Next Article in Journal
Stochastic Optimization of an Electric Bus Dynamic Wireless Charging System
Previous Article in Journal
Research Progress and Prospects of Transit Priority Signal Intersection Control Considering Carbon Emissions in a Connected Vehicle Environment
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Game Lane Changing Model Considering Driver’s Risk Level in Ramp Merging Scenario
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Towards Sustainable Transport in the Moroccan Context: The Key Determinants of Electric Cars Adoption Intention

1
Department of Economics and Management, Polydisciplinary Faculty of Larache, Abdelmalek Essaadi University, Tetouan 93030, Morocco
2
Higher School of Technology, Ibn Zohr University, Laayoune 3007, Morocco
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
World Electr. Veh. J. 2024, 15(4), 136; https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj15040136
Submission received: 2 March 2024 / Revised: 19 March 2024 / Accepted: 23 March 2024 / Published: 27 March 2024

Abstract

:
In recent years, many countries have actively promoted sustainable mobility as part of their efforts to decarbonize transportation through automotive electrification. Therefore, identifying the factors that influence individuals’ interest in using electric cars (ECs) is crucial for guiding public opinion toward choosing this sustainable mode of transportation. Consequently, the present study mobilized the theory of planned behavior and the technology acceptance model to interpret the various factors influencing the intention to adopt ECs in a developing country. Following the developed model, data were collected from individuals using cars in Morocco through an online questionnaire. Data analysis using structural equation modeling revealed a positive influence of relative advantage on both the perceived ease of use and green perceived usefulness. Furthermore, the perceived ease of use, green perceived usefulness, environmental concern, and social influence positively affected attitudes toward using ECs. Similarly, these results confirmed that green perceived usefulness and individual attitudes positively enhance ECs adoption intention. These findings contribute to the literature related to ECs adoption and offer guidance to policymakers on promoting ECs adoption in developing countries.

1. Introduction

Over the last few years, the emerging players in the automotive manufacturing sector have expedited the shift toward a greener and low-carbon automobile industry. The advancement of electric vehicles is seen as a crucial strategy for countries to address decentralized carbon emissions, fulfill emission reduction commitments, and assist enterprises in cost reduction and efficiency enhancement [1].
The substantial consumption of fossil energy and carbon emissions, primarily driven by motor vehicles [2], underscores the significance of automotive electrification for transportation decarburization, prompting numerous countries in recent years to actively encourage the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) [2,3]. In this context, Morocco is embracing sustainable mobility with the recent enforcement of the Euro6 emission standards from 1 January 2024, signaling a commitment to combat air pollution. Beyond pollution control measures, Morocco is working on a national sustainable mobility plan for 2030, which will reinforce public initiatives to encourage cleaner transportation, building upon earlier steps like waiving customs duties and annual special taxes on hybrid vehicles and EVs. Additionally, efforts to renew taxi and heavy vehicle fleets align with the new anti-pollution standards, and the development of a comprehensive sustainable mobility plan is expected to reshape existing public incentives.
As Morocco establishes itself as a significant player in the automotive industry, with plans to become a prominent exporter of vehicles to Europe, the launch of a 100% Moroccan-designed car and a EUR 50 million investment for a local production plant signal a notable growth trajectory. Furthermore, Morocco has already entered the electric vehicle market, exemplified by the production of an electric car with a range of 75 km and a three-hour charging time, demonstrating the country’s commitment to environmentally friendly transportation solutions.
Consolidating the urban public transport service is among the strategic choices of the new development model adopted by Morocco [4]. This model advocates for an ecological transition and a strong commitment to carbon neutrality by proposing to steer the urban transport ecosystem toward green mobility, thereby supporting Morocco’s positioning in the global value chain related to electric and hybrid mobility.
Emerging as a notable contender in the electric vehicle market, Morocco actively positions itself at the forefront of the industry, leveraging its existing dynamism in the automotive sector and various strengths that contribute to its success in the electric vehicle industry. According to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Morocco presently boasts a production capacity of around 40,000 electric cars per year and has set a target to elevate it to 100,000 by the year 2025. The Kingdom of Morocco also aspires to increase its production capacity to two million cars per year by 2030, enabling it to rank among the world’s top ten automotive manufacturers.
With a significant increase of 25.28% in sales of electrified vehicles in Morocco in 2023 compared to 2022, a noticeable trend is unfolding in the Kingdom. However, despite this noteworthy percentage, electrified vehicles currently represent only 4.5% of the Moroccan automotive market, totaling 7165 units sold out of a total market of 161,504 vehicles in 2023. This shift toward electrification raises questions among Moroccan consumers, prompting them to ponder the optimal choice between hybrid and electric vehicles.
EVs constitute an innovative solution capable of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and contributing to the alleviation of factors causing climate change [5,6]. Despite its introduction to the Moroccan market in 2017, the electric car remains vastly underutilized. Within the realm of EVs, the utilization of electric cars (ECs) can play a role in addressing environmental concerns. Hence, the enhancement of the ECs attractiveness involves identifying and understanding factors that could increase the adoption rate of these vehicles. Consequently, our study aimed to identify various factors that can positively influence Moroccans’ intention to adopt ECs, with a particular emphasis on the role of environmental concerns.
Numerous prior studies have examined the factors influencing the adoption of EVs in various countries, such as India [7], Saudi Arabia [8], Jordan [9], Spain [10], Pakistan [11], Malaysia [12], Norway [13], and China [14,15].
While previous studies predominantly addressed the broader category of EVs, our study focused on the determinants of the intention to adopt electric cars, providing a more detailed examination of this specific subset. Hence, there is still a lack of scholarly focus on the motivations behind the adoption and use of ECs in developing countries. Therefore, this study aimed to fill this gap by investigating the determinants of ECs adoption intention in the Moroccan context.
Our study delved into the following question: what are the key determinants that shape the adoption intention of ECs?
More specifically, the current study aimed to address the following derived questions:
  • How does the relative advantage affect the PEU and GUS of ECs?
  • What impact do the PEU, GUS, SIN, and ENC have on AEC?
  • How do the PEU, GUS, and AEC collectively influence the intention to adopt ECs?
By delving into these research questions, this study makes a substantial contribution to the existing body of knowledge on utilizing the theory of planned behavior (TPB), and the technology acceptance model (TAM) to predict the intention to adopt ECs, taking into account environmental concerns. The rest of this paper is structured into five sections. The second section is dedicated to reviewing the current body of knowledge and proposing a research model. The third section outlines the methodology employed in this study. Subsequently, the fourth section presents the study findings. The final section is devoted to discussions, highlighting significant research implications, and suggesting directions for future studies.

