The transportation industry is a significant contributor to air pollution, primarily due to its substantial CO2 emissions. Governments and international agencies seek to reduce car emissions and dependence on fossil fuels. However, the adoption rate of green cars remains insufficient as it faces various challenges, such as insufficient charging stations, discrepancies in the lithium-ion battery market, limited driving range, and high ownership costs. Among these, the high cost of green vehicles represents the most significant barrier. This study synthesizes earlier studies on the relationship between consumers’ intention to adopt green cars and government incentives with a comprehensive systematic literature review. The study included 62 papers from 23 sources using the Scopus database for review. The resulting trend topics and thematic mapping techniques have provided insight into the field’s major and under-explored themes. Content analysis provides insights into research methodologies, significant variables, and findings of previous studies. The suggested research directions in this review can serve as a guide for future studies. It will also help policymakers, manufacturers, and researchers improve green car adoption.
AarstadJ., & KvitasteinO. A. (2020). Has the popularity of battery electric vehicles in Norway affected total new car sales? A synthetic control method study. Applied Economics Letters, 27(21), 1707–1710. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2020.1713981
2.
AasnessM. A., & OdeckJ. (2015). The increase of electric vehicle usage in Norway: Incentives and adverse effects. European Transport Research Review, 7(4), 34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-015-0182-4
3.
AgboF. J., SanusiI. T., OyelereS. S., & SuhonenJ. (2021). Application of virtual reality in computer science education: A systemic review based on bibliometric and content analysis methods. Education Sciences, 11(3), 142. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11030142
4.
AlganadA. M. N., IsaN. M., & FauziW. I. M. (2021). Boosting green cars retail in Malaysia: The influence of conditional value on consumers behaviour. Journal of Distribution Science, 19(7), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.15722/jds.19.7.202107.87
5.
AlonsoS. L. N. (2020). The tax incentives in the IVTM and “eco-friendly cars”: The Spanish case. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12083398
6.
AnsariS., & FarooqiR. (2017). Moderating effect of demographic variables on attitude towards online hopping: An empirical study using PROCESS. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 19(11), 47–54.
7.
AriciF., YildirimP., CaliklarŞ., & YilmazR. M. (2019). Research trends in the use of augmented reality in science education: Content and bibliometric mapping analysis. Computers and Education, 142, 103647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103647
8.
AryanpurV., BalykO., DalyH., Ó GallachóirB., & GlynnJ. (2022). Decarbonisation of passenger light-duty vehicles using spatially resolved TIMES-Ireland model. Applied Energy, 316, 119078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119078
9.
Bahamonde-BirkeF. J., & HanappiT. (2016). The potential of electromobility in Austria: Evidence from hybrid choice models under the presence of unreported information. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 83, 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.11.002
10.
BitencourtL., AbudT., SantosR., & BorbaB. (2021). Bass diffusion model adaptation considering public policies to improve electric vehicle sales: A Brazilian case study. Energies, 14(17), 5435. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14175435
11.
BjerkanK. Y., NørbechT. E., & NordtømmeM. E. (2016). Incentives for promoting battery electric vehicle (BEV) adoption in Norway. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 43, 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.12.002
12.
BoyackK. W., & KlavansR. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2389–2404. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21419
13.
Briones-BitarJ., Carrión-MeroP., Montalván-BurbanoN., & Morante-CarballoF. (2020). Rockfall research: A bibliometric analysis and future trends. Geosciences (Switzerland), 10(10), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences10100403
14.
BroadbentG. H., AllenC. I., WiedmannT., & MetternichtG. I. (2022). Accelerating electric vehicle uptake: Modelling public policy options on prices and infrastructure. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 162, 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2022.05.012
15.
BrückmannG., & BernauerT. (2020). What drives public support for policies to enhance electric vehicle adoption?Environmental Research Letters, 15(9), 094002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab90a5
16.
