study show that Korean drivers face a relatively high burden
on battery replacement costs, compared with other financial costs. Therefore, the ecosys-
tem’s participants need to be actively involved in resolving business issues that can reduce
battery prices rather than technical issues that reduce battery life due to frequent rapid
charging. The price of a new EV is much higher than that of a conventional car, and the

13
 Transportation

central and municipal government subsidies for purchasing a new EV are assigned to a
quota, which result in a burden on Korean consumers to purchase EVs. As government
subsidies for the vehicle are gradually deceasing in many countries including Korea, it is
necessary to significantly reduce the vehicle price of EVs through economies of scale or
scope in vehicle manufacturing (Hagman et  al. 2016; Korea Ministry of Trade, Industry
and Energy 2015; Zhang et al. 2016).
Third, insufficient EVs’ competencies are factors that hinder the substitute purchase
from the existing car to the EV. As the EV’s inferior competencies result in consumer
choice, it is necessary to enhance new functions suitable for EVs while reducing the per-
formance and safety gaps with ICEVs.
Fourth, many major global countries, including Korea, are enacting various policies to
ensure EVs’ market success. Several countries have achieved visible results, and especially
in northern Europe. The Chinese government is focusing its policy resources and capabili-
ties on expanding EV through various financial incentives and strong regulatory measures
including operating rights regulation for ICEVs (Wang et al. 2017). The Korean govern-
ment agencies are also pursuing financial incentives, including subsidies and tax exemp-
tions; non-monetary support, including EV-only parking; and industrial policies, including
the standardization of charging devices (Korea Ministry of Environment 2017). Along with
these existing policies, stronger policy instruments need to be developed to strongly attract
automobile manufactures and consumers to EVs. These would include fuel efficiency regu-
lations, and prohibition of automobile sales of internal combustion engines; these are being
reviewed or enforced in many countries, including China and some European countries.
Fifth, it is necessary to expand social empathy to enhance consumers’ perceptions
of EVs, as a majority of related organizations, including nonprofit organizations, do not
actively spread EV use by building a social consensus, with the exception of some govern-
ment agencies in Korea. Therefore, active publicity and activities from governmental and
non-profit organizations are required to form social empathy regarding EVs (Carley et al.
2013; Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology 2016; Zhang et al. 2011).
Finally, in order for new eco-innovations to be successful in the market including EVs,
the strategies of technology-push, government-led incentives, and market-pull need to be
combined organically (Horbach et al. 2012). The findings of this study revealed that experts
and individuals have given different priorities to lack of non-financial supports, burden of
battery costs, and lack of social empathy as obstacles. In addition, these groups perceived
different relative proportions of lack of charging infrastructures, burden of battery costs,
and concern about vehicle safety. Experts perceived government policies as barriers, while
individuals stressed technological advances and social pressures. Therefore, in order to
facilitate rapid diffusion of EVs, technological differentiation and effective policy support
in terms of technology push and government-led incentives should be pursued simultane-
ously to increase social pressures and reduce cost burdens in terms of market pull.

Limitations and further studies

This study has significance in terms of identifying the causes that delay EV diffusion in
Korea from a socio-technical perspective. This study’s results are meaningful as they not
only enhance the theoretical basis to diffuse new technologies in the automobile industry,
but also present practical implications for EV diffusion. However, this study also has limi-
tations in the following aspects, which can provide directions for subsequent study:

13
Transportation

First, this study was limited to the EV market in Korea. A comparative study, conducted
with leading countries and resulting in rapid EV diffusion, is likely to be more systematic
in identifying the cause of EV diffusion’s success or failure. Second, we could not explore
the casual relationship among factors related to EVs’ low market diffusion. Subsequent
studies could effectively suggest more successful policies or marketing instruments, and
could use an analytic network process (ANP) or simulation techniques to link the causes
and consequences of the EV’s market outcomes. Finally, this study used a relatively small
sample size for analysis and the public group was limited to drivers with prior knowledge.
A further classification of the individuals into a group with expertise, a group with some
knowledge or recognition, and a group with little knowledge after acquiring more samples,
would help to deepen the understanding of the barriers. It would also be useful in both the-
oretical and practical implications to compare the perceptions of the experts divided into
EV engineers and non-engineers (such as EV marketing experts and policy related experts)
in subsequent studies.