2. Literature Review

As an extension of the theory of reasoned action (TRA), the TPB underscores that a positive influence on individual intention is achieved through attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. This, in turn, enhances individual behavior [16]. Previous studies have extensively utilized the TPB for predicting behavioral intention toward EVs [17,18,19].
The TAM was initially introduced to comprehend the factors influencing behavioral intention and the use of a particular technology [20]. In accordance with this theory, the primary factor influencing an individual’s behavioral intention is their attitude toward a particular technology, which is determined by the perceived usefulness and ease of use of this technology. This model is widely employed to evaluate the factors influencing individuals’ intentions to adopt, accept, or purchase EVs [9,15,21].
Several previous research works have employed different theoretical approaches and models to investigate the determinants of electric vehicle adoption in various contexts (Table 1).
Building upon the foundation laid by these earlier studies, our research extended the application of the TPB and the TAM, integrating factors such as relative advantage and environmental concerns. This approach was informed by the latest advancements in the field, providing a comprehensive understanding of the determinants influencing the intention to adopt ECs. By incorporating these factors, we aimed to provide valuable insights into the complex decision-making processes surrounding the adoption of EVs. This broader perspective is essential for policymakers, businesses, and researchers seeking to promote sustainable transportation solutions.

2.1. Relative Advantage

The relative advantage (RAD) is defined as “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better than the idea it supersedes” [31]. The RAD refers to the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better to alternative options [32]. It is determined not by the innovation’s objective advantage, but by the individual’s subjective perception of its advantages [33].
In this study, the RAD signified the degree to which electric cars were perceived as a more advantageous and practical mode of transportation compared to alternative vehicle types, such as hybrid, petrol, or diesel cars, for a potential use. In other words, individuals evaluated ECs based on how much better they were perceived to be in comparison to conventional vehicles, influencing their decision-making process when considering adopting ECs transportation.
Research has shown that RAD positively influences perceived ease of use, and perceived usefulness of a particular technology [34,35,36]. For instance, [35] confirmed that the RAD positively affects perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and behavioral intention. Moreover, [34] empirically validated the positive influence of RAD on the perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of the technology. More recently, [36] found that RAD serves as a predictor for the perceived usefulness of autonomous vehicles. From these studies, we can posit that the RAD associated with ECs may enhance the individual’s perceived ease of use (PEU) and contribute to a positive perception of their green usefulness (GUS). Consequently, we formulated the following assumptions:
H1. 
RAD is positively related to PEU.
H2. 
RAD is positively related to GUS.

2.2. Determinants of Attitude toward Using ECs

The TAM places attitude toward technology as a pivotal factor that significantly influences behavioral intention. Likewise, individual attitude is shaped by the ease of use and perceived usefulness associated with the technology [20]. The perceived ease of use (PEU) is characterized by an individual’s perception of how easy it would be to use a particular technology [20]. Additionally, the perceived usefulness explores the extent to which an individual perceives of the efficiency of electric cars functions. For the current study, green perceived usefulness (GUS) referred to the level to which an individual believed that their environmental sustainability efforts could be improved by utilizing ECs.
The positive impact of both the perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of a specific technology on attitude toward that technology has been validated in various previous empirical studies [37,38,39,40,41,42]. In the context of EVs, [41] argued that individuals’ attitudes toward behavior are significantly influenced by their perception of the usefulness and ease of use of EVs [41]. Furthermore, it is asserted in TAM 3 that the perceived ease of use plays a pivotal role in positively influencing the perceived usefulness of a specific technology [43,44]. The positive correlation between these variables was validated across various contexts, including electric motorcycles [11,40], fully automated vehicles [28], and EVs [39]. Based on the existing literature, we suggested the following assumptions:
H3. 
PEU is positively related to GUS.
H4. 
PEU is positively related to AEC.
H5. 
GUS is positively related to AEC.
Environmental concern (ENC) is related to the individual’s recognition of environmental issues and their willingness to address and resolve them [45]. Previous studies confirmed the positive effect of ENC on individual attitude [46,47]. By adopting the TPB, [48] concluded that environmental concern is linked to attitude rather than behavioral intention directly. Ref. [49] confirmed the positive association between environmental concerns and attitudes toward electric scooters. In other words, individuals who demonstrate a heightened ENC are more likely to exhibit a positive attitude toward the use of environmentally friendly practices, including attitudes toward using ECs. Hence, we suggested that:
H6. 
ENC is positively related to AEC.
Social influence (SIN) is a measure of the extent to which society or peers believe in individuals’ willingness to adopt new technology [50], such as ECs [51]. It encompasses the opinions of others regarding the importance of adopting EVs, including views from society, family, and close friends. As EVs represent the latest technology in the road transport sector, owning such a car is seen as a means of establishing identity and is perceived as a symbol of social status [23,52,53]. Studies indicate that opinions from society, family, friends, and colleagues can impact an individual’s attitude toward adopting a technology [54,55,56]. For instance, the positive influence of SIN on attitude toward adopting technology innovations has been confirmed. Furthermore, [55] argued that SIN is a key determinant of attitudes toward mobile app technology. Hence we posited that:
H7. 
SIN is positively related to AEC.

2.3. ECs Adoption Intention

Behavioral intentions refer to an individual’s expressed likelihood or willingness to engage in a specific behavior in the future. Individuals who have a predisposition to embrace new technology are the ones who have expressed an intention to adopt or acquire it in the future [17,23]. In multiple technology acceptance theories, the importance of either the intention to use or the intention to adopt has been consistently demonstrated [50]. In the current study, the adoption intention of ECs is considered as an individual’s expressed likelihood or willingness to buy or to use ECs in the future.
Previous studies have demonstrated that perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness predict behavioral intention [34,42,57]. By examining the factors impacting the adoption of autonomous vehicles, [36] discovered that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use have a positive impact on users’ behavioral intention to utilize autonomous vehicles [36]. Ref. [15] also demonstrated that green perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and environmental concern positively influence on individuals’ intentions to use EVs in China. Likewise, the positive association between these variables was also confirmed in Jordan [9]. Based on these studies, we supposed that:
H8. 
PEU is positively related to AIN.
H9. 
GUS is positively related to AIN.
According to the Ajzen’s TPB, the individual’s attitude constitutes one of three key factors influencing his or her behavioral intention [16]. Ref. [58] concluded from their meta-analysis that attitude stands out as the pivotal factor influencing behavioral intention [58]. The positive association between attitude–intention has been confirmed in prior literature [59], including studies related to EVs [17,60]. Based on the TAM, [14] verified that the attitude toward using EVs is the most crucial factor influencing behavioral intention [14]. The positive association between these two variables was also confirmed in Ghana [61] and Indonesia [17]. From these studies, we posited that:
H10. 
AEC is positively related to AIN.

3. Materials and Methods

Figure 1 illustrates the various steps followed for the development and testing of the research model using the PLS-SEM approach.