BühneJ. A., GruschwitzD., HölscherJ., KlötzkeM., KuglerU., & SchimeczekC. (2015). How to promote electromobility for European car drivers? Obstacles to overcome for a broad market penetration. European Transport Research Review, 7(3), 30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-015-0178-0
17.
CarleyS., SiddikiS., & Nicholson-CrottyS. (2019). Evolution of plug-in electric vehicle demand: Assessing consumer perceptions and intent to purchase over time. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 70, 94–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.04.002
18.
ChakrabortyS. (2022). Electric vehicles, intention and theory of planned behaviour: A systematic literature review of the past decade. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4149595
19.
ChangK., ChoiP. M. S., & HuangS. H. (2016). How are new-energy vehicle sales affected by government support? U.S. geospatial evidence. Economic Annals-XXI, 160(7–8), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V160-03
20.
CoadA., de HaanP., & WoersdorferJ. S. (2009). Consumer support for environmental policies: An application to purchases of green cars. Ecological Economics, 68(7), 2078–2086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.01.015
21.
CoboM. J., López-HerreraA. G., Herrera-ViedmaE., & HerreraF. (2011). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the fuzzy sets theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.002
22.
CochranC. E., MayerL. C., CarrT. R., & CayerN. J. (2009). American public policy: An introduction. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 2(3), 480. https://doi.org/10.2307/3324499
23.
DarupA. S., GuillenM., & PiulachsX. (2018). Consumer preferences for electric vehicles in Germany. International Journal of Transport Economics, 45(1), 97–122. https://doi.org/10.19272/201806701006
24.
del Río-RamaM., Maldonado-ErazoC. P., Álvarez-GarcíaJ., & Durán-SánchezA. (2020). Cultural and natural resources in tourism Island: Bibliometric mapping. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(2), 724. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020724
25.
DeutenS., Gómez VilchezJ. J., & ThielC. (2020). Analysis and testing of electric car incentive scenarios in the Netherlands and Norway. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 151, 119847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119847
26.
DijkM., IversenE., KlitkouA., KempR., BolwigS., BorupM., & MøllgaardP. (2020). Forks in the road to e-mobility: An evaluation of instrument interaction in national policy mixes in northwest Europe. Energies, 13(2), 475. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13020475
27.
DonthuN., KumarS., MukherjeeD., PandeyN., & LimW. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
28.
EllegaardO., & WallinJ. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?Scientometrics, 105(3), 1809–1831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z
29.
EwingG. O., & SarigöllüE. (1998). Car fuel-type choice under travel demand management and economic incentives. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 3(6), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(98)00019-4
30.
FalagasM. E., PitsouniE. I., MalietzisG. A., & PappasG. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492lsf
31.
Fernández-EsquinasM., Pérez-YruelaM., & Merchán-HernándezC. (2006). El sistema de incentivos y recompensas en la ciencia pública española. Radiografía de La Investigación Pública En España, 148–206. http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=manuel_fernandez_esquinas
32.
FigenbaumE. (2022). Retrospective total cost of ownership analysis of battery electric vehicles in Norway. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 105, 103246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103246
33.
FigenbaumE., FearnleyN., PfaffenbichlerP., HjortholR., KolbenstvedtM., JellinekR., EmmerlingB., BonnemaG. M., RamjerdiF., VåganeL., & IversenL. M. (2015). Increasing the competitiveness of e-vehicles in Europe. European Transport Research Review, 7(3), 28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-015-0177-1
34.
FranzòS., NascaA., & ChiesaV. (2022). Factors affecting cost competitiveness of electric vehicles against alternative powertrains: A total cost of ownership-based assessment in the Italian market. Journal of Cleaner Production, 363, 132559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132559
35.
FridstrømL. (2021). The Norwegian vehicle electrification policy and its implicit price of carbon. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031346
36.
FridstrømL., & ØstliV. (2017). The vehicle purchase tax as a climate policy instrument. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 96, 168–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.12.011
37.