Appendix: Questionnaire items and scales

Compare relatively important influence as the barriers (dimensions) to market diffu-

sion of EVs in Korea.

Burden of costs ⑨-⑧-⑦-⑥-⑤-④-③-②-①-②-③-④-⑥-⑦-⑧-⑨ Insufficient vehicle

competences
Burden of costs ⑨-⑧-⑦-⑥-⑤-④-③-②-①-②-③-④-⑥-⑦-⑧-⑨ Charging concerns
Burden of costs ⑨-⑧-⑦-⑥-⑤-④-③-②-①-②-③-④-⑥-⑦-⑧-⑨ Insufficient policies
Burden of costs ⑨-⑧-⑦-⑥-⑤-④-③-②-①-②-③-④-⑥-⑦-⑧-⑨ Lack of perceptions
Insufficient vehicle competences ⑨-⑧-⑦-⑥-⑤-④-③-②-①-②-③-④-⑥-⑦-⑧-⑨ Charging concerns
Insufficient vehicle competences ⑨-⑧-⑦-⑥-⑤-④-③-②-①-②-③-④-⑥-⑦-⑧-⑨ Insufficient policies
Insufficient vehicle competences ⑨-⑧-⑦-⑥-⑤-④-③-②-①-②-③-④-⑥-⑦-⑧-⑨ Lack of perceptions
Charging concerns ⑨-⑧-⑦-⑥-⑤-④-③-②-①-②-③-④-⑥-⑦-⑧-⑨ Insufficient policies
Charging concerns ⑨-⑧-⑦-⑥-⑤-④-③-②-①-②-③-④-⑥-⑦-⑧-⑨ Lack of perceptions
Insufficient policies ⑨-⑧-⑦-⑥-⑤-④-③-②-①-②-③-④-⑥-⑦-⑧-⑨ Lack of perceptions

Compare relatively important influence as the barriers (factors) to market diffu-

sion of EVs in Korea.
In terms of burden of costs

Burden of initial costs ⑨-⑧-⑦-⑥-⑤-④-③-②-①-②-③-④-⑥-⑦-⑧-⑨ Burden of operation costs

Burden of initial costs ⑨-⑧-⑦-⑥-⑤-④-③-②-①-②-③-④-⑥-⑦-⑧-⑨ Burden of battery costs
Burden of operation costs ⑨-⑧-⑦-⑥-⑤-④-③-②-①-②-③-④-⑥-⑦-⑧-⑨ Burden of battery costs

In terms of insufficient vehicle competences

Insufficient performance ⑨-⑧-⑦-⑥-⑤-④-③-②-①-②-③-④-⑥-⑦-⑧-⑨ Concern about safety

Insufficient performance ⑨-⑧-⑦-⑥-⑤-④-③-②-①-②-③-④-⑥-⑦-⑧-⑨ Lack of models
Concern about safety ⑨-⑧-⑦-⑥-⑤-④-③-②-①-②-③-④-⑥-⑦-⑧-⑨ Lack of models

13
 Transportation

In terms of charging concerns

Lack of charging infrastructures ⑨-⑧-⑦-⑥-⑤-④-③-②-①-②-③-④-⑥-⑦-⑧-⑨ Long charging time

Lack of charging infrastructures ⑨-⑧-⑦-⑥-⑤-④-③-②-①-②-③-④-⑥-⑦-⑧-⑨ Limited driving range
Long charging time ⑨-⑧-⑦-⑥-⑤-④-③-②-①-②-③-④-⑥-⑦-⑧-⑨ Limited driving range

In terms of insufficient policies

Insufficient financial incentives ⑨-⑧-⑦-⑥-⑤-④-③-②-①-②-③-④-⑥-⑦-⑧-⑨ Lack of non-financial supports

Insufficient financial incentives ⑨-⑧-⑦-⑥-⑤-④-③-②-①-②-③-④-⑥-⑦-⑧-⑨ Inefficient industrial policies
Lack of non-financial supports ⑨-⑧-⑦-⑥-⑤-④-③-②-①-②-③-④-⑥-⑦-⑧-⑨ Inefficient industrial policies

In terms of lack of perceptions

Lack of individual awareness ⑨-⑧-⑦-⑥-⑤-④-③-②-①-②-③-④-⑥-⑦-⑧-⑨ Lack of social empathy

Lack of individual awareness ⑨-⑧-⑦-⑥-⑤-④-③-②-①-②-③-④-⑥-⑦-⑧-⑨ Low willingness of automakers
Lack of social empathy ⑨-⑧-⑦-⑥-⑤-④-③-②-①-②-③-④-⑥-⑦-⑧-⑨ Low willingness of automakers

In the above questionnaire, the scale from ① to ⑨ means the following.