3.1. Study Questionnaire

The various latent variables of our research model (Figure 2) were operationalized based on the measurement scales selected from previous empirical studies. Environmental concern was assessed using four items drawn from previous studies [62,63,64]. Social influence was gauged through four items [65]. Relative advantage was evaluated with three selected items [66]. Green perceived usefulness was measured using three items [20,67,68]. Perceived ease of use was assessed with four items selected from [20] and adjusted based on the study of [69]. Attitude toward using ECs was measured using three items from [70]. Finally, ECs adoption intention was assessed using four items [71,72]. These measurement scales were selected based on their utility and relevance to ensure the comprehensiveness and accuracy of our research findings (Appendix A).
All items were evaluated based on a Likert scale, ranging from (1) indicating strong disagreement to (5) signifying strong agreement.

3.2. Participants Selection and Sampling

The study population focused on individuals residing in Morocco who utilize a car. Because of the lack of a comprehensive population database, we opted for the snowball non-probability sampling method [73]. In practical terms, participants were invited to distribute the link of the study questionnaires to other individuals who use cars in Morocco.
The research unfolded in two distinct phases. Given the online nature of data collection, the initial stage focused on enhancing the survey’s comprehensibility. This involved conducting a pretest among a subset of 10 individuals who use a car. The feedback from this pilot test led to refinements in the wording of specific questions. The second stage involved administering the questionnaire online.
The study’s minimum sample size was calculated by multiplying the total number of indicators (25 questions) by a range of five to ten [74], resulting in a requirement for 125–250 respondents. During a 50-day data collection period, from 7 December 2023 to 25 January 2024, data was gathered using online methods by distributing questionnaire links to Moroccans through email and WhatsApp. The questionnaire was also administered in three languages: Arabic, French, and English. The decision to employ an online survey as the research method enhanced the objectivity of the study. This choice enabled participants to independently and impartially engage in the survey without being influenced by the researcher [75]. The adoption of an online survey provided participants a convenient and easily accessible channel to express their perspectives. Consequently, this initiative yielded 202 valid responses.
Table 2 provides a comprehensive overview of the study participants’ characteristics. The majority of participants were male (78.71%), with diverse age distributions, predominantly falling within the 31–40 age group (35.15%). Education levels varied, with a significant percentage holding master’s degrees (45.05%) and PhDs (31.19%). The majority of participants were married (65.35%), and government employees constituted a substantial portion of the occupational demographic (65.84%). These findings align with income distribution trends, with 30.20% earning between 5 and 10 KMAD, 34.16% earning between 10 and 15 KMAD, and 18.81% earning 15 KMAD and above.
Figure 3 illustrates that the majority of the cars used in the study were diesel (71.29%), followed by petrol cars (25.74%), and hybrids (2.97%).
Additionally, the distribution of the cars used across different regions varied, with Laâyoune-Sakia El Hamra having the highest representation (29.21%), followed by Rabat-Salé-Kénitra (24.26%), and Fez-Meknes (10.40%), showcasing geographical differences in car ownership patterns within the study population (Figure 4).

3.3. Data Analysis

The collected data was entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (XLSX), facilitating the subsequent data analysis through SPSS Statistics 25 software for descriptive statistics and the application of Harman’s single-factor test. Additionally, SmartPLS 4 software was employed for thorough data analysis [76]. These data were then analyzed using the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) technique. This approach involves a two-stage evaluation process. In the initial stage, the outer model is assessed to ensure convergent and discriminant validity, examining factors such as loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, and average variance extracted (AVE). In the subsequent stage, the inner model is scrutinized, evaluating coefficients of determination (R2) for endogenous latent variables, effect size (f2), and the predictive power (Q2predict). Hypothesis verification, based on t-values and p-values, is also integrated.
Prior to initiating data analysis, we performed Harman’s single-factor test to investigate the potential presence of common method variance (CMV). The results of the test indicated that a single factor explained 37.516% of the total variance, suggesting the absence of CMV in the collected dataset [77].

4. Results

4.1. Convergent and Discriminant Validity

4.1.1. Reliability and Convergent Validity Assessment

Table 3 illustrates the reliability and convergent validity assessment. All item loading values met scientific standards [78]. These values suggested strong associations between the items and their constructs, including the ENC (ranging from 0.845 to 0.894), RAD (ranging from 0.768 to 0.858), GUS (ranging from 0.751 to 0.882), PEU (ranging from 0.653 to 0.880), SIN (ranging from 0.659 to 0.875), AEC (ranging from 0.878 to 0.918), and AIN (ranging from 0.861 to 0.894). Furthermore, the reliability was examined based on Cronbach’s alpha (α), whose values were between 0.737 and 0.901, indicating that all the measurement scales had good levels of reliability. Similarly, the composite reliability (ρa) values, ranging from 0.745 to 0.903, all exceeded the threshold of 0.7. Likewise, the AVE values ranged between 0.591 and 0.801, indicating that the latent constructs were explained with a minimum of 59.1%. Moreover, the variance inflation factor (VIF) metrics did not reveal any signs of collinearity within the outer model.

4.1.2. Discriminant Validity Assessment

Table 4 presents the outcomes of the assessment of the outer model discriminant validity according to the Fornell–Larcker criterion. This was demonstrated by the AVE diagonal values exceeding their correlations with the other constructs, thus confirming the distinctiveness of each construct.
Table 5 offers an evaluation of the discriminant validity through the HTMT ratio, where the values below 0.9 indicate that the constructs within the measurement model were adequately distinguishable from one another [79].
Furthermore, this illustrates that the loadings of all the indicators on their respective latent variables significantly exceeded their loadings on all the other variables, enabling us to affirm the discriminant validity of the outer models based on the cross-loading criterion (Appendix B). Figure 5 illustrates the model subsequent to confirming the reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the measurement scales pertaining to the seven latent constructs in the study model.

4.2. Inner Model Assessment

4.2.1. Coefficient of Determination and Model Predictive Power

As shown in Figure 6, the R2 values for the four endogenous constructs, including the PEU, GUS, AEC, and AIN, were 19%, 51%, 62%, and 51% respectively, indicating a satisfactory level of explanatory power.
The Q2predict of these constructs were 0.168, 0.423, 0.416, and 0.307, respectively, providing proof of an acceptable predictive power of the research model (Table 6).

4.2.2. Hypothesis Testing Results

Table 7 presents the results for the structural model evaluation. The VIF metrics, with all values below 0.33, did not provide indications of collinearity within the structural model [80]. The findings of the study validated the positive impact of the RAD on both the PEU (β = 0.435, t = 5.531, p = 0.000, f2 = 0.233) and GUS (β = 0.525, t = 8.147, p = 0.000, f2 = 0.456), supporting the acceptance of hypotheses H1 and H2. Similarly, the positive association between the PEU and GUS was also confirmed (H3. β = 0.308, t = 3.911, p = 0.000, f2 = 0.157).
Furthermore, the findings revealed a significant and positive influence of the PEU (β = 0.237, t = 3.152, p = 0.002, f2 = 0.100), GUS (β = 0.443, t = 6.070, p = 0.000, f2 = 0.334), ENC (β = 0.152, t = 3.021, p = 0.003, f2 = 0.050), and SIN (β = 0.193, t = 3.657, p = 0.000, f2 = 0.074) on attitudes toward using ECs. Hence, we have provided empirical support for hypotheses H4, H5, H6, and H7.
Hypothesis H8, which assumed a positive impact of the PEU on the AIN, was rejected (β = 0.122, p = 0.071, f2 = 0.019). Lastly, the results demonstrated a positive and significant influence of the GUS (β = 0.162, t = 2.077, p = 0.038, f2 = 0.026) and AEC (β = 0.511, t = 7.006, p = 0.000, f2 = 0.236) on the AIN (Figure 7).