GallagherK. S., & MuehleggerE. (2012). Giving green to get green? The effect of incentives and ideology on hybrid vehicle adoption. Faculty Research Working Papers Series, February, 1–33. http://www.ucei.berkeley.edu/PDF/seminar100507.pdf
38.
GomółkaK., & KasprzakP. (2021). Directions and prospects for the development of the electric car market in selected ASEAN countries. Energies, 14(22), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14227509
39.
GreenE. H., SkerlosS. J., & WinebrakeJ. J. (2014). Increasing electric vehicle policy efficiency and effectiveness by reducing mainstream market bias. Energy Policy, 65, 562–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.024
40.
HallingerP., & SuriyankietkaewS. (2018). Science mapping of the knowledge base on sustainable leadership, 1990-2018. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(12), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124846
41.
HasanS., & SimsekogluÖ. (2020). The role of psychological factors on vehicle kilometer travelled (VKT) for battery electric vehicle (BEV) users. Research in Transportation Economics, 82, 100880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2020.100880
42.
HeQ., DuanY., WangR., & FuZ. (2019). Factors affecting consumers’ purchase intention of eco-friendly food in China: The evidence from respondents in Beijing. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 43(5), 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12525
43.
HeldT., & GerritsL. (2019). On the road to electrification: A qualitative comparative analysis of urban e-mobility policies in 15 European cities. Transport Policy, 81, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.05.014
44.
Hernández-GonzálezV., Sans-RosellN., Jové-DeltellM. C., & Reverter-MasiaJ. (2016). Comparación entre Web of Science y Scopus, Estudio Bibliométrico de las Revistas de Anatomía y Morfología [Comparison between Web of Science and Scopus, Bibliometric Study of Anatomy and Morphology Journals]. International Journal of Morphology, 34(4), 1369–1377. http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com
45.
HoenA., & KoetseM. J. (2014). A choice experiment on alternative fuel vehicle preferences of private car owners in the Netherlands. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 61, 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.01.008
46.
HuangX., & GeJ. (2019). Electric vehicle development in Beijing: An analysis of consumer purchase intention. Journal of Cleaner Production, 216, 361–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.231
47.
InciE., Tatar TaspinarZ., & UlenginB. (2022). A choice experiment on preferences for electric and hybrid cars in Istanbul. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 107(August), 103295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103295
48.
IngeborgrudL., & RyghaugM. (2019). The role of practical, cognitive and symbolic factors in the successful implementation of battery electric vehicles in Norway. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 130(January), 507–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.09.045
49.
International Energy Agency. (2020). Global EV outlook 2020. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2020
50.
IraniA., & ChalakA. (2015). Harnessing motorists’ potential demand for hybrid-electric vehicles in Lebanon: Policy options, CO2 emissions reduction and welfare gains. Transport Policy, 42(2015), 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.06.001
51.
JainJ., WaliaN., SinghS., & JainE. (2022). Mapping the field of behavioural biases: A literature review using bibliometric analysis. Management Review Quarterly, 72(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00215-y
52.
JennA., LeeJ. H., HardmanS., & TalG. (2020). An in-depth examination of electric vehicle incentives: Consumer heterogeneity and changing response over time. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 132(November2019), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.11.004
53.
JiaW., & ChenT. D. (2021). Are individuals’ stated preferences for electric vehicles (EVs) consistent with real-world EV ownership patterns?Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 93, 102728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102728
54.
KimE., & HeoE. (2019). Key drivers behind the adoption of electric vehicle in Korea: An analysis of the revealed preferences. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(23), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236854
55.
KokR. (2015). Six years of CO2-based tax incentives for new passenger cars in the Netherlands: Impacts on purchasing behavior trends and CO2 effectiveness. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 77, 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.009
56.
KünleE., & MinkeC. (2022). Macro-environmental comparative analysis of e-mobility adoption pathways in France, Germany and Norway. Transport Policy, 124(December2019), 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.08.019
57.