① Equally important
② Equally to moderately important
③ Moderately important
④ Moderately to strongly important
⑤ Strongly important
⑥ Strongly to very strongly important
⑦ Very strongly important
⑧ Very strongly to extremely important
⑨ Extremely important

Explanation on factors in questionnaire

Dimension/factor Explanation

Burden of costs Burden of initial costs Burden of ownership costs including

vehicle price and purchasing taxes
Burden of operation costs Burden of operation costs including
electricity costs
Burden of battery costs Burden of battery changing and main-
taining costs
Insufficient vehicle competences Insufficient performance Concerns about poor vehicle perfor-
mance including top speed or vehicle
output
Concern about safety Concerns about poor safety, including
vehicle fire or breakdown
Lack of models Lack of selectable vehicle types or
models

13
Transportation

Dimension/factor Explanation

Charging concerns Lack of charging infrastructures Lack of availability of charging points

Insufficient policies
Lack of perceptions
or stations
Long charging time
Limited driving range
Insufficient financial incentives
Lack of non-financial supports
Inefficient industrial policies
Lack of individual awareness
Lack of social empathy
Low willingness of automakers
Long time required to recharging
including quick or normal charging
A lack of driving range per one-
charging
Insufficient government support
through financial incentives includ-
ing subsidies, tax exemptions
Lack of government’s non-financial
supports including bus lane access
and exemption from road tolling
Inefficient government’s policies of
industrial promotion including stand-
ardization, fuel economy policies,
and regulatory
Lack of individual awareness on the
benefits and risks of EVs
Lack of social empathy on eco-friendly
and economic benefits
Low willingness of automakers on
investment, sales promotion, and
advertising on EVs

References
Adepetu, A., Keshav, S.: The relative importance of price and driving range on electric vehicle adoption:
Los Angeles case study. Transportation 44(2), 353–373 (2017)
Bakker, S., Trip, J.J.: Policy options to support the adoption of electric vehicles in the urban environment.
Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 25, 18–23 (2013)
Beck, M.J., Rose, J.M., Greaves, S.P.: I can’t believe your attitude: a joint estimation of best worst attitudes
and electric vehicle choice. Transportation 44(4), 753–772 (2017)
Bjerkan, K.Y., Nørbech, T.E., Nordtømme, M.E.: Incentives for promoting battery electric vehicle (BEV)
adoption in Norway. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 43, 169–180 (2016)
Brudermann, T., Mitterhuber, C., Posch, A.: Agricultural biogas plants-a systematic analysis of strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Energy Policy 76, 107–111 (2015)
Brunelli, M.: Introduction to the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Springer, Berlin (2014)
Carley, S., Krause, R.M., Lane, B.W., Graham, J.D.: Intent to purchase a plug-in electric vehicle: a survey of
early impressions in large US cites. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 18, 39–45 (2013)
Central Intelligence Agency.: The World Fact Book. https​://www.cia.gov/libra​ry/publi​catio​ns/the-world​
-factb​ook/ranko​rder/2119r​ank.html (2016). Accessed 1 May 2017
Chan, C.C., Wong, Y.S.: Electric vehicles charge forward. IEEE Power Energy Mag. 2(6), 24–33 (2004)
Chen, M.K., Wang, S.C.: The critical factors of success for information service industry in developing inter-
national market: using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Exp. Syst. Appl. 37(1), 694–704
(2010)
Downey, M.: Selection and adoption of low and zero carbon technologies in social housing: a socio-techni-
cal network approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of Reading. (2014)
Egbue, O., Long, S.: Barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles: an analysis of consumer attitudes
and perceptions. Energy Policy 48, 717–729 (2012)
Farid, S., Ahmad, R., Niaz, I.A., Arif, M., Shamshirband, S., Khattak, M.D.: Identification and prioritiza-
tion of critical issues for the promotion of e-learning in Pakistan. Comput. Hum. Behav. 51, 161–171
(2015)