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The current study aimed to unveil the essential factors influencing the intention to adopt ECs in Morocco. To achieve this objective, we formulated a model based on Ajzen’s TPB and the TAM, by incorporating elements such as relative advantage and environmental concerns.
The results of the PLS-SEM confirmed the positive influence of relative advantage on both the perceived ease of use and green perceived usefulness. In other words, when ECs are perceived as having a more advantageous and practical mode of transportation compared to alternative vehicle types, individuals are more likely to find it easy to use and consider it useful in terms of environmental friendliness. These findings are consistent with conclusions reported in previous research studies [34,35]. In their analysis of factors influencing the autonomous vehicle adoption in China, [36] argued that relative advantage plays a crucial role in enhancing the perceived usefulness at the individual level. Additionally, [34] provided empirical evidence supporting the pivotal role of the technology’s relative advantage in enhancing both its ease of use and perceived usefulness.
The study results showed a positive association between ECs perceived ease of use and green perceived usefulness. In essence, the more individuals find ECs easy to operate, the higher their perception of the environmental usefulness of these vehicles. This finding aligns with previous studies [36,40,44], which also confirmed that an increased perception of technology ease of use plays a crucial role in enhancing the individual’s perceived usefulness of that technology. Ref. [40] identified a positive correlation between the ease of use of electric motorcycles and individuals’ perception of their utility. More recently, in the realm of fully automated vehicles, [28] revealed that perceived ease of use strongly predicts individual perceived usefulness.
Furthermore, the findings indicated a direct impact of perceived ease of use and green perceived usefulness on attitudes toward using ECs. These results are supported by earlier empirical studies [37,38,39,40,41,42]. Ref. [41] stated that people’s attitudes toward behavior are notably shaped by their perceptions of the ease of use and usefulness of EVs.
The findings unveiled a positive influence of environmental concern, and social influence on attitudes toward using ECs. In other words, individuals with a heightened environmental concern are more inclined to show a positive attitude toward adopting environmentally friendly practices, such as using ECs. Likewise, the opinion of family and close friends regarding the importance of adopting ECs play a central role in shaping individual attitudes toward adopting ECs. These results are in line with prior empirical studies that pointed out the positive influence of environmental concern [46,47] and social influence [54,55,56] on individuals’ attitudes.
Contrary to previous empirical studies emphasizing the importance of the technology perception of ease of use as a predictor of behavioral intention [36,42,57], the results of the current study attest to a lack of association between these two variables. This implies that individuals’ perceptions of the ease of using electric cars does not influence their intention to adopt these vehicles. One potential explanation for this phenomenon might be connected to individuals’ previous familiarity with similar technologies, the accessibility of charging infrastructure, or other external factors that shape their decision-making process regarding the adoption of ECs.
Finally, the findings revealed that green perceived usefulness and attitude toward using ECs positively enhanced ECs adoption intention, implying that better perception of green usefulness of ECs and better attitude toward using ECs significantly improves the individual adoption intention of ECs. These results are consistent with earlier studies, indicating that individuals with a higher level of green perceived usefulness [15], and positive attitudes toward using ECs [14,17,60], exhibit a heightened intention to adopt ECs. Likewise, [27] revealed that positive perceptions of technology usefulness and consumer attitudes significantly bolster EVs adoption intentions.

5.1. Study Implications

The current study aimed to unveil the determinants of individuals’ intention to adopt ECs in Morocco. Therefore, the first implication for this theory was related to the developed model that integrates the TPB and the TAM, which are extensively employed to study behavioral intention [81]. Furthermore, the current study findings contribute to the existing literature regarding the determinants of technology adoption intention, particularly recent research on the determinants of EVs adoption intention [14]. More precisely, the findings confirmed the positive impact of perceived ease of use on green perceived usefulness. Similarly, perceived ease of use, green perceived usefulness, and social influence were found to have a direct influence on attitudes toward using ECs, which in turn enhances individual attitudes toward adopting ECs. Another theoretical implication involves incorporating relative advantage and environmental concerns into our research model. The results confirmed the role of relative advantage in enhancing the perception of ECs ease of use and usefulness. While [11] argued that environmental concerns directly influence behavioral intention, the current study findings offer a new perspective by conforming the role of environmental concerns in improving individuals’ attitudes toward using ECs.
In addition to the theoretical implications, the study findings offer significant practical implications for public policymakers and manufacturers seeking to promote the adoption of electric vehicles in Morocco. Initially, the results confirmed the positive impact of the relative advantage in improving the perceived ease of use and the green perceived usefulness of ECs. Hence, manufacturers and policymakers can raise awareness about the advantages and benefits of ECs to enhance their adoption among individuals. Additionally, given the positive impact of green perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use on attitudes toward using ECs adoption, Moroccan policymakers are urged to prioritize investments in charging infrastructure and provide financial incentives to encourage citizens to adopt ECs.
Another practical direction involves implementing public awareness campaigns through radio, television, and the most widely used social networks in Morocco. The goal is to provide concrete information about the environmental benefits of electric cars, aiming to encourage environmentally conscious citizens to adopt and promote the adoption of this type of transport within their social circles.

5.2. Limitations and Areas for Future Research

Like any empirical research on technology adoption, including the adoption of electric cars, our study entails certain limitations that should be considered in forthcoming studies to delve deeper into the reasons behind the intention to adopt ECs. The first limitation of this study lies in its exclusive focus on a quantitative approach. To address this limitation, the incorporation of a qualitative approach alongside quantitative methods (mixed methods approach) could provide a more holistic perspective on the determinants of ECs adoption intention in Morocco.
The second limitation is associated with the study population, which solely targeted car users. Thus, to further delve into the analysis of determinants affecting ECs adoption, broadening the study to encompass experts and professionals engaged in the ECs production process could enhance the developed model and foster a better understanding of the role of ECs characteristics in their adoption process by individuals.
Moreover, the current study only considered six variables to explore the determinants of ECs adoption intention. Hence, future research could expand this model by analyzing the role of other factors such as ECs characteristics, social status, technophilia, trust, and individual characteristics.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.B.; Methodology, O.B. and H.L.; Software, O.B.; Validation, O.B., Y.A.Y. and M.L.; Data curation, O.B., H.L., Y.A.Y. and M.L.; Formal analysis, O.B., H.L., Y.A.Y. and M.L.; Investigation, O.B. and M.L.; Resources, O.B., H.L., Y.A.Y. and M.L.; Writing-original draft preparation, O.B., Y.A.Y., H.L. and M.L.; Writing—review and editing, O.B. and M.L.; Visualization, O.B., H.L., Y.A.Y. and M.L.; Project administration, O.B.; Supervision, O.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