LévayP. Z., DrossinosY., & ThielC. (2017). The effect of fiscal incentives on market penetration of electric vehicles: A pairwise comparison of total cost of ownership. Energy Policy, 105(October2016), 524–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.02.054
58.
LievenT. (2015). Policy measures to promote electric mobility: A global perspective. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 82, 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.09.008
59.
LiuJ., KhattakA. J., LiX., & FuX. (2019). A spatial analysis of the ownership of alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 77(November), 106–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.10.018
60.
LiuX., SunX., ZhengH., & HuangD. (2021). Do policy incentives drive electric vehicle adoption? Evidence from China. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 150, 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.05.013
61.
MaS., GaoP., & TanH. (2017). The Impact of subsidies and charging facilities on demand for electric vehicles in China. Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 8(2), 230–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0975425317716679
62.
MannbergA., JanssonJ., PetterssonT., BrännlundR., & LindgrenU. (2014). Do tax incentives affect households’ adoption of “green” cars? A panel study of the Stockholm congestion tax. Energy Policy, 74(1), 286–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.08.029
63.
ManutworakitP., & ChoocharukulK. (2022). Factors influencing battery electric vehicle adoption in Thailand: Expanding the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology’s variables. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(14), 8482. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148482
64.
MazurC., OfferG. J., ContestabileM., & BrandonN. B. (2018). Comparing the effects of vehicle automation, policy-making and changed user preferences on the uptake of electric cars and emissions from transport. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(3), 4–6. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030676
65.
McCainK. W. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 433–443. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(199009)41:6<433::aid-asi11>3.0.co;2-q
66.
Merediz-SoláI., & BarivieraA. F. (2019). A bibliometric analysis of bitcoin scientific production. Research in International Business and Finance, 50, 294–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2019.06.008
67.
NobaneeH., AlqubaisiG. B., AlhameliA., AlqubaisiH., AlhammadiN., AlmasahliS. A., & WazirN. (2021). Green and sustainable life insurance: A bibliometric review. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 14(11), 563. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14110563
68.
ØstliV., FridstrømL., JohansenK. W., & TsengY. Y. (2017). A generic discrete choice model of automobile purchase. European Transport Research Review, 9(2), 16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-017-0232-1
69.
ØstliV., FridstrømL., KristensenN. B., & LindbergG. (2022). Comparing the Scandinavian automobile taxation systems and their CO2 mitigation effects. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 16(10), 910–927. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2021.1949763
70.
ParlinaA., RamliK., & MurfiH. (2020). Theme mapping and bibliometrics analysis of one decade of big data research in the Scopus database. Information (Switzerland), 11(2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11020069
71.
PavlouP. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3), 101–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2003.11044275
72.
PhilipT., WhiteheadJ., & PratoC. G. (2023). Adoption of electric vehicles in a laggard, car-dependent nation: Investigating the potential influence of V2G and broader energy benefits on adoption. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 167(December2022), 103555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2022.11.015
73.
PotoglouD., & KanaroglouP. S. (2007). Household demand and willingness to pay for clean vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 12(4), 264–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2007.03.001
74.
PuiuS., UdriștioiuM. T., & VeleaL. (2022). Air pollution management: A multivariate analysis of citizens’ perspectives and their willingness to use greener forms of transportation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(21), 14613. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114613
75.
RudolphC. (2016). How may incentives for electric cars affect purchase decisions?Transport Policy, 52, 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.07.014
76.
SangY. N., & BekhetH. A. (2015). Exploring factors influencing electric vehicle usage intention: An empirical study in Malaysia. International Journal of Business and Society, 16(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.33736/ijbs.554.2015
77.
SantarromanaR., MendonçaJ., & DiasA. M. (2020). The effectiveness of decarbonizing the passenger transport sector through monetary incentives. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 138, 442–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.06.020
78.
