Technology adoption of electric bicycles: A survey among early adopters

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice

Volumn 69, Issue , 2014, Pages 196-211

  Wolf, Angelika ^a   Seebauer, Sebastian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRAZ   (Austria)

Author keywords

Electric bicycles; Explanatory model; Mediator; Moderator; Structural equation modeling; Technology adoption

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; BICYCLES; ELECTRIC VEHICLES; FOSSIL FUELS; LEISURE; MODERATORS; SPORTING GOODS; SURVEYS;

ELECTRIC BICYCLES; MEDIATOR; PERCEIVED USEFULNESS; PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION; PROMOTION STRATEGIES; ROAD INFRASTRUCTURES; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING; TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION;

ELECTRIC BIKES;

CYCLE TRANSPORT; ELDERLY POPULATION; ELECTRIC VEHICLE; MOBILITY; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION; TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE; TRANSPORTATION PLANNING; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR;

AUSTRIA;

EID: 84907607971     PISSN: 09658564     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2014.08.007     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Ahrend, C., 2011. Verbundprojekt IKT-basierte Integration der Elektromobilität in Netzsysteme der Zukunft. Ergebnisbericht der Technischen Universität Berlin im Teilprojekt: Analyse Nutzerverhalten und Raumplanung regionale Infrastruktur, TU Berlin.
2. Ahrens, G., Becker, U., Böhmer, T., Richter, F., Wittwer, R., 2013. Potential of cycling to reduce emissions in road transport. In: Report UBA-FB 001731 on behalf of the German Federal Environment Agency.
3. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50:179-211.
4. Arkesteijn K., Oerlemans L. The early adoption of green power by Dutch households. An empirical exploration of factors influencing the early adoption of green electricity for domestic purposes. Energy Policy 2005, 33:183-196.
5. Axsen J., Kurani K.S. Interpersonal influence within car buyers' social networks: applying five perspectives to plug-in hybrid vehicle drivers. Environ. Plann. A 2012, 44(5):1047-1065.
6. Badoe D., Miller E. Transportation-land-use interaction: empirical findings in North America, and their implications for modelling. Transp. Res. D 2000, 5(4):235-263.
7. Bagley M., Mokhtarian P. The impact of residential neighborhood type on travel behavior: a structural equations modeling approach. Ann. Reg. Sci. 2002, 36:279-297.
8. Bamberg S., Hunecke M., Blöbaum A. Social context, personal norms and the use of public transportation: two field studies. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27:190-203.
9. Bamberg S., Ajzen I., Schmidt P. Choice of travel mode in the theory of planned behavior: the roles of past behavior, habit, and reasoned action. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 25(3):175-187.
10. Baron R.M., Kenny D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51(6):1173-1182.
11. BMVIT, 2011. Transport in Figures, edition 2011. Issued by the Austrian Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology.
12. Borba S.M.C., Szklo A., Schaeffer R. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles as a way to maximize the integration of variable renewable energy in power systems: the case of wind generation in northeastern Brazil. Energy 2012, 37:469-481.
13. Brown S.A., Dennis A.R., Venkatesh V. Predicting collaboration technology use: integrating technology adoption and collaboration research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2010, 27(2):9-53.
14. Brown S.A., Venkatesh V. Model of adoption of technology in households: a baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS Quart. 2005, 29(3):399-426.
15. Bühler, F., Neumann, I., Cocron, P., Franke, T., Krems, J.F., 2010. Usage patterns of electric vehicles: A reliable indicator of acceptance? Findings from a German field study. In: Proceedings of the 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.
16. Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL), 2004. 3- und 4-rädrige Leicht-Elektromobile (LEM) in Mendrisio. Auswirkungen auf das Mobilitätsverhalten. Umweltmaterialien Nr. 174, Bern.
17. Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL), 2004. Elektro-Zweiräder. Auswirkungen auf das Mobilitätsverhalten. Umweltmaterialien Nr. 173, Bern.
18. Burgess M., King N., Harris M., Lewis E. Electric vehicle drivers' reported interactions with the public: driving stereotype change?. Transp. Res. Part F 2013, 17:33-44.
19. Cherry C.R., Weinert J.X., Xinmiao Y. Comparative environmental impacts of electric bikes in China. Transp. Res. Part D 2009, 14(5):281-290.
20. Collins C., Chambers S. Psychological and situational influences on commuter-transport-mode choice. Environ. Behav. 2005, 37(5):640-661.
21. Cook A.J., Kerr G.N., Moore K. Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing GM food. J. Econ. Psychol. 2002, 23:557-572.
22. Davis F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart. 1989, 13(3):319-340.
23. Deffner, J., Birzle-Hader, B., Hefter, T., Götz, K., 2011. Elektrofahrzeuge in betrieblichen Fahrzeugflotten - Akzeptanz, Attraktivität und Nutzungsverhalten. Ergebnisbericht im Rahmen des Projektes Future Fleet, Arbeitsschritte 2.1. bis 2.4., ISOE, Frankfurt.
24. Dilalla L. Structural equation modeling: uses and issues. Handbook of Applied Multivariate Statistics and Mathematical Modeling 2000, Academic Press, San Diego. H. Tinsey, S. Brown (Eds.).
25. Dunlap R.E. The new environmental paradigm scale: from marginality to worldwide use. J. Environ. Educ. 2008, 40(1):3-18.
26. Eurobarometer, 2010. Special Eurobarometer 341 Biotechnology. Available at: (02.10.13). http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf.
27. European Commission, 2003. E-Tour. Electric two-wheelers on urban roads. In: New Solutions in Energy Utilisation, Final Report.
28. European Environment Agency (EEA), 2012. Consumption and the environment - 2012 update. In: The European Environment - State and Outlook 2010. Copenhagen, (29.06.12). http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/consumption-and-the-environment-2012.
29. European Values Study, 2008. European Values Study 2008, Integrated Dataset. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne, ZA4800. doi:10.4232/1.10059.
30. Franke, T., Bühler, F., Cocron, P., Neumann, I., Krems, J.F., 2011. Enhancing Sustainability of Electric Vehicles: A Field Study Approach to Understanding User Acceptance and Behavior. Manuscript submitted for publication. (29.07.12). http://www.tuchemnitz.de/hsw/psychologie/professuren/allpsy1/pdf/Franke_et_al._2012_SustainEV.pdf.
31. Franke T., Krems J.F. Interacting with limited mobility resources: psychological range levels in electric vehicle use. Transp. Res. Part A 2013, 48:109-122.
32. Fujii S., Kitamura R. What does a one-month free bus ticket do to habitual drivers? An experimental analysis of habit and attitude change. Transportation 2003, 30:81-95.
33. Gärling, A., 2001. Paving the way for the electric vehicle. In: Final Report, VINNOVA Report 2001:1. Water Environment Transport, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg.
34. Golob T.F. Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research. Transp. Res. Part B 2003, 37:1-25.
35. 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 2012, 46:140-153.
36. Harland P., Staats H., Wilke A.M. Explaining pro-environmental intention and behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 29:2505-2528.
37. Harms S., Truffer B. Leichtelektromobile (LEM): alltagstauglichkeit und marktchancen. Mobil 1997, 24-27.
38. Haustein S., Hunecke M. Reduced use of environmentally friendly modes of transportation caused by perceived mobility necessities. An extension of the theory of planned behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 37(8):1856-1883.
39. Heffner, R.R., Kurani, K.S., Turrentine, T., 2008. Symbolism in California's Early Market for Hybrid Electric Vehicles. Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/9zt4g01t.
40. Hoehner C.M., Brennan Ramirez L.K., Elliott M.B., Handy S.L., Brownson R.C. Perceived and objective environmental measures and physical activity among urban adults. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 28(2S2):105-116.
41. Hunecke M., Blöbaum A., Matthies E., Höger R. Responsibility and environment-ecological norm orientation and external factors in the domain of travel mode choice behaviour. Environ. Behav. 2001, 33:845-867.
42. Hunecke M., Haustein S., Grischkat S., Böhler S. Psychological, sociodemographic, and infrastructural factors as determinants of ecological impact caused by mobility behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27:277-292.
43. Jaccard, Wan Measurement error in the analysis of interaction effects between continuous predictors using multiple regression: multiple indicator and structural equation approaches. Psychol. Bull. 1995, 117(2):348-357.
44. Kairos Wirkungsforschung und-entwicklung GmbH (Kairos), 2010. Landrad - Neue Mobilität für die Alltagsmobilität in Vorarlberg. Endbericht, Bregenz. (02.07.12). http://landrad.at/fileadmin/downloads/110103_bericht_landrad.pdf.
45. Klöckner C., Matthies E. How habits interfere with norm-directed behaviour: a normative decision making model for travel mode choice. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24:319-327.
46. Kurani, K.S., Sperling, D., Lipman, T., Stanger, D., Turrentine, T., Stein, A., 1995. Household Markets for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles in California. Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis. http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/13v2w7x0.
47. Kurani K., Turrentine T., Sperling D. Testing electric vehicle demand in hybrid households using a reflexive survey. Transp. Res. D 1996, I(2):131-150.
48. Little T.D., Bavaird J.A., Widaman K.F. On the merits of orthogonalizing powered and product terms: implications for modeling interactions among latent variables. Struct. Equ. Modell. 2006, 13(4):497-519.
49. Mader, M., Mader, C., 2011. Elektromobilität in der Steiermark. Eine Studie zu Elektromobilität (Fokus E-Bikes) im ländlichen Raum. Regional Center of Expertise, Karl-Franzens Universität Graz.
50. Matthies E., Klöckner C., Preißner C. Applying a modified moral decision making model to change habitual car use: how can commitment be effective?. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 55(1):91-106.
51. Moore G.C., Benbasat I. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf. Syst. Res. 1991, 2(3):192-222.
52. Nachtigall C., Kroehne U., Funke F., Steyer R. (Why) should we use SEM? Pros and cons of structural equation modeling. Methods Psychol. Res. Online 2003, 8(2):1-22.
53. Oliver J.D., Rosen D.E. Applying the environmental propensity framework: a segmented approach to hybrid electric vehicle marketing strategies. J. Market. Theory Pract. 2010, 18(4):377-393.
54. Pavlou P.A. Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Electron. Commerce 2003, 7(3):69-103.
55. Pierce J.M.T., Nash A.B., Clouter C.A. The in-use annual energy and carbon saving by switching from a car to an electric bicycle in an urban UK general medical practice: the implication for NHS commuters. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2013, 15(6):1645-1651.
56. Ro H. Moderator and mediator effects in hospitality research. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31:952-961.
57. Rogers E. Diffusion of Innovations 2003, The Free Press, New York. fifth ed.
58. Rose G. E-bikes and urban transportation: emerging issues and unresolved questions. Transportation 2012, 39:81-96.
59. Saldarriaga-Isaza C.A., Vergara C. Who switches to hybrids? A study of fuel conversion program in Colombia. Transp. Res. Part A 2009, 43(5):572-579.
60. Schafer J., Graham J. Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol. Methods 2002, 7(2):147-177.
61. Schuitema G., Anable J., Skippon S., Kinnear N. The role of instrumental, hedonic and symbolic attributes in the intention to adopt electric vehicles. Transp. Res. Part A 2013, 48:39-49.
62. Schwartz Normative influences on altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 1977, vol. 10:221-279. Academic Press, New York.
63. Seebauer, S., 2011. Individuelles Mobilitätsverhalten in Großstädten. Erklärungsmodell und Veränderungsmöglichkeiten für die Nutzung öffentlicher Verkehrsmittel. [Individual mobility behaviour in cities. Action model and policy options for the use of public transportation]. Phd thesis, University of Graz.
64. Seebauer, S., Berger, M., 2010. Willingness to use advanced traveler information systems in Austria. In: IEEE (Ed.), Conference Proceedings of the 13th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, pp. 1831-1836.
65. Seebauer, S., Berger, M., 2010. Target group specific impacts of multimodal transport informations on individual mobility behavior. In: Report to BMVIT in the Research Program ways2go.
66. Seebauer, S., Kufleitner, A., Kulmer, V., 2011. The situational dependency of action models: determinants of bicycle use for shopping trips. In: Presented at the 9th Biennial Conference on Environmental Psychology, September 26-28, 2011, Eindhoven.
67. Shaheen S., Guzman S., Zhang H. Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Past, present, and future. Transp. Res. Rec. 2010, 2143:159-167.
68. Sorrell S., Dimitropoulos J., Sommerville M. Empirical estimates of the direct rebound effect: a review. Energy Policy 2009, 37:1356-1371.
69. Statistics Austria, 2011, 2013. Kfz Statistik. (10.07.13). https://www.statistik.at/web_de/statistiken/verkehr/strasse/kraftfahrzeuge_-_bestand/index.html.
70. Statistics Austria, 2012. Verbrauchsausgaben 2009/10 Sozialstatistische Ergebnisse der Konsumerhebung. (05.09.14). http://www.statistik.at/dynamic/wcmsprod/idcplg?IdcService=GET_NATIVE_FILE&dID=113565&dDocName=058373.
71. Stead D., Marshall S. The relationships between urban form and travel patterns. An international review and evaluation. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 2001, 1(2):113-141.
72. Triandis H.C. Interpersonal Behaviour 1977, Brooks/Cole, Monterey.
73. Troped P.J., Saunders R.P., Pate R.R., Reininger B., Addy C.L. Correlates of recreational and transportation physical activity among adults in a New England community. Prev. Med. 2003, 37:304-310.
74. Turrentine, T., Garas, D., Lentz, A., Woodjack, J., 2011. The UC Davis MINI E consumer study. Plug-in Hybrid & Electric Vehicle Research Center, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis.
75. VCÖ, 2011. Boom bei Elektrofahrräder und Elektro-Mopeds in Österreich - 31.03.2011. VCÖ Presseaussendung Ausgabe: 2011-051, (25.06.13). http://www.vcoe.at/de/presse/aussendungen-archiv/details/items/2011-051.
76. VCÖ, 2013. Mobilität und Transport 2025+. VCÖ-Schriftenreihe "Mobilität mit Zukunft" 2/2013, Vienna.
77. Venkatesh V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf. Syst. Res. 2000, 11(4):342-365.
78. Venkatesh V., Morris M.G., Davis G.B., Davis F.D. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quart. 2003, 27(3):425-478.
79. Wall R., Devine-Wright P., Mill G. Comparing and combining theories to explain proenvironmental intentions. The case of commuting-mode choice. Environ. Behav. 2007, 39(6):731-753.
80. Xing Y., Handy S.L., Mokhtarian P.L. Factors associated with proportions and miles of bicycling for transportation and recreation in six small US cities. Transp. Res. Part D 2010, 15:73-81.