AECAttitude toward using ECs
AINAdoption Intention
AVEAverage Variance Extracted
CMVCommon Method Variance
ECsElectric Cars
EVsElectric Vehicles
ENCEnvironmental Concern
GUSGreen Perceived Usefulness
HTMT Heterotrait–Monotrait
IDTInnovation Diffusion Theory
NAMNorm Activation Model
PLSPartial Least Squares
PEUPerceived Ease of use
RAD Relative Advantage
SEMStructural Equation Modeling
SINSocial Influence
TAMTechnology Acceptance Model
TPBTheory of Planned Behavior
TRATheory of Reasoned Action
TTF Task Technology Fit
UTAUTUnified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
VIFVariance Inflation Factor

Appendix A

Table A1. Construct Measurement.
Table A1. Construct Measurement.
VariableCodeItems
Environmental
concern
ENC1I worry about the environmental conditions we will live under in the future.
ENC2I am very concerned about current environmental pollution in Morocco and its impact on health.
ENC3Automobile exhaust emission is one of the primary sources of air pollution.
ENC4I have the responsibility to adopt a low-carbon travel mode.
Social InfluenceSIN1People who are important to me think that I should use ECs.
SIN2People who influence my behavior think that I should use ECs.
SIN3People whose opinions I value would like me to use ECs.
SIN4In general, the authority would support the use of ECs.
Relative
advantage
RAD1Using ECs would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption.
RAD2Using ECs would eliminate my fuel costs.
RAD3Using ECs would reduce repair and maintenance costs.
Green perceived usefulnessGUS1I believe that the use of ECs can improve the traffic quality.
GUS2I believe that the use of ECs can make me healthier.
GUS3I believe that the use of ECs can improve environmental quality.
Perceived ease of usePEU1It is easy for me to learn how to use electric cars.
PEU2The operation of an EC is no different to me from that of a conventional vehicle.
PEU3I find it easy to drive an EC.
PEU4I find it easy to charge an EC.
Attitude
toward using ECs
AEC1I think that using an EC is valuable.
AEC2I think that using an EC is right.
AEC3I think that using an EC is necessary.
Adoption intentionAIN1I plan to adopt an EC in the near future.
AIN2If I need to buy a new car in the near future, I would prefer an EC.
AIN3If my friends want to buy a new car, I would suggest to them that they buy an EC.
AIN4I am willing to buy an EC in the future.

Appendix B

Table A2. Cross-loadings.
Table A2. Cross-loadings.
AECAINENCGUSPEURADSIN
AEC10.8890.5810.3760.6460.5700.5050.446
AEC20.9180.6350.4530.6620.5460.5600.446
AEC30.8780.6590.3790.5830.4850.5140.515
AIN10.5770.8640.2700.4640.4430.4170.511
AIN20.6250.8940.2690.5210.4640.4510.519
AIN30.6340.8940.3020.5620.4740.4800.560
AIN40.6170.8610.2960.5150.4230.4150.548
ENC10.3230.1620.8450.2470.2460.3970.219
ENC20.3890.2570.8940.2790.2620.4590.308
ENC30.3910.2790.8500.3180.2340.4630.314
ENC40.4300.3830.8450.3520.3080.5070.372
GUS10.4560.3990.1790.7510.3690.4510.263
GUS20.6600.5400.2990.8820.4850.5740.401
GUS30.5940.4930.3690.8190.4530.5810.346
PEU10.5000.4730.3090.4700.8370.3670.373
PEU20.3760.3280.1680.2600.6530.2010.147
PEU30.5620.4510.2790.5130.8800.3720.352
PEU40.3640.3020.1590.3570.6800.3770.268
RAD10.5310.3590.5440.5440.3680.8010.314
RAD20.4910.4680.4250.5700.3780.8580.366
RAD30.4010.3910.3230.4810.3060.7680.430
SIN10.4220.5020.2780.3320.3080.3630.875
SIN20.3760.4470.2690.2830.3150.3490.828
SIN30.4970.5700.3370.4270.3530.3950.869
SIN40.3880.4380.2720.2870.2670.3560.659