SchlosserA., SeidelP., SempfF., Chitran MaitraB., LenzL., TibrewalC., MaheshwariR., GuptaS., & ChaudhariP. (2022). Global electric mobility readiness index — GEMRIX 2022: Examining the transformation to EV mobility. Arthur D. Little. https://www.adlittle.com/en/insights/report/global-electric-mobility-readiness-index-gemrix-2022
79.
ShinJ., HongJ., JeongG., & LeeJ. (2012). Impact of electric vehicles on existing car usage: A mixed multiple discrete-continuous extreme value model approach. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 17(2), 138–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2011.10.004
80.
SiebenhoferM., AjanovicA., & HaasR. (2021). How policies affect the dissemination of electric passenger cars worldwide. Energies, 14(8), 2093. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14082093
81.
SinnappanP., & RahmanA. A. (2011). Antecedents of green purchasing behavior among Malaysian consumers. International Business Management, 5(3), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.3923/ibm.2011.129.139
82.
Statista. (2023). Electric vehicles: A global overview. https://www-statista-com.ezproxy1.bath.ac.uk/study/134904/electric-vehicles-a-global-overview/
83.
TiruwaA., YadavR., & SuriP. K. (2018). Moderating effects of age, income and internet usage on online brand community (OBC)-induced purchase intention. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 15(3), 367–392. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAMR-04-2017-0043
84.
VilchezJ. J. G., SmythA., KelleherL., LuH., RohrC., HarrisonG., & ThielC. (2019). Electric car purchase price as a factor determining consumers’ choice and their views on incentives in Europe. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(22), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226357
85.
WangF. P., YuJ. L., YangP., MiaoL. X., & YeB. (2017). Analysis of the barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles in Shenzhen, China. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040522
86.
WangN., TangL., & PanH. (2019). A global comparison and assessment of incentive policy on electric vehicle promotion. Sustainable Cities and Society, 44, 597–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.10.024
87.
WilliamsB. D. H., & AndersonJ. B. (2021). Strategically targeting plug-in electric vehicle rebates and outreach using “EV convert” characteristics. Energies, 14(7), 1899. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14071899
88.
WolfI., SchröderT., NeumannJ., & de HaanG. (2015). Changing minds about electric cars: An empirically grounded agent-based modeling approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 94, 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.10.010
89.
YangX., JinW., JiangH., XieQ., ShenW., & HanW. (2017). Car ownership policies in China: Preferences of residents and influence on the choice of electric cars. Transport Policy, 58(May), 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.04.010
90.
YangZ., & TangM. (2019). Welfare analysis of government subsidy programs for fuel-efficient vehicles and new energy vehicles in China. Environmental and Resource Economics, 74(2), 911–937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-019-00353-8
91.
YoopetchC., & NimsaiS. (2019). Science mapping the knowledge base on sustainable tourism development, 1990–2018. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133631
92.
Zand HessamiH., & YousefiP. (2013). Investigation of major factors influencing green purchasing behavior: Interactive approach. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 2(4), 584–596. www.european-science.com
93.
ZhangJ., XuS., HeZ., LiC., & MengX. (2022). Factors Influencing Adoption Intention for Electric Vehicles under a Subsidy Deduction: From Different City-Level Perspectives. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(10), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105777
94.
ZhangX., BaiX., & ZhongH. (2018). Electric vehicle adoption in license plate-controlled big cities: Evidence from Beijing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 202, 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.265
95.
ZhangY., QianZ. (Sean), SpreiF., & LiB. (2016). The impact of car specifications, prices and incentives for battery electric vehicles in Norway: Choices of heterogeneous consumers. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 69, 386–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.06.014
96.
ZhouY., WangM., HaoH., JohnsonL., WangH., & HaoH. (2015). Plug-in electric vehicle market penetration and incentives: a global review. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 20(5), 777–795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-014-9611-2
97.
ZupicI., & ČaterT. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