13
 Transportation

Forman, E., Peniwati, K.: Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy pro-
cess. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 108(1), 165–169 (1998)
Franke, T., Neumann, I., Bühler, F., Cocron, P., Krems, J.F.: Experiencing range in an electric vehicle:
understanding psychological barriers. Appl. Psychol. 61(3), 368–391 (2012)
Haddadian, G., Khodayar, M., Shahidehpour, M.: Accelerating the global adoption of electric vehicles: bar-
riers and drivers. Electr. J. 28(10), 53–68 (2015)
Hagman, J., Ritzén, S., Stier, J.J., Susilo, Y.: Total cost of ownership and its potential implications for bat-
tery electric vehicle diffusion. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 18, 11–17 (2016)
Hidrue, M.K., Parsons, G.R., Kempton, W., Gardner, M.P.: Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and their
attributes. Resour. Energy Econ. 33(3), 686–705 (2011)
Horbach, J., Rammer, C., Rennings, K.: Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental impact:
the role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull. Ecol. Econ. 78, 112–122 (2012)
International Energy Agency.: Global EV Outlook 2016: beyond one million electric cars. https​://www.iea.
org/publi​catio​ns/freep​ublic​ation​s/publi​catio​n/Globa​l_EV_Outlo​ok_2016.pdf (2016). Accessed 2 Feb
2017
International Energy Agency.: Global EV Outlook 2017: beyond one million electric cars. https​://www.iea.
org/publi​catio​ns/freep​ublic​ation​s/publi​catio​n/Globa​lEVOu​tlook​2017.pdf (2017). Accessed 15 Dec
2017
International Energy Agency.: Key Trends in ­CO2 Emissions. http://www.iea.org/stati​stics​/topic​s/CO2em​
issio​ns/ (2015). Accessed 1 Mar 2017
Javid, R.J., Nejat, A.: A comprehensive model of regional electric vehicle adoption and penetration. Transp.
Policy 54, 30–42 (2017)
Jensen, A.F., Cherchi, E., Mabit, S.L.: On the stability of preferences and attitudes before and after experi-
encing an electric vehicle. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 25, 24–32 (2013)
Khaligh, A., Li, Z.: Battery, ultracapacitor, fuel cell, and hybrid energy storage systems for electric, hybrid
electric, fuel cell, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles: state of the art. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.
59(6), 2806–2814 (2010)
Korea Energy Economics Institute.: The Influence of Dissemination of Electric Vehicles on Korea’s Energy
Supply and Demand. (2012). (in Korean)
Korea Environment Institute.: The Effects of Green Vehicle Incentives on Greenhouse Gas Reduction.
(2015). (in Korean)
Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology.: The Trends of Market, Technology and Policy of Elec-
tric Vehicle. (2016). (in Korean)
Korea Ministry of Environment.: The Project for Dissemination of Electric Vehicles in 2017. (2017). (in
Korean)
Korea Ministry of Environment.: The Standards of Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission and Fuel Economy in
2016–2020. (2014). (in Korean)
Korea Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy.: The Research on Building the Ecosystem for Fostering New
Industry of Electric Vehicles. (2015). (in Korean)
Korea National Statistical Office.: National Statistics Index. http://www.index​.go.kr/potal​/main/EachD​tlPag​
eDeta​il.do?idx_cd=1257 (2016). Accessed 12 Nov 2016 (in Korean)
Li, W., Long, R., Chen, H., Geng, J.: A review of factors influencing consumer intentions to adopt battery
electric vehicles. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 78, 318–328 (2017)
Lieven, T.: Policy measures to promote electric mobility–a global perspective. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy
Pract. 82, 78–93 (2015)
LMC Automotive.: Automotive Production and Sales Forecast. http://www.lmc-auto.com/servi​ces/globa​
l-light​-vehic​le-sales​-forec​ast/conte​nt-deliv​erabl​es (2016). Accessed 1 May 2017
Matthews, L., Lynes, J., Riemer, M., Del Matto, T., Cloet, N.: Do we have a car for you? Encouraging the
uptake of electric vehicles at point of sale. Energy Policy 100, 79–88 (2017)
Mohamed, M., Higgins, C., Ferguson, M., Kanaroglou, P.: Identifying and characterizing potential electric
vehicle adopters in Canada: a two-stage modelling approach. Transp. Policy 52, 100–112 (2016)
Nikou, S., Mezei, J.: Evaluation of mobile services and substantial adoption factors with analytic hierarchy
process (AHP). Telecommun. Policy 37(10), 915–929 (2013)
Noppers, E.H., Keizer, K., Bolderdijk, J.W., Steg, L.: The adoption of sustainable innovations: driven by
symbolic and environmental motives. Glob. Environ. Change 25, 52–62 (2014)
Park, J.H., Kim, Y.B., Kim, M.K.: Investigating factors influencing the market success or failure of IT
services in Korea. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 37(1), 1418–1427 (2017)
Quezada, G., Walton, A., Sharma, A.: Risks and tensions in water industry innovation: understanding
adoption of decentralized water systems from a socio-technical transitions perspective. J. Clean.
Prod. 113, 263–273 (2016)

13
Transportation

Rezvani, Z., Jansson, J., Bodin, J.: Advances in consumer electric vehicle adoption research: a review
and research agenda. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 34, 122–136 (2015)
Ryu, J., Leschine, T.M., Nam, J., Chang, W.K., Dyson, K.: A resilience-based approach for comparing
expert preferences across two large-scale coastal management programs. J. Environ. Manag. 92(1),
92–101 (2011)
Saaty, T.L.: Decision making-the analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHP/ANP). J. Syst. Sci.
Syst. Eng. 13(1), 1–35 (2004)
Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting. Resource Allocation. RWS Pub-
lications, Pittsburgh (1990)
Saaty, T.L., Kearns, K.: Analytical Planning: The Organization of Systems. Pergamon Press, Oxford
(1985)
Sawyer, S., Allen, J.P., Lee, H.: Broadband and mobile opportunities: a socio-technical perspective. J.
Inf. Technol. 18(2), 121–136 (2003)
Schuitema, G., Anable, J., Skippon, S., Kinnear, N.: The role of instrumental, hedonic and symbolic attrib-
utes in the intention to adopt electric vehicles. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 48, 39–49 (2013)
She, Z.Y., Sun, Q., Ma, J.J., Xie, B.C.: What are the barriers to widespread adoption of battery electric
vehicles? A survey of public perception in Tianjin, China. Transp. Policy 56, 29–40 (2017)
Shin, D.: A socio-technical framework for Internet-of-Things design: a human-centered design for the
internet of things. Telemat. Inform. 31(4), 519–531 (2014)
Shin, D.H., Jung, J.: Socio-technical analysis of Korea’s broadband convergence network: big plans, big
projects, big prospects? Telecommun. Policy 36(7), 579–593 (2012)
Sierzchula, W., Bakker, S., Maat, K., van Wee, B.: The influence of financial incentives and other socio-
economic factors on electric vehicle adoption. Energy Policy 68, 183–194 (2014)
Silvia, C., Krause, R.M.: Assessing the impact of policy interventions on the adoption of plug-in electric
vehicles: an agent-based model. Energy Policy 96, 105–118 (2016)
Steinhilber, S., Wells, P., Thankappan, S.: Socio-technical inertia: understanding the barriers to electric
vehicles. Energy Policy 60, 531–539 (2013)
Tai, Y.Y., Lin, J.Y., Chen, M.S., Lin, M.C.: A grey decision and prediction model for investment in the core
competitiveness of product development. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 78(7), 1254–1267 (2011)
United Nations Environment Program.: Climate Commitments of Subnational Actors and Business.
http://www.cop21​paris​.org/about​/cop21​ (2015). Accessed 12 Nov 2016
United States Environmental Protection Agency. All-Electric Vehicles. http://www.fuele​conom​y.gov/
feg/evtec​h.shtml​#end-notes​ (2016). Accessed 1 July 2017
Vaidya, O.S., Kumar, S.: Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
169(1), 1–29 (2006)
Wang, N., Pan, H., Zheng, W.: Assessment of the incentives on electric vehicle promotion in China.
Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 101, 177–189 (2017)
Wedley, W.C.: Consistency prediction for incomplete AHP matrices. Math. Comput. Model. 17(4–5),
151–161 (1993)
Yu, E., Hong, A., Hwang, J.: A socio-technical analysis of factors affecting the adoption of smart TV in
Korea. Comput. Hum. Behav. 61, 89–102 (2016)
Yun, S., Lee, J.: Advancing societal readiness toward renewable energy system adoption with a socio-
technical perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 95, 170–181 (2015)
Zhang, X., Wang, K., Hao, Y., Fan, J.L., Wei, Y.M.: The impact of government policy on preference for
NEVs: the evidence from China. Energy Policy 61, 382–393 (2013)
Zhang, Y., Qian, Z.S., Sprei, F., Li, B.: The impact of car specifications, prices and incentives for bat-
tery electric vehicles in Norway: choices of heterogeneous consumers. Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg.
Technol. 69, 386–401 (2016)
Zhang, Y., Yu, Y., Zou, B.: Analyzing public awareness and acceptance of alternative fuel vehicles in
China: the case of EV. Energy Policy 39(11), 7015–7024 (2011)
Zubaryeva, A., Thiel, C., Barbone, E., Mercier, A.: Assessing factors for the identification of potential
lead markets for electrified vehicles in Europe: expert opinion elicitation. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change 79(9), 1622–1637 (2012)

Moon‑Koo Kim  is a principal researcher in Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI),
Korea. He received his B.A. degree in Business Administration from Yonsei University, Korea and his M.A.
degree in Management from KAIST, Korea. He is mainly interested in IT management, innovation strat-
egies and big data analytics. His articles have appeared in Computers in Human Behavior, Energy, and

13
 Transportation

International Journal of Technology Management as well as many SCI/SSCI-indexed Journals. His paper
published in Telecommunications Policy is honored as the most-cited paper in the journal.

Jong‑Hyun Park  is a principal researcher in Electronic and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI),
Korea. He received his Ph.D. in Management of Technology from SungKyunKwan University. He received
his M.A. degree in IT Business from Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) and
B.A. degree in Economics from Korea University. He is mainly interested in the management of technol-
ogy, IT consumer behavior, marketing and innovation strategies, and big data analytics. His articles have
appeared in International Journal of Information Management, International Journal of Technology Man-
agement, Energy, and Computers in Human Behavior as well as many SCI/SSCI-indexed Journals.

Kyungsoo Kim  received his Ph.D. and M.S. in Energy and Mineral Engineering from Pennsylvania State
University. He holds a M.S. in Innovation and Technology Management from Korea Advanced Institute of
Science and Technology and a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Kyung Hee University, South Korea. He
worked at Samsung Electronics and LG Chemical as a research scientist and R&D manager. His research
interests are in R&D and innovation strategies, and entrepreneurship.

Byoungkyu Park  is a senior researcher in SK innovation Co., Ltd. He received his B.A. degree in Electronic
Engineering from Kyungpook National University, Korea and his M.A. degree in Innovation and Technol-
ogy Management from KAIST, Korea. He worked as a developer of Instrument Cluster in Siemens and
Continental AG for 4 years. He has been working as a researcher of Battery Management System (BMS) in
the electric vehicle field for more than 7 years. He is mainly interested in innovation strategies and manage-
ment as well as electronic technologies of electric vehicles.

Affiliations

Moon‑Koo Kim1,2 · Jong‑Hyun Park2 · Kyungsoo Kim1 · Byoungkyu Park3

Moon‑Koo Kim
wisemkkim@kaist.ac.kr
Kyungsoo Kim
albertkim@kaist.ac.kr
Byoungkyu Park
pbk12345@kaist.ac.kr
1
Graduate School of Innovation and Technology Management, Korea Advanced Institute of Science
and Technology (KAIST), 291 Daehak‑ro, Yuseong‑gu, Daejeon 34141, Republic of Korea
2
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), 218 Gajeong‑ro, Yuseong‑gu,
Daejeon 34129, Republic of Korea
3
Battery System Development Team, SK Innovation, 325 Expo‑ro, Yuseong‑gu, Daejeon 34124,
Republic of Korea

13