References

  1. Wu, D.; Li, J. Research on the Optimal Leasing Strategy of Electric Vehicle Manufacturers. World Electr. Veh. J. 2024, 15, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hou, X.; Su, M.; Liu, C.; Li, Y.; Ma, Q. Examination of the Factors Influencing the Electric Vehicle Accident Size in Norway (2020–2021). World Electr. Veh. J. 2024, 15, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bonisoli, L.; Velepucha Cruz, A.M.; Rogel Elizalde, D.K. Revving towards Sustainability: Environmentalism Impact on Electric Motorcycle Adoption. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 435, 140262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. CSMD. Le Nouveau Modèle de Développement Au Maroc, Libérer Les Énergies et Restaurer La Confiance Pour Accélérer La Marche Vers Le Progrès et La Prospérité Pour Tous. Rapport Général; Commission Spéciale sur le Modèle de Développement: Rabat, Maroc, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  5. Langbroek, J.H.M.; Franklin, J.P.; Susilo, Y.O. The Effect of Policy Incentives on Electric Vehicle Adoption. Energy Policy 2016, 94, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. 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]
  7. Singh, H.; Singh, V.; Singh, T.; Higueras-Castillo, E. Electric Vehicle Adoption Intention in the Himalayan Region Using UTAUT2—NAM Model. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2023, 11, 100946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Alzahrani, K.; Hall-Phillips, A.; Zeng, A.Z. Applying the Theory of Reasoned Action to Understanding Consumers’ Intention to Adopt Hybrid Electric Vehicles in Saudi Arabia. Transportation 2019, 46, 199–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Abudayyeh, D.; Almomani, M.; Almomani, O.; Jaber, D.; Alhelo, E. Examining the Determinants of Electric Vehicle Acceptance in Jordan: A PLS-SEM Approach. World Electr. Veh. J. 2023, 14, 304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Buhmann, K.M.; Rialp-Criado, J.; Rialp-Criado, A. Predicting Consumer Intention to Adopt Battery Electric Vehicles: Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Shaikh, S.; Talpur, M.A.H.; Baig, F.; Tariq, F.; Khahro, S.H. Adoption of Electric Motorcycles in Pakistan: A Technology Acceptance Model Perspective. World Electr. Veh. J. 2023, 14, 278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Vafaei-Zadeh, A.; Wong, T.-K.; Hanifah, H.; Teoh, A.P.; Nawaser, K. Modelling Electric Vehicle Purchase Intention among Generation Y Consumers in Malaysia. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2022, 43, 100784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Yang, A.; Liu, C.; Yang, D.; Lu, C. Electric Vehicle Adoption in a Mature Market: A Case Study of Norway. J. Transp. Geogr. 2023, 106, 103489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, N.; Tian, H.; Zhu, S.; Li, Y. Analysis of Public Acceptance of Electric Vehicle Charging Scheduling Based on the Technology Acceptance Model. Energy 2022, 258, 124804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wu, J.; Liao, H.; Wang, J.-W.; Chen, T. The Role of Environmental Concern in the Public Acceptance of Autonomous Electric Vehicles: A Survey from China. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2019, 60, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behaviour: Reactions and Reflections. Psychol. Health 2011, 26, 1113–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Gunawan, I.; Redi, A.A.N.P.; Santosa, A.A.; Maghfiroh, M.F.N.; Pandyaswargo, A.H.; Kurniawan, A.C. Determinants of Customer Intentions to Use Electric Vehicle in Indonesia: An Integrated Model Analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Moons, I.; De Pelsmacker, P. Emotions as Determinants of Electric Car Usage Intention. J. Mark. Manag. 2012, 28, 195–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rezvani, Z.; Jansson, J.; Bodin, J. Advances in Consumer Electric Vehicle Adoption Research: A Review and Research Agenda. Transp. Res. Part Transp. Environ. 2015, 34, 122–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Davis, F.D. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pai, F.-Y.; Shih, Y.-J.; Chuang, Y.-C.; Yeh, T.-M. Supporting Environment Sustainability: Purchasing Intentions Relating to Battery Electric Vehicles in Taiwan. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Verma, M.; Verma, A.; Khan, M. Factors Influencing the Adoption of Electric Vehicles in Bengaluru. Transp. Dev. Econ. 2020, 6, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. 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] [PubMed]
  24. Lashari, Z.A.; Ko, J.; Jang, J. Consumers’ Intention to Purchase Electric Vehicles: Influences of User Attitude and Perception. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Loengbudnark, W.; Khalilpour, K.; Bharathy, G.; Taghikhah, F.; Voinov, A. Battery and Hydrogen-Based Electric Vehicle Adoption: A Survey of Australian Consumers Perspective. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2022, 10, 2451–2463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Adu-Gyamfi, G.; Song, H.; Nketiah, E.; Obuobi, B.; Adjei, M.; Cudjoe, D. Determinants of Adoption Intention of Battery Swap Technology for Electric Vehicles. Energy 2022, 251, 123862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rejali, S.; Aghabayk, K.; Esmaeli, S.; Shiwakoti, N. Comparison of Technology Acceptance Model, Theory of Planned Behavior, and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology to Assess a Priori Acceptance of Fully Automated Vehicles. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2023, 168, 103565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hull, C.; Giliomee, J.H.; Visser, M.; Booysen, M.J. Electric Vehicle Adoption Intention among Paratransit Owners and Drivers in South Africa. Transp. Policy 2024, 146, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Alwadain, A.; Fati, S.M.; Ali, K.; Ali, R.F. From Theory to Practice: An Integrated TTF-UTAUT Study on Electric Vehicle Adoption Behavior. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0297890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.; A Division of Simon & Schuster Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  32. Wang, X.; Yuen, K.F.; Wong, Y.D.; Teo, C.C. An Innovation Diffusion Perspective of E-Consumers’ Initial Adoption of Self-Collection Service via Automated Parcel Station. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2018, 29, 237–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bandara, U.C.; Amarasena, T.S.M. Impact of Relative Advantage, Perceived Behavioural Control and Perceived Ease of Use on Intention to Adopt with Solar Energy Technology in Sri Lanka. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference and Utility Exhibition on Green Energy for Sustainable Development (ICUE), Phuket, Thailand, 24–28 October 2018; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  34. Al-Rahmi, W.M.; Yahaya, N.; Aldraiweesh, A.A.; Alamri, M.M.; Aljarboa, N.A.; Alturki, U.; Aljeraiwi, A.A. Integrating Technology Acceptance Model With Innovation Diffusion Theory: An Empirical Investigation on Students’ Intention to Use E-Learning Systems. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 26797–26809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Veloo, R.; Masood, M. Acceptance and Intention to Use the iLearn System in an Automotive Semiconductor Company in the Northern Region of Malaysia. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 116, 1378–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yuen, K.F.; Cai, L.; Qi, G.; Wang, X. Factors Influencing Autonomous Vehicle Adoption: An Application of the Technology Acceptance Model and Innovation Diffusion Theory. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2021, 33, 505–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bashir, I.; Madhavaiah, C. Consumer Attitude and Behavioural Intention towards Internet Banking Adoption in India. J. Indian Bus. Res. 2015, 7, 67–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kao, W.-K.; Huang, Y.-S. (Sandy) Service Robots in Full- and Limited-Service Restaurants: Extending Technology Acceptance Model. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2023, 54, 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Müller, J.M. Comparing Technology Acceptance for Autonomous Vehicles, Battery Electric Vehicles, and Car Sharing—A Study across Europe, China, and North America. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ngoc Su, D.; Quy Nguyen-Phuoc, D.; Thi Kim Tran, P.; Van Nguyen, T.; Trong Luu, T.; Pham, H.-G. Identifying Must-Have Factors and Should-Have Factors Affecting the Adoption of Electric Motorcycles—A Combined Use of PLS-SEM and NCA Approach. Travel Behav. Soc. 2023, 33, 100633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tu, J.-C.; Yang, C. Key Factors Influencing Consumers’ Purchase of Electric Vehicles. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Xu, Z.; Zhang, K.; Min, H.; Wang, Z.; Zhao, X.; Liu, P. What Drives People to Accept Automated Vehicles? Findings from a Field Experiment. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2018, 95, 320–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Venkatesh, V.; Bala, H. Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decis. Sci. 2008, 39, 273–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Boubker, O. From Chatting to Self-Educating: Can AI Tools Boost Student Learning Outcomes? Expert Syst. Appl. 2024, 238, 121820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wang, S.; Li, J.; Zhao, D. The Impact of Policy Measures on Consumer Intention to Adopt Electric Vehicles: Evidence from China. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 105, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hartmann, P.; Apaolaza-Ibáñez, V. Consumer Attitude and Purchase Intention toward Green Energy Brands: The Roles of Psychological Benefits and Environmental Concern. J. Bus. Res. 2012, 65, 1254–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kirmani, M.D.; Khan, M.N. Environmental Concern to Attitude towards Green Products: Evidences from India. Serbian J. Manag. 2016, 11, 159–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. De Groot, J.; Steg, L. General Beliefs and the Theory of Planned Behavior: The Role of Environmental Concerns in the TPB. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 37, 1817–1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Chen, C.-F.; Eccarius, T.; Su, P.-C. The Role of Environmental Concern in Forming Intentions for Switching to Electric Scooters. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2021, 154, 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. 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]
  51. Bhat, F.A.; Verma, M.; Verma, A. Measuring and Modelling Electric Vehicle Adoption of Indian Consumers. Transp. Dev. Econ. 2021, 8, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Schmalfuß, F.; Mühl, K.; Krems, J.F. Direct Experience with Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) Matters When Evaluating Vehicle Attributes, Attitude and Purchase Intention. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2017, 46, 47–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhou, M.; Long, P.; Kong, N.; Zhao, L.; Jia, F.; Campy, K.S. Characterizing the Motivational Mechanism behind Taxi Driver’s Adoption of Electric Vehicles for Living: Insights from China. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2021, 144, 134–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. AlSaleh, D.; Thakur, R. Impact of Cognition, Affect, and Social Factors on Technology Adoption. Int. J. Technol. Mark. 2019, 13, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Vahdat, A.; Alizadeh, A.; Quach, S.; Hamelin, N. Would You like to Shop via Mobile App Technology? The Technology Acceptance Model, Social Factors and Purchase Intention. Australas. Mark. J. 2021, 29, 187–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wu, W.-Y.; Li, C.-Y. A Contingency Approach to Incorporate Human, Emotional and Social Influence into a TAM for KM Programs. J. Inf. Sci. 2007, 33, 275–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Thilina, D.K.; Gunawardane, N. The Effect of Perceived Risk on the Purchase Intention of Electric Vehicles: An Extension to the Technology Acceptance Model. Int. J. Electr. Hybrid Veh. 2019, 11, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kumar, G.; Nayak, J.K. A Meta-Analysis of TPB Model in Predicting Green Energy Behavior: The Moderating Role of Cross-Cultural Factors. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2023, 35, 147–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lin, N.; Roberts, K.R. Using the Theory of Planned Behavior to Predict Food Safety Behavioral Intention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 90, 102612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Shalender, K.; Sharma, N. Using Extended Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) to Predict Adoption Intention of Electric Vehicles in India. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 665–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Turkson, R.F.; Atombo, C.; Akple, M.S.; Tibu, H.M. Modelling the Adoption of Electronic Vehicle Diagnostic Technology for Vehicle Repairs: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2023, 191, 122449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ha, H.; Janda, S. Predicting Consumer Intentions to Purchase Energy-efficient Products. J. Consum. Mark. 2012, 29, 461–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kim, Y.; Choi, S.M. Antecedents of Green Purchase Behavior: An Examination of Collectivism, Environmental Concern, and PCE. ACR N. Am. Adv. 2005, 32, 592–599. [Google Scholar]
  64. Shi, H.; Fan, J.; Zhao, D. Predicting Household PM2.5-Reduction Behavior in Chinese Urban Areas: An Integrative Model of Theory of Planned Behavior and Norm Activation Theory. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 145, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Madigan, R.; Louw, T.; Wilbrink, M.; Schieben, A.; Merat, N. What Influences the Decision to Use Automated Public Transport? Using UTAUT to Understand Public Acceptance of Automated Road Transport Systems. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2017, 50, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wang, Y.; Douglas, M.; Hazen, B. Diffusion of Public Bicycle Systems: Investigating Influences of Users’ Perceived Risk and Switching Intention. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2021, 143, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Chen, S.-Y. Green Helpfulness or Fun? Influences of Green Perceived Value on the Green Loyalty of Users and Non-Users of Public Bikes. Transp. Policy 2016, 47, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Chen, S.-Y. Using the Sustainable Modified TAM and TPB to Analyze the Effects of Perceived Green Value on Loyalty to a Public Bike System. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2016, 88, 58–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. 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]
  70. Nguyen-Phuoc, D.Q.; Oviedo-Trespalacios, O.; Nguyen, M.H.; Dinh, M.T.T.; Su, D.N. Intentions to Use Ride-Sourcing Services in Vietnam: What Happens after Three Months without COVID-19 Infections? Cities 2022, 126, 103691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zhang, J.; Xu, S.; He, Z.; Li, C.; Meng, X. Factors Influencing Adoption Intention for Electric Vehicles under a Subsidy Deduction: From Different City-Level Perspectives. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zhang, W.; Wang, S.; Wan, L.; Zhang, Z.; Zhao, D. Information Perspective for Understanding Consumers’ Perceptions of Electric Vehicles and Adoption Intentions. Transp. Res. Part Transp. Environ. 2022, 102, 103157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Saunders, M.; Lewis, P.; Thornhill, A. Research Methods for Business Students; Pearson Education: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  74. Hair, J.F.; Celsi, M.W.; Ortinau, D.J.; Bush, R.P. Essentials of Marketing Research; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2017; ISBN 978-0-07-811211-9. [Google Scholar]
