Next Article in Journal
Agrobiodiversity-Oriented Food Systems between Public Policies and Private Action: A Socio-Ecological Model for Sustainable Territorial Development
Next Article in Special Issue
Did Electric Vehicle Sales Skyrocket Due to Increased Environmental Awareness While Total Vehicle Sales Declined during COVID-19?
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring Public Recognition and Perceived Cultural Value of the Special Qualities within English Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 21
10.3390/su132112177
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Consumer Motivation by Using Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology towards Electric Vehicles

by
Haider Ali Abbasi
1,*,
Satirenjit Kaur Johl
1,
Zullina Bt Hussain Shaari
1,
Wajiha Moughal
1,
Muhammad Mazhar
1,
Muhammad Ali Musarat
2,
Waqas Rafiq
2,3,
Asaad Salam Farooqi
4 and
Alexey Borovkov
5
1
Department of Management & Humanities, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar 32610, Malaysia
2
Department of Civil and Environment Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar 32610, Malaysia
3
Department of Civil Engineering, COMSATS University Islamabad, Wah Cantt 47040, Pakistan
4
Dongwu Business School, Soochow University, Suzhou 215006, China
5
Institute for Advanced Manufacturing Technologies, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, 195291 St. Petersburg, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(21), 12177; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112177
Submission received: 20 September 2021 / Revised: 18 October 2021 / Accepted: 22 October 2021 / Published: 4 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Electric Mobility, Sustainability, Smart Cities, Green Policies and Electric Vehicles Adoption)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The transport sector is the leading source of growing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions globally. To consider environmental degradation aspects due to transport, electric vehicles (EVs) have the prospect to lead road transport to electric mobility from conventional petroleum vehicles. Despite various eco-friendly benefits, the EV market penetration ratio is very low, especially in developing countries. The primary reason for low penetration is consumer limited motivation and knowledge about the EVs features. This paper uses a unified theory of acceptance and technology (UTAUT) model to assess consumer motivation and environmental knowledge towards EVs. This research used convenience random sampling to collect data and analyzed the results using the Partial Least Squares (PLS) method on the example of 199 respondents from Malaysia. The study results revealed that factors identified in the motivational context significantly influence consumer intentions to purchase EVs. Perceived environmental knowledge and technophilia have been included in UTAUT from a motivational perspective. Furthermore, a significant relationship between effort expectancy, social influence, technophilia, perceived environmental knowledge, and purchase intention towards electric vehicles has been observed, without performance expectancy. The study findings serve to inform policymakers and automakers to formulate effective marketing strategies to enhance consumer motivation, knowledge, and value creation for EVs in a sustainable era. Ultimately, the policies will help to encourage consumers to buy eco-friendly vehicles that will help reduce transport carbon emissions and attain sustainable development goals (SDGs).

1. Introduction

Due to the rise of the world population and new economic power’s emergence (i.e., China, Russia, India, etc.), the consumption of fossil fuels has significantly increased. However, a considerable chunk of the world energy requirement is still fulfilled from fossil fuels comprising oil, coal, and natural gas [1]. The burning of fossil fuels from the transport and industry sector leads to a rampant surge of pollutants and GHGs emissions [2]. Business strategies have been actively developed to reduce environmental pollution from a consumer perspective by using eco-friendly products to counter this carbon emission issue [3]. Due to the current adverse global ecological situation, the quest for reducing the release of GHGs into the atmosphere is a primary concern.
Asian countries’ transport sector has accounted for a substantial share in transport carbon emissions. Therefore, worldwide organizations have been given significant consideration to reduce the consumer usage of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and adopt sustainable vehicles to reduce the ratio of transport carbon emissions [4]. In developing countries globally, Malaysia ranks 24th in carbon emission [5], and the transport sector accounted for 36.4%, the largest energy consumer in 2020 [6]. In Malaysia, combustion engine vehicle ownership among consumers is relatively high in percentage, almost 89.7% [7], and third largest globally, with a ratio of 93% [8]. Malaysia’s rising carbon emission ratio is expected to worsen if efficient and sustainable vehicle usage is not enhanced. The consumer should be encouraged to switch towards electric vehicles (EVs) [9] to curb the transport GHG emission. Electric vehicles are vital in enhancing future transport due to their efficacy in reducing carbons emissions, air pollution, and transport noise [10]. However, the EV market saturation has yet to be effective in enhancing consumer awareness in developing countries.
With the mounting pressure for the usage of eco-friendly vehicles, EVs are considered the finest possible solution in reducing transport emissions globally. As in the Paris 2015 agreement, the Secretary-General also focused on climate change and set strict goals to reduce carbon emission by 45% by 2030 and net-zero by 2050 [11]. As part of the global community, Malaysia is also combating reducing GHG emissions and setting the Green Tech Master Plan 2030 [12] and Malaysia Progressive 2050 [13] of being sustainable and reducing carbon emissions, which can be possible by promoting EV sales and consumer adoption. Different studies discussed adoption and consumer behavior towards EVs in Malaysia, but EV adoption has not been successful and is limited. Multiple dimensions of electric vehicles across countries have been identified and include business models [12,13,14], charging infrastructures [15,16], policies and other incentives [17,18,19], among others. Other review studies focused on aspects of electric vehicles’ adoption, for instance, Biresselioglu, et al. [20], Hardman, et al. [21], Rezvani, et al. [22], respectively, explored the starring role of the nonfinancial and reoccurring incentives in EVs adoption, the EV adoption barriers, and drivers based on theoretical perspectives.
The automobile industry is showing great interest in adopting eco-friendly behavior, and the leading world automobile companies are striving to adopt new technologies for electric cars. The supply of EVs is already available in the Malaysian market, but consumer adoption is very low. The demand for purchasing these vehicles is down due to several reasons, such as high purchase costs, range limitations, vehicle charging time, uncertain infrastructure, etc. [23,24,25,26]. Furthermore, another reason for consumers not finding alternative models of these vehicles is also a drawback [27]. Relatively ample empirical evidence about EV adoption factors and advantages are widely known, but still, the consumer adoption of electric vehicles is very low [22,25,28,29].
In developing countries, introducing innovative technology requires consumer awareness, acceptance, and financial support [30]. The sale of EVs has not been escalating despite its ecological benefits. Government agencies’ support and funding policies are required to penetrate EVs into the market successfully [31]. The government should prioritize developing effective strategies to green the transport sector and the economy. The electrification of vehicles is the key solution to cut and decarbonize transport emissions and improve air quality. However, the question remains unanswered why the demand and acceptance for electric vehicles are still limited. The existing literature unheeded the heterogeneous attributes of the low consumer adoption issue. This study argues that consumer awareness and motivation are crucial in triggering behavior towards it. When individuals are more conscious about the features of EVs, their interest to explore more will be developed. Through awareness, consumer behavior can be triggered towards new vehicle technology. Usually, automakers face challenges in enhancing consumer motivation towards new technology products [32], as individuals are usually skeptical about adopting a new product. The low consumer ratio of EV adoption has posed new challenges for the policies makers and suppliers to develop effective strategies.
For this purpose, this study explored the issue with the help of factors, such as consumer knowledge and awareness of electric vehicles features. Moreover, the EVs’ supply has been pushed into the Malaysian market, and it requires knowledge and awareness among consumers to make it acceptable, as the consumer knowledge and awareness related to electric vehicles have not been explored. Driven by the desire for consumer awareness, the researcher explored the factors that motivate and influence consumer knowledge about EV features in this study. Specifically, this study is based upon the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) by Venkatesh, et al. [33] as an underlying framework to explore the effects of performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence, and adding two constructs, technophilia and perceived environmental knowledge on purchase intention. Perceived environmental knowledge has been rarely discussed in EVs perspectives; however, it has been neglected in the consumer motivational views.
This study employed SmartPLS to confirm the hypothesis and for analysis. Based on this study’s findings, the implications and suggestions are prepared, which can be helpful for the automakers and policymakers to develop efficient strategies to promote EVs among consumers. In addition, policymakers can apply these research-identified UTAUT factors to enhance consumer motivations and knowledge towards EVs, which will be helpful to reduce transport carbon emission and attain Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
The motivation for this research is: Most of the work in the literature investigates the consumer adoption of EVs [28,29,31,34,35,36], barriers in adoption of EVs [25,34,37,38,39], and other issues related to EVs (carbon emission policies, fast charging infrastructure, perceived values, tax rebate policies, etc.) [23,27,40,41,42,43,44,45,46]. However, the literature lacks studies about consumer motivation related to electric vehicles. Consumer intentions towards EVs can be enhanced with the motivational and awareness technique, as consumers are observed with very limited knowledge about electric vehicle features in this study.
The inspiration for studying EVs and consumer motivation is that literature neglects this issue. Moreover, the other reason for studying EVs is of four aspects, environmental (energy efficient and less harmful for ecological degradation), financial (it lowers the annual fuel cost compared to ICE vehicles), operational (comfort and innovative technology vehicle), social status (linked to social class and reputation), and last but not least is related to Sustainable Development Goals, which can help reduce the transport carbon emission by maximum adoption of EVs. For the mass deployment of EVs, consumer motivation and knowledge about the environment and EVs features is necessary. The supply of EVs is already available in the market, but consumer demand is very limited. This study proposes promotional strategies to enhance consumer motivation towards the purchase of EVs.

2. Literature Review

The researchers in the previous studies used several methods for motivation, such as the agent-based model [47], cohort estimation for vehicle survival [48], time series models, and the consumer choice model [49,50,51,52]. Consumer survey-based choice modeling is often used to understand the primary factors influencing and motivating consumer choices, price, comfort, fuel consumption, safety, reliability, and brand name [53]. The key identified factors in the studies are cost and the society that affects behavior [54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61]. A study on EVs by Sang and Bekhet [29] revealed that in Malaysia, such factors as performance, financial, social, demographic, environmental, infrastructure readiness, and government intervention are effective in motivating behavior. However, the actual purchase of EVs is much lower than the stated consumer’s preference in the surveys [62]. However, to evaluate consumer intention, this study used UTAUT, which is considered the most appropriate theory for consumer intention regarding technology acceptance. Where social media can actively participate in influencing consumer motivation towards the purchase of sustainable products.
UTAUT was earlier used by Yoo, et al. [63] in the context of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in promoting e-learning and was found significant in enhancing consumer motivations towards e-learning. Other researchers, Fagan, et al. [64], Teo, et al. [65], Amabile [66], used the theory towards motivation and found the model significant in influencing behavior towards the usage of technology. Inevitably, UTAUT has both benefits and limitations for research applications. The first advantage of UTAUT is its holistic approach in describing the underlying relationships among various psychological and social elements that may impact the adoption of information technology. The second aspect is the consistency of validity and reliability of collected data by the UTAUT model [67,68]. According to Van Raaij and Schepers [69], one of UTAUT’s limitations is that it is not parsimonious enough because it requires many variables to achieve a significant level of variance; and the UTAUT constructs social influence and facilitating condition may not be properly measured due to their complexity. Finally, considering the number of variables engaged in UTAUT, it is not cost-effective for firms to address all of them to enhance employee acceptance of e-learning. According to Lee et al. [70], research on technology acceptance should be based on employees’ extrinsic and intrinsic motives, which can help firms devise effective strategies to encourage e-learning among employees in the workplace. The following section examines the traditional UTAUT and its constructs used in this study.

2.1. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)

Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis [33] reviewed and conducted an empirical study by evaluating eight different models to assess the consumer intention related to technology acceptance. The UTAUT model has a 70% variance toward the intention. The eight models studied by these researchers were the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) [71,72], Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [71,73], Theory of Planned Behavior (TBP) [74], combined TAM and TPB [75], Model of PC Utilization (MPCU) [76], Motivation Model (MM) [77], Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) [78,79], and Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) [54]. Based on the systematic analysis of the models mentioned above, UTAUT was proposed [33], which plays a significant role in determining the acceptance and intention of the user. This model postulated four constructs as an element of behavioral intention are: (i) performance expectancy, (ii) effort expectancy, (iii) social influence, and (iv) facilitating conditions. This study expands the theory by considering variables that have not been examined earlier to examine motivation effectiveness. Variables incorporated in the study are fuel efficiency, technophilia, and perceived environmental knowledge.
The UTAUT theory has been used and extended by many researchers in the context of EVs adoption [80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90]. The adoption of EVs has been very limited, which is why the different researchers extended the UTAUT model to examine the factors which enhance the consumer behavior towards these sustainable vehicles. Karunanayake and Samarasinghe [87] analyzed the perceived risk with the extension of UTAUT towards the purchase intention of EVs. Khazaei and Tareq [83] examined the UTAUT theory with the moderating effect of personal innovativeness and driving experience towards EV adoption. Another study by Khazaei [88] extended the UTAUT model with personal innovativeness and price value to examine the consumer intention to use EVs. Sovacool [81] integrated UTAUT into a conceptual framework towards EV adoption and was found to be very effective in enhancing consumers to adopt of these vehicles. Riga [90] used the UTAUT theory to explain the consumer intention of EV purchase. Furthermore, the UTAUT theory was found pertinent in enhancing consumer adoption of sustainable vehicles. Khazaei and Khazaei [91] extended the UTUAT theory with the moderating effect of voluntariness of use and driving experience to examine consumer EV adoption factors. Kaye, et al. [92] investigated the acceptance of automated cars with the help of UTAUT and the Theory of Planned Behavior. UTAUT was also extended with trust in safety towards the EV behavioral intention and was found to be significant [80]. Several researchers used this theory to examine the consumer adoption intention towards EVs; however, UTAUT was not used in the context of motivational factors to influence consumer intention towards EVs. Consumer motivation towards EVs was very low, and to enhance consumer intentions, this study expanded UTAUT with perceived environmental knowledge to enhance consumer motivation towards EVs.

2.1.1. Performance Expectancy (PE)

PE is defined as “the extent to which users believe that using this system will help them to use innovative technologies in voluntary situations” [33,88,92]. This construct has been driven by perceived usefulness described in TRA and TAM. PE denotes the students’ beliefs regarding the use of m-learning to enhance their knowledge performance. Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis [33] explored that PE is a stronger determinant of users’ behavioral intention in using technology. While in new technology, a vehicles’ purchase intention, the degree to which it has been analyzed that the purchase of the EV will help better performance compared to conventional vehicles, needs to be analyzed [93]. In the literature, PE significantly affects purchasing innovative technology [33,82,94,95,96]. PE was also found significant in influencing consumer intentions in accepting cloud technology in Pakistan [94]. Tran, Zhao, Diop and Song [95] support that PE influences consumer intentions positively in electric vehicle sharing in China. Thus, the following hypothesis has been proposed.
Hypothesis 1.
The performance expectancy of consumers positively affects intentions to purchase EVs.

2.1.2. Effort Expectancy (EE)

EE is introduced in UTAUT and is a key predictor of technology acceptance. EE is referred to as a perceived degree of comfort and ease associated with using new technology [33]. The literature confirmed EE positive relevance in predicting consumer intentions [81,84,85,95]. Madigan, Louw, Dziennus, Graindorge, Ortega, Graindorge and Merat [85] confirmed that EE positively affects consumer acceptance of new road transport systems in European areas. EE positively influences consumer intention to use and the actual use of particular technology [97,98,99]. EE positively influences consumer adoption intention of cloud technology among Pakistanis [94]. In this study, EE refers to the consumer perception of ease of using innovative technology vehicles. By using innovative technology, vehicles will have no complications and will be effortless to use. Therefore, if vehicle users expect EVs to perform excellently, they will be more likely to accept and adopt them. It is expected that EE will positively impact consumer motivation to purchase EVs. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed.
Hypothesis 2.
The effort expectancy of consumers positively affects intentions to purchase EVs.

2.1.3. Social Influence (SI)

SI is the extent to which individuals perceive the significance of other beliefs regarding new technology usage [33]. Previous studies demonstrated that other society members, such as friends, relatives, and parents, usually influence people’s decisions [100,101]. SI is a significant factor affecting consumer intentions to purchase EVs in Malaysia [29]. Social media can be very effective in enhancing the consumers towards the specific product or brand [102], as the social media community was found to be significant in driving consumer intention towards the brands’ product [103]. A large role is played by social media in creating long-term relationships between the product and its customers [102], and social media was also found to be important in increasing customer loyalty to the brand [103]. Additionally, the SI positive relationship with intentions was also supported for accepting automated transport systems in European areas [85], and social media is an active player in developing robust relationships. Ali, Mehmood, Majeed, Muhammad, Khan, Song and Malik [94] also confirmed SI’s positive influence to adopt cloud technology in Pakistan. Therefore, this study assumed that SI would positively influence consumers towards the purchase of EVs. In this connection, the following hypothesis is suggested.
Hypothesis 3.
The social influence regarding the usage of EVs positively affects consumers intentions to purchase EVs.

2.1.4. Technophilia

Technophilia has been defined as a strong fascination and attractiveness for innovative technologies [104]. It is specifically related to consumer interest and openness towards new technology. According to Rogers [54], consumers are enthusiastic about adopting technophile’s innovative technology development early when the product is not commonly available on the market. Hirschman (1980) viewed new technology products as a wish to find something innovative and unique. Being tech-savvy and skeptical about innovative products inspires consumers to purchase [25]. Consumers are having EVs share their experience with others about new technology vehicles [105]. Technophilia is not only about emotions for innovations but also a motivation towards adopting innovative technology. A consumer seeking innovative technology is influenced by new products [106]. The efficient performance of the product is a core factor in the acceptance of innovative technology [33]. Consumers with a strong extent of innovativeness are very interested in adopting mobility innovations, such as EVs [107,108]. Blättel-Mink, et al. [109], Fazel [110] identified technophilia and intrinsic motivation as significantly impactful for consumer EV usage. The following hypothesis is proposed.
Hypothesis 4.
Technophilia regarding EV usage positively affects consumer purchase intention towards EVs.

2.1.5. Perceived Environmental Knowledge (PEK)

PEK is known as an individuals’ information about an ecosystem, environment, and the effects of human acts on the environment [111]. Environmental knowledge refers to the consumers and customers who have information and are aware of eco-friendly issues and their solutions [112]. Consumers nowadays are more concerned about choosing the product based on their information and knowledge [113]. Perceived environmental knowledge significantly enhances customer interest in purchasing environment-friendly products; hence, improved environmental knowledge also expands customer consumption patterns [114]. Through green marketing strategies, government agencies and companies need to develop consumer positivity towards environment-friendly products [115]. Effective marketing strategies can influence consumers’ environmental awareness and knowledge and encourage them to revise their lifestyle towards eco-friendly products. Info and knowledge about a specific product verifies how the consumer will perceive this product uniqueness [116] and what type of evidence is used in the product decision-making process. Therefore, environmental knowledge can be an effective driver of consumer behavior [117]. Chan, et al. [118] examined that employees’ having perceived environmental knowledge, awareness, and environmental concern positively influences consumer behavior. Mohr, et al. [119] utilized the scale of perceived environmental knowledge used widely. Having perceived environmental knowledge can be effective in encouraging consumers to purchase EVs.
Hypothesis 5.
Perceived environmental knowledge positively affects consumer purchase intention towards EVs.
This study developed the theoretical model and the hypothesis among the independent variables (IVs) and dependent variable (DV), shown in Figure 1.
The study’s theoretical model, in Figure 1, shows five IVs: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, technophilia, and perceived environmental knowledge; and the one DV is purchase intention. These IVs were taken in the context of consumer motivation to enhance consumers’ purchase intentions towards EVs.

3. Methods

3.1. Measurement of Constructs

The survey was conducted to evaluate the impact of the factors on purchase intention. The questionnaire measurement items selected (see Appendix A), explaining the purpose of the research, were sent through email. Among 500 contacted respondents, only 199 were valid. In this study, 8 scale items of performance expectancy, 6 items scale of effort expectancy, and 4 item scale of social influence identified by Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis [33] were used. The 8 item scale of technophilia was used that was identified by Haarmann, et al. [120], Zwick and Renn [121], Hüsing, et al. [122], Franken and Luley [123]. Furthermore, perceived environmental knowledge was measured by the 5-item scale identified by Ellen, et al. [124]. Moreover, the purchase intention scale with 5 items was identified by Ajzen [74], Dodds [125]. Minor modifications in scale items were made according to the research on consumer motivation, EVs, and purchase intentions. Items were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
Initially, a pilot study was conducted on 50 respondents and was pretested numerous times. The questionnaire also consists of significant demographic info (age, gender, race, and income). Then, the instrument was modified based on the pilot study results and then validated with practitioners, experts, and academicians. The primary purpose of validation was to ensure there was no issue in understanding and answering the questions and whether to keep the suggestions. The questions were modified based on the gathered feedback, and some were eliminated.

3.2. Data Collection

The questionnaire was delivered online by targeting high-income respondents in Malaysia. High-profile income groups were targeted as a respondent because the price of the vehicles is quite high. Three major income-based groups of Malaysia are: B40 (bottom 40%), M40 (middle 40%), and T20 (top 20%). These are further classified into 4 groups M1, M2, M3, M4, while T is grouped into T1 and T2). The target respondents of the study were those with having more income than MYR 9000, which lie in the groups M4, T1, and T2. The selection of high-income groups was based on the high cost of these vehicles. The sampling technique used in the study was convenience, which includes the respondent’s judgment to achieve the research’s objective [126].
The demographic attributes of respondents, identified in Table 1, are as follows: 123 (62%) males and 76 (38%) females were surveyed out of 199 respondents in the present field. All respondents were adults (18 above), where most respondents were found within the age groups of 40–49 (44.1%) and 30–39 (29.4%), respectively, followed by age groups 50–59 (16%), 18–29 (7%), and 60 years and above (3.4%). While (62.2%) 124 are Malay, (17%) 34 are Chinese, (14%) 28 are Indian, and (6.6%) 13 are from mixed races. Based on monthly income (33.4%), 67 respondents have an income of MYR 10,001–15,000, (21.07%) 42 have MYR 5001–10,000, (18%) 36 have MYR 15,001–20,000, (13.3%) 26 have MYR 5000 or below, (10.3%) 21 have MYR 20,001–25,000 and (3.6%) 7 respondents have MYR 25,001 and above. Therefore, such a sample profile indicates that respondents are mature and have a high-income profile, have a deeper understanding of under investigation topics [127], and are more likely to have sustainable behavior to purchase eco-friendly products.

3.3. Pretesting

Pretesting has been considered an effective way to prepare for actual data collection [128,129]. The specialized researchers in the field have pretested questionnaires to guarantee their correspondence to the structure. The purpose of pretesting is to revise the ambiguous questions and thus ensure the reliability of the study. In this research, 50 respondents were selected based on convenience heterogeneous sampling for the pretesting of questionnaires. Furthermore, its results show that all dimensions have Cronbach’s α in between 0.68 and 0.91, the values having greater than 0.65 means they will have good reliability [130,131]. The factor analysis has a value greater than 1 and factor loading greater than 0.6, and each factor and item correlation will be greater than 0.5; this convergent validity criterion was proposed by [132,133,134].

4. Results

4.1. Assessment of the Measurement Model

Partial Least Squares-based Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was used to conduct confirmatory factor analysis. According to Leung, Shi and Chow [134], Cheung, Pires, Rosenberger, Leung and Sharipudin [103], Koay, Ong, Khoo and Yeoh [133], the SmartPLS method was used due to this research’s nature of testing a hypothetical framework from a prediction perspective [133,134,135].
Construct reliability and validity can be assessed in three measures [136]. First, the factor loadings of all indicators, secondly Cronbach Alpha value, and finally average variance extracted (AVE), was measured [137]. The performance expectancy’s Cronbach alpha lies on an average level of validity and reliability on testing of 0.75. Cronbach’s alpha for effort expectancy reliability is 0.776. The construct technophilia Cronbach Alpha reliability is 0.756. The social influence scale Cronbach Alpha reliability is 0.770. The Cronbach Alpha reliability of perceived environmental knowledge is α = 0.853. The construct purchase intention scale Cronbach alpha value is 0.845. All the constructs’ values show that there is no issue in reliability as all the values are more than the recommended values.

Construct Reliability and Validity

Even though the original model included all scale elements, the model was tested, and objects with factor loading less than 0.60 were deleted [138]. The average variance extracted (AVE) for the constructs was greater than the critical value of 0.50 [136]. However, AVE values more than 0.40 would also be acceptable [139], where construct reliability and validity are listed in Table 2.
Cronbach Alpha (CA), rho A, and Composite Reliability (CR) values should be greater than the threshold value of 0.7. However, a Cronbach alpha greater than the recommended value of 0.6 is also acceptable [140]. All the CA, rho A, and CR values were more than 0.7, confirming that the reliability is achieved. AVE values greater than 0.40 is also an acceptable value [139], and all the values are more than 0.4, which means that the constructs fulfil the validity values. Thus, these values fulfil the condition of reliability and validity values.
Discriminant validity was evaluated using the Heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT) approach [141], which is believed to be the latest approach to use in discriminant validity analysis. Henseler, Ringle and Sarstedt [141] identified the acceptable HTMT ratio as below the 0.85 threshold value, which is the criterion for discriminant validity.
There are two approaches for assessing HTMT discriminant validity: (1) as criteria (2) as a statistical test. In the criteria approach, if the value of HTMT is more significant than 0.85 [142], or a value of 0.90 [143], it signifies the discriminant validity issue. The second criterion is to test the null hypothesis (H0: HTMT ≥ 1) against the alternative hypothesis (H1: HTMT < 1), if a confidence interval surpasses the value of 1, then there is an issue in discriminant validity [141]. All the values are less than 1, which means that there is no discriminant validity issue. Values less than 1 are all acceptable and valid to go for further analysis. In these values, there is no discriminant validity issue, and it can be seen in Table 3.

4.2. Assessment of Structural Model

The overall R2 value is 0.683, which means 68.3% of the cases predict the dependent variable, and the value of Q2 is 0.408, representing the 40.8% predictive relevance shown in Figure 2. After the satisfactory results of the measurement model, this study tested the hypothesis with the structural model assessment depicted in Figure 3. Statistical significance, T-value, and effect size of path coefficients were examined by bootstrapping 5000 samples [144].
In the meantime, to test the independent variables performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, technophilia, and perceived environmental knowledge impact on purchase intention, multiple regression has been used. The results demonstrated that except for performance expectancy, all independent variables substantially influence purchase intention.
The results suggested a model having 68.3% of explanatory capacity for consumer purchase intention with R2 = 0.683. Moreover, it discovered that the relationship between EE, SI, TEC, and PEK with purchase intention is substantial and positive. However, the relationship between PE and purchase intention is insignificant. A summarized overview of variables’ findings and hypotheses is listed in Table 4. The p-values show whether the hypothesis is supported or unsupported.
Based on the results, this study supports the applicability of motivational factors to enhance consumer purchase intentions towards EVs, as it has been observed that consumer knowledge is limited. Previous study findings related to Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis [33] UTAUT, in the adoption of different technology, was also significant [85,145,146,147,148,149,150] and was also found to be significant in enhancing consumer behavior. However, this study has proposed these factors in a motivational context as the consumer motivation and knowledge related to EVs features were limited. The provision of the UTAUT model was found effective in enhancing consumer intentions towards EVs. Except for the PE in this study, all the other factors’ values were significant.

5. Discussion

5.1. Hypothesis Relationship

The total number of developed hypotheses is five, and this section discussed the hypothesis relationship with purchase intention. The bootstrapping technique was used to assess the hypothesized relationship significance and path coefficient [141].
In the literature, performance expectancy has shown a significant relationship with purchase intention; however, in this study, the effect of performance expectancy and consumer intention has shown an insignificant relationship (T = 1.699, p = 0.089); based on the described results, H1 is not supported. Due to low factor loadings of PE, some items were also deleted, but the construct’s effect remains insignificant. The PE result in this study was insignificant same as the study from Verkijika [36], where performance expectancy has no significant effect on consumer intention. This study’s results failed to support the developed hypothesis, and the findings are contrary to previous studies, such as the adoption of technologies by Alalwan [151], Jaradat and Al Rababaa [152], Morosan and DeFranco [153], Oliveira, et al. [154].
The effect of effort expectancy on purchase intention has been positive and significant (T = 2.318, p = 0.020); based on the results, H2 is supported. The results of the study are consistent with the outcomes of Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis [33], Tosuntaş, et al. [155], Escobar-Rodríguez and Carvajal-Trujillo [156], Casey and Wilson-Evered [157]. With the increase in consumer motivation towards EVs, their expectancy to purchase these vehicles will also be high. Consumers expect that EV usage will need less effort to handle, save time and fuel, and be environmentally friendly. Therefore, users will become quite skillful in using it.
The effect of social influence on consumer intentions was found significant and positive (T = 4.101, p = 0.000), and based on the results, H3 is supported. Consistent with Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis [33], Escobar-Rodríguez and Carvajal-Trujillo [156], Yu [158], Thomas, et al. [159], a positive relationship was found. Malaysia is a collectivist country, which means peoples are committed to extended families and extended relationships. In this context, it can be said that Malaysian consumer motivations can be much more influenced by the people who are usually close to them. Consumers’ awareness about sustainable environment and vehicles can influence others’ intentions as well.
Technophilia has been found effective in influencing consumers towards new technology in the literature. In this study, technophilia has also been significant and positive (T = 2.643, p = 0.008), and based on the results, H4 is supported. Items that had loadings less than 0.5 were removed, and the result was found to be significant. Consistent with the results of Seebauer, et al. [160], Schlüter and Weyer [161], technophilia was significant enough to motivate and influence consumers towards the usage of new technology.
Furthermore, the effect of perceived environmental knowledge on consumer intention is found significant and positive in this study. Based on the results (T = 5.056, p = 0.000), H5 is supported. This study corroborates with Chang and Chang (2017) that environmental knowledge significantly influences consumers’ innovative technology.
This study findings indicate that consumer motivation can be influenced by enhancing consumer awareness and knowledge towards the features of EVs. This research supports the applicability of UTAUT by Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis [33] in enhancing and motivating the consumer to purchase EVs. The results of the study show that the model is significant in the EVs motivation context.
This study contributes to the literature by extending the UTAUT model with perceived environmental knowledge in the context of motivational factors. Earlier studies by Chen, Li, Gan, Fu and Yuan [84], Almetere, et al. [162], PARK and AHN [163], Patil, et al. [164], Saparudin, et al. [165], Wedlock and Trahan [166] discussed and extended the UTAUT model towards the acceptance of different technologies. These studies found the UTAUT model effective in the acceptance and adoption of innovative technology. However, this study differentiates and contributes in the context of consumer motivation among high-income respondents. As consumer knowledge and awareness related to sustainable vehicles have been witnessed very limited and with the context of the motivational factors and awareness, this research can contribute to enhancing consumer knowledge and awareness by creating effective strategies. This research extended the UTAUT model with perceived environmental knowledge towards the acceptance of EVs. The results of this study were found to be significant, and all the other motivational factors were found effective in enhancing the consumer intentions towards EVs, except PE.

5.2. Research Contributions

Malaysia is an energy reliant country experiencing international pressure to reduce the ratio of greenhouse gases and adopt sustainable technology, which is vital to take necessary actions to mitigate hazardous gases. EVs have been introduced that emit zero carbon and can help to reduce transport emissions, but the sale of these vehicles is very low. Consumer motivation and environmental knowledge could be enhanced with effective marketing strategies from automakers and government agencies. The uplifting EVs sale among consumers is possible through supply and demand.
Investing in EV production needs high capital expenditure, which can minimize and influence the product prices to encourage consumers. To reduce the prices, the government encourages and promotes the local automaker to develop new technology products with effective subsidies to make them affordable for the consumer [167]. This study prompts automakers to introduce EVs’ motivational strategies.
This research endeavors to predict consumer awareness and knowledge in Malaysia by proposing the research model integrating different prospects in UTAUT. The purchase of EVs is low and comprises altruistic and moral perspectives. With the help of UTAUT and motivating factors, it can be further clarified effectively. Integrating this UTAUT theory explained much more variance towards new technology [168].

5.3. Managerial Implications

A universal view of motivations has significant implications on consumer behavior. Policymakers and government agencies can incorporate these research outcomes to enhance consumer awareness and knowledge of environmentally-friendly electric vehicles. Automakers and government policymakers should incorporate environmental knowledge and awareness strategies to appease consumers towards the purchase of sustainable vehicles. For instance, automaker companies can design promotional strategies about EVs features and environmental prospects in societal marketing concepts, which should enhance consumer motivations. These companies should offer synchronized and accurate information about the vehicles in the promotional strategies. Meanwhile, consumers prefer to go for eco-friendly products, and environmental knowledge awareness will be effective for the companies to impress prospective consumers. Environmental awareness and knowledge programs should be introduced to enable the consumers’ intentions towards EVs. Moreover, the promotional strategies for awareness should be up to standard in order to impress the consumers toward sustainable vehicles. Any unprofessional and societal harmful activity can negatively influence consumers towards these products.
These research findings revealed that consumers prefer to purchase eco-friendly products. However, their behavior towards EVs is very limited, which needs to be traversed with the help of developing efficient awareness strategies to motivate consumers. With the help of motivators, consumer purchase intentions can be developed which can lead to enhanced sales of EVs as mentioned in Figure 4.

6. Conclusions

This research concludes that consumer motivation can be effective in enhancing their intentions towards the purchase of EVs. This research linked five significant routes related to consumer EV purchase intention, which are: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, technophilia, and perceived environmental knowledge. Perceived environmental knowledge is linked to the sustainability perspective where EVs contribute to reducing transport greenhouse gas emissions. PEK has not been widely used in the perspective of EVs, especially in motivational factors. Moreover, study results showed that these factors are effective enough to motivate the consumer to purchase EVs. Factor performance expectancy is found ineffective in this study; however, it has been influential in the literature in enhancing consumer intentions towards specific technology.
Although the EV supply is already available in the market, its demand needs to be increased. EVs, as modern technology, need global acceptance to reduce transport carbon emissions. However, consumer knowledge and awareness can be enhanced to purchase these vehicles by motivating factors. Companies and government agencies should promote and sponsor EV-related knowledge to motivate consumers to boost their purchasing behavior. Consumer motivation and acceptance of these vehicles will help the government achieve its target of reducing carbon emissions of Green Tech Master Plan 2030 and Sustainable Development Goals. The maximum diffusion of environmental knowledge among consumers will enhance consumer perception and motivation to accept these vehicles.

6.1. Future Directions

Future research is encouraged to implement this study model to diverse genres of consumer adoption of EVs to examine the role of performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, technophilia, and perceived environmental knowledge in predicting consumer intentions. Further variables could be added to the EVs perspective to analyze the consumer acceptance and motivation effect.

6.2. Limitations

This study used a quantitative approach that limits the in-depth view about the adoption of EVs. Due to resources and time constraints, in-depth research about consumer intentions using a mixed-method method could not be adopted. Forthcoming studies can employ a mixed-method approach for better understanding. This research used a small number of questionnaires, and the study results are specific to high-income respondents. Further study suggestions are not only limited to extending the total number of respondents but also to collecting the data through face-to-face questionnaires.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.A.A. and W.M.; methodology, H.A.A. and M.A.M.; validation, formal analysis and investigation, H.A.A. and W.R.; writing—original draft preparation, H.A.A. and W.M.; writing—review and editing, H.A.A., A.S.F. and M.M.; supervision, S.K.J. and Z.B.H.S.; project administration, S.K.J. and funding acquisition A.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research was partially funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation as part of World-class Research Center program: Advanced Digital Technologies (contract No. 075-15-2020-934 dated 17.11.2020). The authors would also like to thank UTP CGS for providing funding to sponsor this study.

Data Availability Statement

Data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS (UTP) for the support provided in this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Survey Measurements Items.
Table A1. Survey Measurements Items.
Serial NoVariables ItemsSource
1Performance Expectancy
  • The use of EVs would enable me to have eco-friendly behavior.
  • I can learn the EVs usage as a new technology more efficiently.
  • The use of EVs can reduce my fuel and maintenance cost as compared to gasoline vehicles.
  • Home charging availability of EVs is helpful to motivate me.
  • I think Using the electric vehicles will have no drawbacks
  • I am influenced that the use of EVs will improve my learning and technical activities
  • I believe Using EVs will enable me to follow the global trend of reducing transport carbon emission.
  • I believe Usage of EVs will be helpful to reduce the environmental degradation
(8)
Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis [33]
2Effort Expectancy
  • I believe the use of EVs will be characterized without any stress.
  • The use of EVs will not require any technical expertise to handle.
  • The use of EVs can reduce my fuel and maintenance cost as compared to gasoline vehicles.
  • The use of EVs as a sustainable vehicle enhances the consumer satisfaction of being environmentally conscious.
  • I believe barriers in EVs usage like limited battery timings, cost of vehicles and charge infrastructure make it difficult to buy.
  • I think sustainable EVs adoption will not be frustrating.
(6)
Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis [33]
3Social Influence
  • I believe my family, peers, and friends know about sustainable products and environmental degradation.
  • If my friends buy sustainable products i.e. EVs, then they will also insist me buy these products.
  • I will share information about sustainable products with my friends and family members.
  • I believe my family and friends prefer to buy sustainable products.
(4)
Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis [33]
4Technophilia
  • I believe an unpleasant thing of EVs is recharging the battery everyday.
  • EVs as the new technology may have difficulties in finding repair or service centers.
  • I believe It’s better that PHEVs can run on gasoline as well after the battery is out of charge.
  • I believe having battery replacement centres around the country have no fear of battery failure and recharge bother.
  • Innovative vehicle technologies make me enthusiastic to adopt EVs.
  • EVs as an Innovative technology will have advanced features to use like no air and sound pollution.
  • I believe the new technology of EVs will have fewer issues in maintenance, that can save cost and time.
  • It’s good to have recharge outlet at home or workplace, so that vehicle can recharge easily overnight.
  • I think by having recharge facilities at home or workplace, no need to worry about going to the fuel station.
(8)
Haarmann, Scholz, Wasmer, Blohm and Harkness [120], Zwick and Renn [121], Franken and Luley [123]
5Perceived Environmental Knowledge
  • I know that I buy environmentally safe products.
  • I know the selection of sustainable products that reduce the waste in the end.
  • I know the environmental symbols and phrases used on product packaging.
  • I have much knowledge about environmental issues caused by carbon emission.
  • I think using eco-friendly products is a primary source of reducing environmental pollution.
(5)
Ellen, Eroglu and Webb [124]
6Purchase Intention
  • I intent to buy sustainable products because they are environment friendly.
  • I will help the environment by purchasing sustainable products and electric vehicle.
  • I would suggest others to buy and use sustainable products to save the environment.
  • I intend to purchase the electric vehicle although it is expensive.
  • I am very likely to purchase electric vehicles in the future.
(5)
Ajzen [74], Dodds [125]

References

  1. Farooqi, A.S.; Yusuf, M.; Mohd Zabidi, N.A.; Saidur, R.; Sanaullah, K.; Farooqi, A.S.; Khan, A.; Abdullah, B. A comprehensive review on improving the production of rich-hydrogen via combined steam and CO2 reforming of methane over Ni-based catalysts. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 2021, 46, 31024–31040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. IEA. Global EV Outlook 2019. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2019 (accessed on 27 May 2019).
  3. Amran, A.; Ooi, S.K.; Wong, C.Y.; Hashim, F. Business strategy for climate change: An ASEAN perspective. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2016, 23, 213–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Southeast Asia Energy Outlook; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2017; Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/southeast-asia-energy-outlook-2017 (accessed on 27 May 2019).
  5. Knoema. CO2 Emissions. Available online: https://knoema.com/atlas/ranks/CO2-emissions (accessed on 27 May 2019).
  6. Energy Commission. Malaysia Energy Statistics 2020. Available online: https://www.st.gov.my/ms/contents/files/download/116/Malaysia_Energy_Statistics_Handbook_2020.pdf (accessed on 7 May 2020).
  7. paultan.org. ASEAN Vehicle to Population List. Available online: https://paultan.org/2019/09/26/asean-vehicle-to-population-list-the-correct-facts/ (accessed on 26 September 2019).
  8. Malaysiakini. The Malaysian Transport System. Available online: https://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/280148 (accessed on 11 November 2014).
  9. Qureshi, I.A.; Lu, H. Urban transport and sustainable transport strategies: A case study of Karachi, Pakistan. Tsinghua Sci. Technol. 2007, 12, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ghosh, A. The Future of Mobility is Electric. Green, Reliable and Viable: Perspectives on India’s Shift Towards Low-Carbon Energy; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  11. UNFCCC. A Long Way from Carbon-Neutral World by 2050, Big Emitters Must Boost National Commitments. Available online: https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/sgsm19907.doc.htm (accessed on 11 December 2019).
  12. Wu, P. Which battery-charging technology and insurance contract is preferred in the electric vehicle sharing business? Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 124, 537–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Nian, V.; Hari, M.; Yuan, J. A new business model for encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles in the absence of policy support. Appl. Energy 2019, 235, 1106–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yoon, T.; Cherry, C.R.; Ryerson, M.S.; Bell, J.E. Carsharing demand estimation and fleet simulation with EV adoption. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 206, 1051–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chen, Z.; Liu, W.; Yin, Y. Deployment of stationary and dynamic charging infrastructure for electric vehicles along traffic corridors. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2017, 77, 185–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Dorcec, L.; Pevec, D.; Vdovic, H.; Babic, J.; Podobnik, V. How do people value electric vehicle charging service? A gamified survey approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 210, 887–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. 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 2014, 68, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. 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. 2016, 43, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Melton, N.; Axsen, J.; Goldberg, S. Evaluating plug-in electric vehicle policies in the context of long-term greenhouse gas reduction goals: Comparing 10 Canadian provinces using the “PEV policy report card”. Energy Policy 2017, 107, 381–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Biresselioglu, M.E.; Nilsen, M.; Demir, M.H.; Røyrvik, J.; Koksvik, G. Examining the barriers and motivators affecting European decision-makers in the development of smart and green energy technologies. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 198, 417–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hardman, S.; Plotz, P.; Tal, G.; Axsen, J.; Figenbaum, E.; Karlsson, S.; Refa, N.; Sprei, F.; Williams, B.; Whitehead, J. Exploring the Role of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles in Electrifying Passenger Transportation; UCDAVIS International EV Policy Council: Davis, CA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  22. Rezvani, Z.; Jansson, J.; Bodin, J. Advances in consumer electric vehicle adoption research: A review and research agenda. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2015, 34, 122–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Green, E.H.; Skerlos, S.J.; Winebrake, J.J. Increasing electric vehicle policy efficiency and effectiveness by reducing mainstream market bias. Energy Policy 2014, 65, 562–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Graham-Rowe, E.; Gardner, B.; Abraham, C.; Skippon, S.; Dittmar, H.; Hutchins, R.; Stannard, J. 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. 2012, 46, 140–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Egbue, O.; Long, S. Barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles: An analysis of consumer attitudes and perceptions. Energy Policy 2012, 48, 717–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Axsen, J.; Kurani, K.S. Interpersonal influence in the early plug-in hybrid market: Observing social interactions with an exploratory multi-method approach. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2011, 16, 150–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bowermaster, D.; Alexander, M.; Duvall, M. The Need for Charging: Evaluating utility infrastructures for electric vehicles while providing customer support. IEEE Electrif. Mag. 2017, 5, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Asadi, S.; Nilashi, M.; Samad, S.; Abdullah, R.; Mahmoud, M.; Alkinani, M.H.; Yadegaridehkordi, E. Factors impacting consumers’ intention toward adoption of electric vehicles in Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 124474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sang, Y.-N.; Bekhet, H.A. Modelling electric vehicle usage intentions: An empirical study in Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 92, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Karp, J. Managing the Risks of Renewable Energy Projects in Developing Countries. Available online: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2015/05/managing-the-risks-of-renewable-energy-projects-in-developing-countries.html (accessed on 11 December 2016).
  31. Mohr, J.J.; Sengupta, S.; Slater, S.F. Marketing of High-Technology Products and Innovations; Pearson Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  32. Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Gerpott, T.J.; Mahmudova, I. Determinants of green electricity adoption among residential customers in Germany. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2010, 34, 464–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Haddadian, G.; Khodayar, M.; Shahidehpour, M. Accelerating the Global Adoption of Electric Vehicles: Barriers and Drivers. Electr. J. 2015, 28, 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Noppers, E.H.; Keizer, K.; Bolderdijk, J.W.; Steg, L. The adoption of sustainable innovations: Driven by symbolic and environmental motives. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 25, 52–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Verkijika, S.F. Factors influencing the adoption of mobile commerce applications in Cameroon. Telemat. Inform. 2018, 35, 1665–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. O’Neill, E.; Moore, D.; Kelleher, L.; Brereton, F. Barriers to electric vehicle uptake in Ireland: Perspectives of car-dealers and policy-makers. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2019, 7, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. 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 2017, 56, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Shetty, D.K.; Shetty, S.; Raj Rodrigues, L.; Naik, N.; Maddodi, C.B.; Malarout, N.; Sooriyaperakasam, N. Barriers to widespread adoption of plug-in electric vehicles in emerging Asian markets: An analysis of consumer behavioral attitudes and perceptions. Cogent Eng. 2020, 7, 1796198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Afroz, R.; Rahman, A.; Masud, M.M.; Akhtar, R.; Duasa, J.B. How individual values and attitude influence consumers’ purchase intention of electric vehicles—Some insights from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Environ. Urban. ASIA 2015, 6, 193–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. AECOM Australia. Economic Viability of Electric Vehicles; AECOM Australia Pty Ltd.: Sydney, Australia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  42. Barkenbus, J.N. Prospects for electric vehicles. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Camacho, O.M.F.; Mihet-Popa, L. Fast charging and smart charging tests for electric vehicles batteries using renewable energy. Oil Gas Sci. Technol.—Rev. d’IFP Energ. Nouv. 2016, 71, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Costa, E.; Horta, A.; Correia, A.; Seixas, J.; Costa, G.; Sperling, D. Diffusion of electric vehicles in Brazil from the stakeholders’ perspective. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2020, 11, 865–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jochem, P.; Babrowski, S.; Fichtner, W. Assessing CO2 emissions of electric vehicles in Germany in 2030. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2015, 78, 68–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Kim, M.-K.; Oh, J.; Park, J.-H.; Joo, C. Perceived value and adoption intention for electric vehicles in Korea: Moderating effects of environmental traits and government supports. Energy 2018, 159, 799–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Struben, J.; Sterman, J.D. Transition challenges for alternative fuel vehicle and transportation systems. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2008, 35, 1070–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Higuchi, Y.; Wada, N.; Nakakubo, T.; Tokai, A. Scenario analysis on the impact of diffusion of next generation vehicles on material consumption and GHG emissions. In Design for Innovative Value Towards a Sustainable Society; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  49. Bandivadekar, A.P. Evaluating the Impact of Advanced Vehicle and Fuel Technologies in US Light Duty Vehicle Fleet. Ph.D. Thesis, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  50. Zhang, Y.; Yu, Y.; Zou, B. Analyzing public awareness and acceptance of alternative fuel vehicles in China: The case of EV. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 7015–7024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hao, H.; Ou, X.; Du, J.; Wang, H.; Ouyang, M. China’s electric vehicle subsidy scheme: Rationale and impacts. Energy Policy 2014, 73, 722–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Helveston, J.P.; Liu, Y.; Feit, E.M.; Fuchs, E.; Klampfl, E.; Michalek, J.J. Will subsidies drive electric vehicle adoption? Measuring consumer preferences in the US and China. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2015, 73, 96–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Haq, G.; Weiss, M. CO2 labelling of passenger cars in Europe: Status, challenges, and future prospects. Energy Policy 2016, 95, 324–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  55. Ford, A.; Ford, F.A. Modeling the Environment: An Introduction to System Dynamics Models of Environmental Systems; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  56. Eppstein, M.J.; Grover, D.K.; Marshall, J.S.; Rizzo, D.M. An agent-based model to study market penetration of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 3789–3802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Parasuman, A.; Colby, C. Techno-Ready Marketing: How and Why Customers Adopt Technology; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  58. Moore, G. Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling Technology Products to Mainstream Customers; Capstone: Oxford, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  59. Wilmink, K. A Study on the Factors Influencing the Adoption of Hybrid and Electric Vehicles in The Netherlands. Master’s Thesis, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  60. Hagman, J.; Ritzén, S.; Stier, J.J.; Susilo, Y. Total cost of ownership and its potential implications for battery electric vehicle diffusion. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2016, 18, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Choi, J. Agent based model for estimating HEVs market: Focusing on the case of Korea. Sci. Technol. Soc. 2016, 21, 227–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Coffman, M.; Bernstein, P.; Wee, S. Electric vehicles revisited: A review of factors that affect adoption. Transp. Rev. 2017, 37, 79–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Yoo, S.J.; Han, S.-h.; Huang, W. The roles of intrinsic motivators and extrinsic motivators in promoting e-learning in the workplace: A case from South Korea. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 942–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Fagan, M.H.; Neill, S.; Wooldridge, B.R. Exploring the intention to use computers: An empirical investigation of the role of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and perceived ease of use. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2008, 48, 31–37. [Google Scholar]
  65. Teo, T.S.; Lim, V.K.; Lai, R.Y. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in Internet usage. Omega 1999, 27, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Amabile, T.M. Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 1993, 3, 185–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lin, C.-P.; Bhattacherjee, A. Elucidating individual intention to use interactive information technologies: The role of network externalities. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2008, 13, 85–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wang, Y.S.; Wu, M.C.; Wang, H.Y. Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2009, 40, 92–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Van Raaij, E.M.; Schepers, J.J. The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China. Comput. Educ. 2008, 50, 838–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lee, M.K.; Cheung, C.M.; Chen, Z. Acceptance of Internet-based learning medium: The role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Inf. Manag. 2005, 42, 1095–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 982–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Sheppard, B.H.; Hartwick, J.; Warshaw, P.R. The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. J. Consum. Res. 1988, 15, 325–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Davis, F.D. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  74. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Taylor, S.; Todd, P.A. Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Inf. Syst. Res. 1995, 6, 144–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Thompson, R.L.; Higgins, C.A.; Howell, J.M. Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Q. 1991, 15, 125–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Vallerand, R.J. Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1997, 29, 271–360. [Google Scholar]
  78. Bandura, A. Fearful expectations and avoidant actions as coeffects of perceived self-inefficacy. Am. Psychol. 1986, 41, 1389–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Compeau, D.R.; Higgins, C.A. Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Q. 1995, 19, 189–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Kettles, N.; Belle, J.P.V. Investigation into the Antecedents of Autonomous Car Acceptance using an Enhanced UTAUT Model. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Advances in Big Data, Computing and Data Communication Systems (icABCD), Winterton, South Africa, 5–6 August 2019; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  81. Sovacool, B.K. Experts, theories, and electric mobility transitions: Toward an integrated conceptual framework for the adoption of electric vehicles. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 27, 78–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zhou, M.; Kong, N.; Zhao, L.; Huang, F.; Wang, S.; Campy, K.S. Understanding urban delivery drivers’ intention to adopt electric trucks in China. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2019, 74, 65–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Khazaei, H.; Tareq, M.A. Moderating effects of personal innovativeness and driving experience on factors influencing adoption of BEVs in Malaysia: An integrated SEM–BSEM approach. Heliyon 2021, 7, e08072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Chen, J.; Li, R.; Gan, M.; Fu, Z.; Yuan, F. Public acceptance of driverless buses in China: An empirical analysis based on an extended UTAUT model. Discret. Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2020, 2020, 4318182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Madigan, R.; Louw, T.; Dziennus, M.; Graindorge, T.; Ortega, E.; Graindorge, M.; Merat, N. Acceptance of automated road transport systems (ARTS): An adaptation of the UTAUT model. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 14, 2217–2226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Wang, B.; Shi, Z. Research on users’ willingness of electric vehicle car-sharing market based on the modified UTAUT model. Soft Sci. 2018, 32, 130–133. [Google Scholar]
  87. Karunanayake, T.; Samarasinghe, D. The Effect of Perceived Risk on the Purchase Intention of Alternative Fuel Vehicles. Sri Lankan J. Manag. 2018, 23, 67–98. [Google Scholar]
  88. Khazaei, H. The influence of personal innovativeness and price value on intention to use of electric vehicles in Malaysia. Eur. Online J. Nat. Soc. Sci. 2019, 8, 483–494. [Google Scholar]
  89. Curtale, R.; Liao, F.; van der Waerden, P. User acceptance of electric car-sharing services: The case of the Netherlands. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2021, 149, 266–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Riga, D. Hybrid Electric Vehicles: Driving towards Sustainability; Faculty of Humanities, School of Human, University of the Witwatersrand: Johannesburg, South Africa, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  91. Khazaei, H.; Khazaei, A. Electric vehicles and factors that influencing their adoption moderating effects of driving experience and voluntariness of use (conceptual framework). J. Bus. Manag. 2016, 18, 60–65. [Google Scholar]
  92. Kaye, S.-A.; Lewis, I.; Forward, S.; Delhomme, P. A priori acceptance of highly automated cars in Australia, France, and Sweden: A theoretically-informed investigation guided by the TPB and UTAUT. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2020, 137, 105441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Wang, Y.-S.; Shih, Y.-W. Why do people use information kiosks? A validation of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Gov. Inf. Q. 2009, 26, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Ali, U.; Mehmood, A.; Majeed, M.F.; Muhammad, S.; Khan, M.K.; Song, H.; Malik, K.M. Innovative citizen’s services through public cloud in Pakistan: User’s privacy concerns and impacts on adoption. Mob. Netw. Appl. 2019, 24, 47–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Tran, V.; Zhao, S.; Diop, E.B.; Song, W. Travelers’ acceptance of electric carsharing systems in developing countries: The case of China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Wolf, A.; Seebauer, S. Technology adoption of electric bicycles: A survey among early adopters. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2014, 69, 196–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Arman, A.A.; Hartati, S. Development of user acceptance model for electronic medical record system. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Information Technology Systems and Innovation (ICITSI), Bandung Bali, Indonesia, 16–19 November 2015; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  98. Chang, I.-C.; Hwang, H.-G.; Hung, W.-F.; Li, Y.-C. Physicians’ acceptance of pharmacokinetics-based clinical decision support systems. Expert Syst. Appl. 2007, 33, 296–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Phichitchaisopa, N.; Naenna, T. Factors affecting the adoption of healthcare information technology. EXCLI J. 2013, 12, 413. [Google Scholar]
  100. Abu-Al-Aish, A.; Love, S. Factors influencing students’ acceptance of m-learning: An investigation in higher education. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2013, 14, 82–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Miller, M.D.; Rainer, R.K.; Corley, J.K. Predictors of engagement and participation in an on-line course. Online J. Distance Learn. Adm. 2003, 6, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  102. Cheung, M.L.; Pires, G.; Rosenberger, P.J. The influence of perceived social media marketing elements on consumer–brand engagement and brand knowledge. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2020, 32, 695–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Cheung, M.L.; Pires, G.D.; Rosenberger, P.J.; Leung, W.K.; Sharipudin, M.-N.S. The role of consumer-consumer interaction and consumer-brand interaction in driving consumer-brand engagement and behavioral intentions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 61, 102574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Osiceanu, M.-E. Psychological implications of modern technologies:“technofobia” versus “technophilia”. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 180, 1137–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Axsen, J.; Kurani, K.S. Interpersonal influence within car buyers’ social networks: Applying five perspectives to plug-in hybrid vehicle drivers. Environ. Plan. A 2012, 44, 1047–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Biswas, A.; Roy, M. Leveraging factors for sustained green consumption behavior based on consumption value perceptions: Testing the structural model. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 95, 332–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Ruhrort, L.; Steiner, J.; Graff, A.; Hinkeldein, D.; Hoffmann, C. Carsharing with electric vehicles in the context of users’ mobility needs–results from user-centred research from the BeMobility field trial (Berlin). Int. J. Automot. Technol. Manag. 2014, 14, 286–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Wappelhorst, S.; Sauer, M.; Hinkeldein, D.; Bocherding, A.; Glaß, T. Potential of electric carsharing in urban and rural areas. Transp. Res. Procedia 2014, 4, 374–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Blättel-Mink, B.; Dalichau, D.; Buchsbaum, M.; Hattenhauer, M.; Weber, J. Elektromobilität aus der Sicht privater Nutzerinnen und Nutzer. Soz. Berufsprax. 2013, 36, 270–286. [Google Scholar]
  110. Fazel, L. Akzeptanz von Elektromobilität: Entwicklung und Validierung eines Modells unter Berücksichtigung der Nutzungsform des Carsharing; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  111. Arcury, T.A.; Johnson, T.P. Public environmental knowledge: A statewide survey. J. Environ. Educ. 1987, 18, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Safari, A.; Salehzadeh, R.; Panahi, R.; Abolghasemian, S. Multiple pathways linking environmental knowledge and awareness to employees’ green behavior. Corp. Gov. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2018, 18, 81–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Rizwan, M.; Mahmood, U.; Siddiqui, H.; Tahir, A. An empirical study about green purchase intentions. J. Sociol. Res. 2014, 5, 290–305. [Google Scholar]
  114. Rashid, N. Awareness of eco-label in Malaysia’s green marketing initiative. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2009, 4, 132–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Omar, S.; Othman, N.A.; Jabar, J. Effect of eco-innovation practices on sustainable business performance. Pertanika J. Sci. Technol. 2017, 25, 123–128. [Google Scholar]
  116. Murray, K.B.; Schlacter, J.L. The impact of services versus goods on consumers’ assessment of perceived risk and variability. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1990, 18, 51–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Boo, S.; Park, E. An examination of green intention: The effect of environmental knowledge and educational experiences on meeting planners’ implementation of green meeting practices. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 1129–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Chan, E.S.; Hon, A.H.; Chan, W.; Okumus, F. What drives employees’ intentions to implement green practices in hotels? The role of knowledge, awareness, concern and ecological behaviour. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 40, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Mohr, L.A.; Eroǧlu, D.; Ellen, P.S. The development and testing of a measure of skepticism toward environmental claims in marketers’ communications. J. Consum. Aff. 1998, 32, 30–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Haarmann, A.; Scholz, E.; Wasmer, M.; Blohm, M.; Harkness, J. Konzeption und Durchführung der "Allgemeinen Bevölkerungsumfrage der Sozialwissenschaften”(ALLBUS) 2004; ZUMA: Mannheim, Germany, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  121. Zwick, M.M.; Renn, O. Wahrnehmung und Bewertung von Technik in Baden-Württemberg; University of Stuttgart: Stuttgart, Germany, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  122. Hüsing, B.; Bierhals, R.; Bührlen, B.; Friedewald, M.; Kimpeler, S.; Menrad, K.; Wengel, J.; Zimmer, R.; Zoche, P. Technikakzeptanz und Nachfragemuster als Standortvorteil; Abschlussbericht an das Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung; Fraunhofer-Institut für Systemtechnik und Innovationsforschung (Fraunhofer ISI): Karlsruhe, Germany, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  123. Franken, V.; Luley, T. Verkehrstelematik und Analysen zu ihrer Akzeptanz: Sachstand–Defizite–Potenziale. HEUREKA’05 Optimierung in Verkehr und Transport 2005, 71–89. [Google Scholar]
