4.7 Article

Spatial multi-criteria assessment of potential lead markets for electrified vehicles in Europe

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2012.05.018

关键词

Electric vehicles; AHP; Multi-criteria analysis; Lead markets; GIS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents a modeling approach that focuses on the identification of potential lead markets for electric-drive vehicles (EDVs) in Europe. It is based on a combination of several selected economic, social, environmental, and transport-related factors. The modeling approach is implemented in a GIS-based multi-criteria decision support process with fuzzy measures, enabling an assessment at different spatial and temporal scales under different EDV market penetration scenarios for Europe. The decision support system embeds a multi-criteria analysis based on selected expert-weighted market penetration drivers. The spatial scale chosen for the application of the decision support process are NUTS2 regions and cities within EU27 member states. Three scenarios are investigated, a business as usual, a moderate change, and an accelerated innovation scenario. Across the scenario horizon, it is shown how lead regions for EDVs will be changing in time between first early-adopter areas towards other long-term potential lead regions, depending on the evolution of the market drivers. The European regions and cities which will have a higher lead market potential score in 2020 and 2030 are identified. Our model solution suggests that with the business-as-usual scenario there will be a few insular lead market areas in 2020 and a relatively limited number of more connected lead regions in 2030. The other two scenarios explored suggest a more positive picture leading for the case of the 2030 accelerated scenario to a wide distribution of EDVs across most of Germany, the Netherlands. France, the UK. Ireland, and Italy. The cities of London, Madrid, Berlin and Rome would show high EDV sales under this scenario. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据