  75. Daley, E.M.; McDermott, R.J.; McCormack Brown, K.R.; Kittleson, M.J. Conducting Web-Based Survey Research: A Lesson in Internet Designs. Am. J. Health Behav. 2003, 27, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Becker, J.-M. SmartPLS 4. Oststeinbek: SmartPLS. 2022. Available online: https://www.smartpls.com (accessed on 1 March 2024).
  77. Harman, H.H. Modern Factor Analysis; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  78. Guenther, P.; Guenther, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Zaefarian, G.; Cartwright, S. Improving PLS-SEM Use for Business Marketing Research. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2023, 111, 127–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to Use and How to Report the Results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Danks, N.P.; Ray, S. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R: A Workbook; Classroom Companion: Business; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; ISBN 978-3-030-80518-0. [Google Scholar]
  81. Mathieson, K. Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior. Inf. Syst. Res. 1991, 2, 173–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Study method steps.
Figure 1. Study method steps.
Wevj 15 00136 g001
Figure 2. Study model.
Figure 2. Study model.
Wevj 15 00136 g002
Figure 3. Participant distribution across types of used vehicles.
Figure 3. Participant distribution across types of used vehicles.
Wevj 15 00136 g003
Figure 4. Geographic distribution of study participants.
Figure 4. Geographic distribution of study participants.
Wevj 15 00136 g004
Figure 5. Results of outer models evaluation.
Figure 5. Results of outer models evaluation.
Wevj 15 00136 g005
Figure 6. Coefficient of determination.
Figure 6. Coefficient of determination.
Wevj 15 00136 g006
Figure 7. Results of model evaluation.
Figure 7. Results of model evaluation.
Wevj 15 00136 g007
Table 1. Overview of the prior studies.
Table 1. Overview of the prior studies.
Ref.Country & YearModelMain Results
[15]China, 2019TAMIndividual intentions to use autonomous EVs depend on environmental concern, perceived ease of use, and green perceived usefulness.
[8]Saudi Arabia, 2019TRASubjective norms and attitudes positively influence intentions to adopt EVs.
[22]India, 2020IDTFinancial incentives and environmental advantages are significant drivers for EVs adoption.
[23]Malaysia, 2021UTAUT 2Social influence, facilitating conditions, environmental concern, and perceived enjoyment all have positive effects on the adoption of EVs.
[24]South Korea, 2021TPBPerceptions of environmental benefits and economic factors were the most influential predictors for purchasing EVs.
[25]Malaysia, 2021UTAUTSocial influence, technophilia, effort expectancy, and perceived environmental knowledge positively influence behavioral intentions.
[14]China, 2022TAMInitial trust, social value, and social influence indirectly facilitated user acceptance, while perceived risk directly hindered it.
[17]Indonesia, 2022TPB-UTAUT2Positive interest in using EVs is influenced by attitude toward use, subjective norms, and perceived behavior control.
[12]Malaysia, 2022TAM-TPBEnvironmental self-image, price value, subjective norms, attitude, and perceived behavioral control positively influenced individual intention, while perceived risk exerted a negative influence.
[26]Australia, 2022TAMConcerns about EVs safety exert a greater influence on the intention to adopt EVs compared to both purchase cost and perceived benefits.
[27]China, 2022TPBAdoption intention is directly influenced by attitude, subjective norms, knowledge, perceived benefit, and perceived behavior control.
[9]Jordan, 2023TAMThe knowledge of EVs influences perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, as well as the EVs acceptance.
[7]India, 2023UTAUT2-NAMPerformance expectancy, facilitating conditions, hedonic motivation, price value, and personal norms positively influence intentions to adopt EVs.
[28]Iran, 2023TAM-TPB-UTAUTThe TPB model demonstrated superior performance compared to other models in predicting behavioral intention toward accepting fully automated vehicles.
[11]Pakistan, 2023TAMEnvironmental concern and perceived value have a considerable influence on behavioral intentions.
[29]South Africa, 2024TAM, TPBThe strongest predictors of EVs adoption intention are vehicle reliability and personal norms
[10]Spain, 2024TPBMoral and subjective norms, attitude, and perceived behavioral control significantly influence the intention to adopt EVs.
[30]Saudi Arabia, 2024TTF- UTAUTCombining the TTF and UTAUT models has a positive impact on the adoption of EVs.
Table 2. Characteristics of the study participants (N = 202).
Table 2. Characteristics of the study participants (N = 202).
ProfileCategoryFrequencyPercentage (%)
GenderFemale4321.29%
Male15978.71%
Age18–252110.40%
26–30178.42%
31–407135.15%
41–505426.73%
51 and above3919.31%
EducationBAC Level52.48%
BAC41.98%
BAC+294.46%
BAC+33014.85%
Master9145.05%
PhD6331.19%
Marital statusMarried13265.35%
Single6733.17%
Divorced31.49%
OccupationGovernment employee13365.84%
Private Company employee3115.35%
Student2411.88%
Business owners83.96%
No occupation62.97%
Monthly incomeNo response31.49%
Less than 5 KMAD3115.35%
5–10 KMAD6130.20%
10–15 KMAD6934.16%
15 KMAD and above3818.81%
Table 3. Reliability and convergent validity.
Table 3. Reliability and convergent validity.
ConstructItemLoadingVIFαρaAVE
Environmental concernENC10.8452.5120.8820.8880.737
ENC20.8943.007
ENC30.8502.106
ENC40.8451.961
Relative advantageRAD10.8011.4210.7370.7450.656
RAD20.8581.665
RAD30.7681.425
Green perceived usefulnessGUS10.7511.4460.7550.7740.671
GUS20.8821.827
GUS30.8191.520
Perceived ease of use PEU10.8372.0080.7660.8030.591
PEU20.6531.309
PEU30.8802.249
PEU40.6801.316
Social InfluenceSIN10.8753.3010.8230.8370.660
SIN20.8283.039
SIN30.8692.041
SIN40.6591.345
Attitude toward using ECsAEC10.8892.4030.8760.8770.801
AEC20.9182.831
AEC30.8782.158
ECs adoption intention AIN10.8642.5700.9010.9030.772
AIN20.8943.092
AIN30.8942.956
AIN40.8612.408
Table 4. Fornell-Larcker criterion.
Table 4. Fornell-Larcker criterion.
ConstructAECAINENCGUSPEURADSIN
AEC0.895
AIN0.6990.878
ENC0.4510.3240.859
GUS0.7040.5880.3530.819
PEU0.5960.5140.3080.5360.769
RAD0.5890.5030.5360.6580.4350.810
SIN0.5240.6090.3590.4170.3860.4530.812
Table 5. HTMT ratio.
Table 5. HTMT ratio.
ConstructAECAINENCGUSPEURADSIN
AEC
AIN0.785
ENC0.5070.353
GUS0.8550.7050.417
PEU0.7180.6100.3610.680
RAD0.7290.6150.6540.8740.569
SIN0.6130.7030.4120.5150.4660.587
Table 6. R2 and Q2predict values.
Table 6. R2 and Q2predict values.
ConstructR2R2 AdjustedQ2predict
Perceived ease of use (PEU)0.1890.1850.168
Green perceived usefulness (GUS)0.5100.5060.423
Attitude toward using ECs (AEC)0.6230.6150.416
ECs adoption intention (AIN)0.5160.5080.307
Table 7. Hypotheses testing results.
Table 7. Hypotheses testing results.
HypothesisβT Statisticsp Valuef2VIFDecision
H1RADPEU0.4355.5310.0000.2331.000Accepted
H2RADGUS0.5258.1470.0000.4561.233Accepted
H3PEUGUS0.3083.9110.0000.1571.233Accepted
H4PEUAEC0.2373.1520.0020.1001.485Accepted
H5GUSAEC0.4436.0700.0000.3341.560Accepted
H6ENCAEC0.1523.0210.0030.0501.231Accepted
H7SINAEC0.1933.6570.0000.0741.335Accepted
H8PEUAIN0.1221.8070.0710.0191.618Rejected
H9GUSAIN0.1622.0770.0380.0262.072Accepted
H10AECAIN0.5117.0060.0000.2362.289Accepted
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Boubker, O.; Lakhal, M.; Ait Yassine, Y.; Lotfi, H. Towards Sustainable Transport in the Moroccan Context: The Key Determinants of Electric Cars Adoption Intention. World Electr. Veh. J. 2024, 15, 136. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj15040136

AMA Style

Boubker O, Lakhal M, Ait Yassine Y, Lotfi H. Towards Sustainable Transport in the Moroccan Context: The Key Determinants of Electric Cars Adoption Intention. World Electric Vehicle Journal. 2024; 15(4):136. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj15040136

Chicago/Turabian Style

Boubker, Omar, Marwan Lakhal, Youssef Ait Yassine, and Hicham Lotfi. 2024. "Towards Sustainable Transport in the Moroccan Context: The Key Determinants of Electric Cars Adoption Intention" World Electric Vehicle Journal 15, no. 4: 136. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj15040136

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop