4.7 Article

Confusion of innovations: Mainstream consumer perceptions and misperceptions of electric-drive vehicles and charging programs in Canada

期刊

ENERGY RESEARCH & SOCIAL SCIENCE
卷 27, 期 -, 页码 163-173

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2017.03.008

关键词

Plug-in electric vehicle; Consumer demand; Consumer behaviour; Utility controlled charging; Renewable electricity

资金

  1. Natural Resources Canada
  2. Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions
  3. Government of British Columbia
  4. Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Consumer demand is an important aspect of a successful transition to low-carbon technology-where consumers must have basic awareness and understanding of a technology in order to purchase and use it. In this study we explore consumer knowledge, confusion and perceptions for two related technology cases: plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) and a program that allows the electric utility to control the timing of PEV charging to support renewable electricity. We focus on Mainstream vehicle buyers, who differ from the first PEVs buyers. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 new-vehicle buying households in the greater Vancouver area of British Columbia, Canada. Overall, participant awareness was very low for both technologies; most participants were confused about hybrid and plug-in hybrid technology and did not understand the sources of electricity that PEVs might consume. Once the case technologies were explained, most participants expressed a wide range of positive and negative perceptions of both, which we categorize into a framework of perceived functional (e.g. cost and performance), symbolic (e.g. strangeness and loss of control), or societal (e.g. pollution reduction) attributes. We conclude with suggestions of how research and policy can consider and further examine the roles of knowledge and perceptions in markets for low-carbon technologies. (C) 2017 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