  124. Ellen, P.; Eroglu, D.; Webb, D. Consumer Judgments in a Changing Information Environment: How Consumers Respond to ‘Green Marketing’ Claims; Georgia State University: Atlanta, GA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  125. Dodds, W.B. In search of value: How price and store name information influence buyers′ product perceptions. J. Consum. Mark. 1991, 8, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Bryman, A. Social Research Methods; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  127. Chan, R.Y. Determinants of Chinese consumers’ green purchase behavior. Psychol. Mark. 2001, 18, 389–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Pervez, G. Research Methods in Business Studies: A Practical Guide, 3/E; Pearson Education India: Noida, India, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  129. Tellis, G.J.; Yin, E.; Bell, S. Global consumer innovativeness: Cross-country differences and demographic commonalities. J. Int. Mark. 2009, 17, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Nunnally, J.C. An overview of psychological measurement. Clinical Diagnosis of Mental Disorders; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  131. Roberts, M.L.; Wortzel, L.H. New life-style determinants of women’s food shopping behavior. J. Mark. 1979, 43, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Kaiser, H.F. Communalities in Factor Analysis: A Review; University of California: Oakland, CA, USA, 1956. [Google Scholar]
  133. Koay, K.Y.; Ong, D.L.T.; Khoo, K.L.; Yeoh, H.J. Perceived social media marketing activities and consumer-based brand equity: Testing a moderated mediation model. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2020, 33, 53–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Leung, W.K.S.; Shi, S.; Chow, W.S. Impacts of user interactions on trust development in C2C social commerce. Internet Res. 2020, 30, 335–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Cheung, M.L.; Pires, G.D.; Rosenberger, P.J.; De Oliveira, M.J. Driving consumer–brand engagement and co-creation by brand interactivity. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2020, 38, 523–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Hair Jr, J.F.; Matthews, L.M.; Matthews, R.L.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. Int. J. Multivar. Data Anal. 2017, 1, 107–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New Challenges to international Marketing; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  138. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Kim, Y.J.; Han, J. Why smartphone advertising attracts customers: A model of Web advertising, flow, and personalization. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 33, 256–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  142. Kline, R. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  143. Gold, A.H.; Malhotra, A.; Segars, A.H. Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2001, 18, 185–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Jeon, H.-M.; Ali, F.; Lee, S.-W. Determinants of consumers’ intentions to use smartphones apps for flight ticket bookings. Serv. Ind. J. 2019, 39, 385–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Zhou, T.; Lu, Y.; Wang, B. Integrating TTF and UTAUT to explain mobile banking user adoption. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2010, 26, 760–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Pai, J.-C.; Tu, F.-M. The acceptance and use of customer relationship management (CRM) systems: An empirical study of distribution service industry in Taiwan. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 579–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Martins, C.; Oliveira, T.; Popovič, A. Understanding the Internet banking adoption: A unified theory of acceptance and use of technology and perceived risk application. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2014, 34, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Bozorgkhou, N. An Internet shopping user adoption model using an integrated TTF and UTAUT: Evidence from Iranian consumers. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2015, 5, 199–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Afshan, S.; Sharif, A. Acceptance of mobile banking framework in Pakistan. Telemat. Inform. 2016, 33, 370–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Howard, R.; Restrepo, L.; Chang, C.-Y. Addressing individual perceptions: An application of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology to building information modelling. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Alalwan, A.A. Investigating the impact of social media advertising features on customer purchase intention. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 42, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Jaradat, M.-I.R.M.; Al Rababaa, M.S. Assessing key factor that influence on the acceptance of mobile commerce based on modified UTAUT. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2013, 8, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  153. Morosan, C.; DeFranco, A. It’s about time: Revisiting UTAUT2 to examine consumers’ intentions to use NFC mobile payments in hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 53, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Oliveira, T.; Thomas, M.; Baptista, G.; Campos, F. Mobile payment: Understanding the determinants of customer adoption and intention to recommend the technology. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 61, 404–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Tosuntaş, Ş.B.; Karadağ, E.; Orhan, S. The factors affecting acceptance and use of interactive whiteboard within the scope of FATIH project: A structural equation model based on the Unified Theory of acceptance and use of technology. Comput. Educ. 2015, 81, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Escobar-Rodríguez, T.; Carvajal-Trujillo, E. Online purchasing tickets for low cost carriers: An application of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model. Tour. Manag. 2014, 43, 70–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Casey, T.; Wilson-Evered, E. Predicting uptake of technology innovations in online family dispute resolution services: An application and extension of the UTAUT. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 2034–2045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Yu, C.-S. Factors affecting individuals to adopt mobile banking: Empirical evidence from the UTAUT model. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 2012, 13, 104. [Google Scholar]
  159. Thomas, T.; Singh, L.; Gaffar, K. The utility of the UTAUT model in explaining mobile learning adoption in higher education in Guyana. Int. J. Educ. Dev. Using ICT 2013, 9, 71–85. [Google Scholar]
  160. Seebauer, S.; Stolz, R.; Berger, M. Technophilia as a driver for using advanced traveler information systems. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2015, 60, 498–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Schlüter, J.; Weyer, J. Car sharing as a means to raise acceptance of electric vehicles: An empirical study on regime change in automobility. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2019, 60, 185–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Almetere, E.S.; Kelana, B.W.Y.; Mansor, N.N.A. Using UTAUT model to determine factors affecting internet of things acceptance in public universities. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2020, 10, 142–150. [Google Scholar]
  163. PARK, Y.-J.; AHN, S.-S. Retail Distribution Strategies for Train Tickets: The Extended UTAUT Model. J. Distrib. Sci. 2021, 19, 5–17. [Google Scholar]
  164. Patil, P.; Tamilmani, K.; Rana, N.P.; Raghavan, V. Understanding consumer adoption of mobile payment in India: Extending Meta-UTAUT model with personal innovativeness, anxiety, trust, and grievance redressal. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 54, 102144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Saparudin, M.; Rahayu, A.; Hurriyati, R.; Sultan, M.A.; Ramdan, A.M. Consumers’ Continuance Intention Use of Mobile Banking in Jakarta: Extending UTAUT Models with Trust. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Information Management and Technology (ICIMTech), Bandung, Indonesia, 13–14 August 2020. [Google Scholar]
  166. Wedlock, B.C.; Trahan, M.P. Revisiting the Unified Theory of Acceptance and the Use of Technology (UTAUT) Model and Scale: An Empirical Evolution of Educational Technology. Res. Issues Contemp. Educ. 2019, 4, 6–20. [Google Scholar]
  167. Star, T. Transport a Big Factor in Global Warming. Available online: https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/letters/2019/11/27/transport-a-big-factor-in-global-warming (accessed on 27 November 2019).
  168. Maillet, É.; Mathieu, L.; Sicotte, C. Modeling factors explaining the acceptance, actual use and satisfaction of nurses using an Electronic Patient Record in acute care settings: An extension of the UTAUT. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2015, 84, 36–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 13 12177 g001 550
Figure 1. The study model.
Figure 1. The study model.
Sustainability 13 12177 g001
Sustainability 13 12177 g002 550
Figure 2. Structural model.
Figure 2. Structural model.
Sustainability 13 12177 g002
Sustainability 13 12177 g003 550
Figure 3. The assessment of the study model.
Figure 3. The assessment of the study model.
Sustainability 13 12177 g003
Sustainability 13 12177 g004 550
Figure 4. Conceptual model.
Figure 4. Conceptual model.
Sustainability 13 12177 g004
Table
Table 1. Demographic Profile of Respondents (n = 199).
Table 1. Demographic Profile of Respondents (n = 199).
DemographicFrequency RatePercentage
Male12362%
Female7638%
Age Group
18–29147%
30–395829.4%
40–498844.1%
50–593216%
60 years and over73.4%
Race
Malay12462.2%
Indian2814%
Chinese3417%
Others136.6%
Income (MYR)
5000 or below2613.3%
5001–10,0004221.07%
10,001–15,0006733.4%
15,001–20,0003618%
20,001–25,0002110.3%
25,001 above73.6%
Source: Authors Estimations.
Table
Table 2. Measurement model assessment.
Table 2. Measurement model assessment.
Cronbach’s Alpharho AComposite ReliabilityAverage Variance Extracted (AVE)
EE0.7760.7830.8480.528
PE0.7590.7610.8320.453
PEK0.8530.8550.8950.631
PI0.8450.8470.8890.616
SI0.7700.8010.8510.591
TEC0.7560.7750.8350.505
Table
Table 3. Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio (HTMT).
Table 3. Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio (HTMT).
EEPEPEKPISITEC
EE ---
PE0.945---
PEK0.6120.702
PI0.8210.8230.801
SI0.7060.7200.6500.806
TEC0.9000.8870.6150.7810.583
Table
Table 4. Structural Model Assessment.
Table 4. Structural Model Assessment.
Original Sample (O)Sample Mean (M)Standard Deviation (STDEV)T Statistics (|O/STDEV|)p-ValuesHypothesis
EE -> PI0.1570.1560.0682.3180.020Supported
PE -> PI0.1030.1050.0611.6990.089Not Supported
PEK -> PI0.3210.3200.0635.0560.000Supported
SI -> PI0.2650.2670.0654.1010.000Supported
TEC -> PI0.1730.1720.0662.6430.008Supported
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Abbasi, H.A.; Johl, S.K.; Shaari, Z.B.H.; Moughal, W.; Mazhar, M.; Musarat, M.A.; Rafiq, W.; Farooqi, A.S.; Borovkov, A. Consumer Motivation by Using Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology towards Electric Vehicles. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12177. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112177

AMA Style

Abbasi HA, Johl SK, Shaari ZBH, Moughal W, Mazhar M, Musarat MA, Rafiq W, Farooqi AS, Borovkov A. Consumer Motivation by Using Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology towards Electric Vehicles. Sustainability. 2021; 13(21):12177. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112177

Chicago/Turabian Style

Abbasi, Haider Ali, Satirenjit Kaur Johl, Zullina Bt Hussain Shaari, Wajiha Moughal, Muhammad Mazhar, Muhammad Ali Musarat, Waqas Rafiq, Asaad Salam Farooqi, and Alexey Borovkov. 2021. "Consumer Motivation by Using Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology towards Electric Vehicles" Sustainability 13, no. 21: 12177. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112177

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop