Identification and Analysis of Barriers against Electric Vehicle Use
and Sundar Bahadur Khadka 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a very common study currently in the EVs' industries but the sever brings a good added value, which is very useful. The paper lacks of graphics and charts that would represent the data and results better than so many texts writing.
Overall good study.
Author Response
Comment: The paper lacks of graphics and charts that would represent the data and results better than so many texts writing.
Response: I would like to express my sincere thanks for your review on our paper. I agree this paper lacks graphics and charts, however; we express data and results in text explicitly. In addition to that we have added flow chart for this study in the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
My observations regarding this article are as follows:
- The authors deal with an essential and current problem.
- It is not entirely clear what the innovative contribution of this article is: the framework of the research, the barriers defined, or the barrier ranking process (use of AHP).
- There is a lack of a clearer explanation, of whether the proposed model has already been used, or whether the authors used an innovative new approach for the identification and analysis of the barriers.
- Maybe the introduction could be slightly shortened (especially the first two paragraphs, which, though, make a good introduction to understanding the area the article deals with, but are not, in my opinion, an essential part of the research).
- It is not clear in the text whether statements between line 75 and 78 refer to a broader survey of scientific and professional literature or whether statements 75 to 78 relate to literature research within a specific country (Nepal): (»Previous studies have identified and reported various barriers/factors/issues pertaining to the diffusion of EVs. However, they did not present framework for the identification and analysis of these barriers. Moreover, no consolidated study was available that reported all barriers within a single framework at a specific time. )” .... As the claims above continue with the sentence: »The country’s economic condition and the availability of resources prevented all the barriers being addressed at one time. Nor were the barriers ranked in order of their importance, which would reveal the most influential ones in order of their decreasing importance. « Please explain and support the statements more clearly with appropriate references.
- The authors state that the primary objective and main aim of the paper is to present a framework consisting of: (1) identification of barriers via a thorough literature review; (2) interaction with stakeholders; (3) classification of the identified barriers into certain categories depending upon their nature; and (4) the use of analytical hierarchy process (AHP), ... to rank the identified barriers in order of their importance. But there is a lack of a clearer explanation of how literature review was made, as a key part of defining the barriers. It is also unclear which databases were selected to produce the review, when the research was conducted, what the contribution of stakeholders is and how they were included in the research, and how the analysis and selection of the barriers defined was performed. Since the aim of the article is to present a methodology for the selection of barriers, it is essential, in my view, to show more clearly how the research was conducted. Thus, it is not clear enough how they chose the defined barriers.
- It is not clear from what was written, whether the stakeholders were involved or should be involved in defining the barriers (whether or not they actually participated in defining the barriers). And if they have participated, how did they participated.
- The literature review could more clearly indicate which models or methodology for identifying and analysing barriers against EV use has been used by other authors.
- To the author’s consideration: For better transparency of the proposed model, a flow chart could be created through which the process of the proposed framework can be more clearly seen.
- For section 2.2, I do not notice a direct link to the topic of the article and in my opinion it may be shorter or omitted.
- To the authors for consideration: In order to avoid a large number of sub-chapters and a clear breakdown into the methodological part and the results of the proposed methodology, I would suggest that Section 3.1 be numbered as Chapter 3. It would then be continued with Chapter 4, where the results of the research (form literature review) and the barriers identified would be presented.
- The authors explain that some of these barriers are common globally and others tend to be country-specific. Please show, in key findings, which of the identified barriers are common global and which country-specific.
- In line 202, the abbreviation is misspelled.
- Table 2 (line 378) could be in front of the presentation and description of individual barriers.
- In Chapter 4 (Method), part of the text is related to the theoretical part and the proposed methodology, and part of the text presents the results of the AHP performed, which is the topic of the next chapter.
- In describing and implementing the method, there in my opinion is the problem of performing consistency test.
- By using consistency test, we can determine, whether an individual decision maker is consistent or not in giving answers and making comparisons. In this way he can be called for a re-decision or we can eliminate his answers from the research. The authors provide data for the consistency index for the aggregated response matrix and not for individual decision makers, so it is not possible to identify and eliminate or correct non-consistent responses. Please explain how in this case you can eliminate inconsistent answers from the research or invite decision makers to compare again?
- Please show the equations for calculation of maximum eigenvalue (line 412
- In defining the steps, the step for aggregating the weights of the individual categories and the weights of the individual barriers is missing, as they are presented in the result.
- In line 427-428 authors wrote: “We expected experts from the energy and environment sectors to be aware of the importance of EVs to a better extent than a layperson.” It is not clear what the authors wanted to say with this - please explain.
- In line 434 - 436 is there a mistake in numbers and what 19, 19 and 15 means?
- Line 434 to 436: “Among these 53 respondents, 19, 19, and 15 belonged to the energy, energy and environment, and government sectors respectively. Thirty-four respondents were conversant with using a vehicle, and 19 intended to buy one.” please explain the final structure of all participating decision makers when implementing the AHP method.” Please explain the final structure of all participating decision makers when implementing the AHP method.
- In the conclusion: It is missing what are the benefits of the proposed framework and what is the key contribution of the article.
- The authors state that the proposed framework can be transferred to another environment but do not state how, given that the acquisition process is not accurately illustrated and explained.
- Key findings relate mainly to identified barriers, which, in the author's words, are partly related to Nepal and cannot be directly transmitted to another environment. This raises again the question of what is the key scientific contribution of this article.
- Figure 2 in line 576 could be shown higher in the text where the authors interpret the ranking of individual barriers (Section 5.3 Overall ranking).
- In the discussion section: policy implications are poorly represented and discussed. Above all, clearer proposals are lacking - recommendations for action based on the identified global barrier ranking.
- Footnotes: The sources, to my knowledge, are not listed correctly.
Author Response
I would like to express my sincere thanks for your review, feedbacks and comments. I did my best to incorporate your feedbacks and comments.
Comment: It is not entirely clear what the innovative contribution of this article is: the framework of the research, the barriers defined, or the barrier ranking process (use of AHP). Detail explanation is in line 92-106.
Response: Primary purpose of this research was to present the framework for identification and analysis of barriers against the use of EVs. Then framework was applied to identify the challenges, and ranking them in order of importance, against the diffusion of EVs in Nepal. Detail explanation is in line 92-106.
Comment: Maybe the introduction could be slightly shortened (especially the first two paragraphs, which, though, make a good introduction to understanding the area the article deals with, but are not, in my opinion, an essential part of the research).
Response: I agree with you. However, I believe some researcher and readers of this paper might have limited information about electric vehicle. Thus, I expect this information might provide better picture of the area of this research.
Comment: It is not clear in the text whether statements between line 75 and 78 refer to a broader survey of scientific and professional literature or whether statements 75 to 78 relate to literature research within a specific country (Nepal): (»Previous studies have identified and reported various barriers/factors/issues pertaining to the diffusion of EVs. However, they did not present framework for the identification and analysis of these barriers. Moreover, no consolidated study was available that reported all barriers within a single framework at a specific time. )” .... As the claims above continue with the sentence: »The country’s economic condition and the availability of resources prevented all the barriers being addressed at one time. Nor were the barriers ranked in order of their importance, which would reveal the most influential ones in order of their decreasing importance. « Please explain and support the statements more clearly with appropriate references.
Response: We attempt with better explanation with proper citations with following points in manuscript.
Previous studies have identified and reported various barriers/factors/issues pertaining to the diffusion of EVs [12–14]. However, based on the border literate review, they did not present framework for the identification and analysis of these barriers for the case of electric vehicle use. Moreover, no consolidated study was available that reported all barriers within a single framework at a specific time and the country’s economic condition and the availability of resources prevented all the barriers being addressed at one time [15]. Nor were the barriers ranked in order of their importance, which would reveal the most influential ones in order of their decreasing importance. As a result, top ranked barriers can be addressed first to increase the demand of EVs. A better understanding of barriers against the use of EV is prerequisite to overcome the barriers in order to accelerate the adaptation. The current study attempts to overcome these gaps. Please find in the manuscript with line 83-93.
Comment: The authors state that the primary objective and main aim of the paper is to present a framework consisting of: (1) identification of barriers via a thorough literature review; (2) interaction with stakeholders; (3) classification of the identified barriers into certain categories depending upon their nature; and (4) the use of analytical hierarchy process (AHP), ... to rank the identified barriers in order of their importance. But there is a lack of a clearer explanation of how literature review was made, as a key part of defining the barriers. It is also unclear which databases were selected to produce the review, when the research was conducted, what the contribution of stakeholders is and how they were included in the research, and how the analysis and selection of the barriers defined was performed. Since the aim of the article is to present a methodology for the selection of barriers, it is essential, in my view, to show more clearly how the research was conducted. Thus, it is not clear enough how they chose the defined barriers.
Response: We have added following text in manuscript.
Specifically, an extensive literature survey was performed, searching keywords such as Electric vehicle, barriers, issues, challenges, and electrical vehicle development and Nepal. The Google, Google Scholar database, and Science Direct online searching tools were used for the literature review. Identified barriers were also refined with consultation with experts for the case of Nepal. Please find in line 231-235.
Comment: It is not clear from what was written, whether the stakeholders were involved or should be involved in defining the barriers (whether or not they actually participated in defining the barriers). And if they have participated, how did they participated.
Response: The diffusion of EVs in Nepal depends on several real and perceived barriers. As noted these barriers were identified through a thorough literature review, including analysis of relevant online content, previously published studies, and interactions with stakeholders such as EV manufacturers, policy makers, technical experts, consumers/users, and related institutions. Please find in line 227-231.
Comment: The literature review could more clearly indicate which models or methodology for identifying and analyzing barriers against EV use has been used by other authors.
Response: Various researcher conducted consumer preference survey and applied the discrete choice models for analyzing use of electric vehicle [26,43,44]. However, for the purposed ranking the barrier, this study applied Analytical Hierarchy Process. Please find in line 223-225.
Comments: To the author’s consideration flow chart could be created through which the process of the proposed framework can be more clearly seen.
Response: I have prepared the consolidated flow chart of this research framework and presented in the manuscript. Please find the figure -2 in line -474.
For section 2.2, I do not notice a direct link to the topic of the article and in my opinion it may be shorter or omitted.
Response: This paragraph was mainly for the hydropower potential in Nepal. We expect his potential will be able provide sufficient electricity for electric vehicle charging. However, I have also shorten the paragraph. Please see in line 169-178.
Comment: To the authors for consideration: In order to avoid a large number of sub-chapters and a clear breakdown into the methodological part and the results of the proposed methodology, I would suggest that Section 3.1 be numbered as Chapter 3. It would then be continued with Chapter 4, where the results of the research (form literature review) and the barriers identified would be presented.
Response: I have considered and changed accordingly. Please find in the manuscript.
Comment: The authors explain that some of these barriers are common globally and others tend to be country-specific. Please show, in key findings, which of the identified barriers are common global and which country-specific.
Response: It is difficult to say which barriers country specific or common are in globally. However, for example, lack of long term plan and goal, and higher purchase price could be important barriers to Nepal. At the same these tow barriers might be crucial to those countries who already have long term plan and goal with subsidy/tax exemption policy for EVs. Please find in line 657-662.
Comment: In line 202, the abbreviation is misspelled.
Response: Correction as made.
Comment: Table 2 (line 378) could be in front of the presentation and description of individual barriers.
Response: We have presented table 2 in front of the presentation and description of individual barriers.
Comment: In describing and implementing the method, there in my opinion is the problem of performing consistency test. By using consistency test, we can determine, whether an individual decision maker is consistent or not in giving answers and making comparisons. In this way he can be called for a re-decision or we can eliminate his answers from the research. The authors provide data for the c and not for individual decision makers, so it is not possible to identify and eliminate or correct non-consistent responses. Please explain how in this case you can eliminate inconsistent answers from the research or invite decision makers to compare again?
Response: Initially we checked the consistency at each individual level. We did not consider response which was inconsistent for this research. However, we have presented only consistency index for the aggregated response matrix. This is also include in manuscript text line 486-488.
Comment: Please show the equations for calculation of maximum eigenvalue (line 442-444).
. λmax, is maximum Eigen value can bae approximately calculating the with following equation.
λmax = average [(Aw)1/w1 , (Aw)2/w2 …….]
Comment: In defining the steps, the step for aggregating the weights of the individual categories and the weights of the individual barriers is missing, as they are presented in the result.
Response: Step VI: Aggregating the weight
While we perform the research in group of experts views for comparative judgments can be combined by applying the geometric mean to the views for the formation of comparison judgment matrix [77].Please find line 452-455.
Comment: In line 427-428 authors wrote: “We expected experts from the energy and environment sectors to be aware of the importance of EVs to a better extent than a layperson.” It is not clear what the authors wanted to say with this - please explain.
Response: In general, all people do not have proper information about benefit and advantage of EVs such as lower fuel cost, less maintenance, and less emission. Thus, we expect experts from the energy and environment sectors to be aware of the importance of EVs to a better extent than a layperson. Please find in line 459-462.
Comment: In line 434 - 436 is there a mistake in numbers and what 19, 19 and 15 means? Line 434 to 436: “Among these 53 respondents, 19, 19, and 15 belonged to the energy, energy and environment, and government sectors respectively. Thirty-four respondents were conversant with using a vehicle, and 19 intended to buy one.” please explain the final structure of all participating decision makers when implementing the AHP method.” Please explain the final structure of all participating decision makers when implementing the AHP method.
Response: We have omitted this confusion with deleting this text in the manuscript. We only mentioned that we received 53 complete and consistent datasets for the estimation.
Comments: In the conclusion: It is missing what are the benefits of the proposed framework and what is the key contribution of the article.
Response: First this study attempted to present the approach for barriers study against EVS use. Secondly presented framework was applied in the context of Nepal. Please find in line 549-551.
Comment: The authors state that the proposed framework can be transferred to another environment but do not state how, given that the acquisition process is not accurately illustrated and explained.
Response: Given that some barriers are common globally whereas others tend to be country-specific, the results of one study will likely not be applicable to another country. However, proposed framework can be replicated to other countries to identify the barriers and ranking of barriers. Thus, a customized analysis is important for a region/country. Proposed framework can be replicated to other countries to identify the barriers and ranking of barriers. Thus, a customized analysis is important for a region/country. Please find in line 652-656.
Comment: Key findings relate mainly to identify barriers, which, in the author's words, are partly related to Nepal and cannot be directly transmitted to another environment. This raises again the question of what is the key scientific contribution of this article.
Response: It is difficult to say which barriers country specific or common are in globally. However, for example, lack of long term plan and goal, and higher purchase price could be important barriers to Nepal. At the same these tow barriers might be crucial to those countries who already have long term plan and goal with subsidy/tax exemption policy for EVs. Ranking results this study might not be relevant to other countries, this ranking is particularly for the context of Nepal. However, framework can be applied to identify the barriers. Please find in line 657-662.
Comment: Figure 2 in line 576 could be shown higher in the text where the authors interpret the ranking of individual barriers (Section 5.3 Overall ranking).
Response: We made necessary correction manuscript.
Comment: Footnotes: The sources, to my knowledge, are not listed correctly.
Response: We have made necessary correction.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Referee report – MS 777690 “Identification and analysis of barriers against electric vehicle use”
The authors carry out a multi-layered survey method to examine the various barriers to the uptake of electric vehicles in Nepal. Overall they find a relatively small set of factors that play the greatest role in inhibiting EV uptake – lack of charging stations, higher initial purchase price, and lack of long-term planning goals by policy makers. Having an outline such as the one presented in this paper would allow guidance for how best to overcome the barriers.
This paper is clear in its aims and well written. I have only a small number of comments but would recommend its publication after these are addressed.
The first comment is one of terminology. I would rather see a distinction made between internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) and electric vehicles (EVs) rather than “conventional” vehicles vs EVs. This parallels the problematic “alternative” energy terminology instead of renewable energy, which automatically makes “fossil fuel” seem to be the natural technology rather than one choice.
Lines 162-164. This sentence is not clear at all: “Electricity accounts for only 4.1% of the total energy supply of the country, generation of electricity mainly comes from hydropower. Petroleum products provide approximately 13% of the country’s total energy supply.”
Line 245; Line 302 – battery life given as 3-5 years. Most have warranties of 8-10 years, and that is to 70% of rated initial capacity, so this seems unduly pessimistic
If necessary, the authors could shorten the manuscript by putting more explanation of the barriers in an SI; they are mostly self-explanatory and the summary table and diagram would suffice, with only a brief introduction.
Lines 504-505. This is not clear at all what the authors are trying to say.
The Conclusions should be slightly expanded to indicate that this methodology can be used in any country – most of the questions and concerns are common to all countries with which this referee is acquainted.
Either in the Discussion or the Conclusion sections it should be mentioned that although the upfront cost of the vehicles is still higher (perhaps cite Bloomberg and other studies that show a crossover point around 2025) the operating costs (fuel, repairs) are much lower and that this lifecycle thinking is always a difficult barrier of its own; the overall cost of ownership is likely cheaper for the EVs right now (author would need to check that this is true). Operating costs in Nepal would be about US$8/100km for ICEVs (8liter/100km) and US$1.5/100km for EVs (6km/kWh @ US$0.09/kWh)
Two links did not work:
http://www.nepaloil.com.np/import
http://mof.gov.np/en/archive-documents/economic-survey-21.html?lang
In summary, the paper has the potential for wider application than only this one case study and should be published.
Author Response
We would like provide our sincere thanks for you review and feedback on our paper.
Comment: The first comment is one of terminology. I would rather see a distinction made between internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) and electric vehicles (EVs) rather than “conventional” vehicles vs EVs. This parallels the problematic “alternative” energy terminology instead of renewable energy, which automatically makes “fossil fuel” seem to be the natural technology rather than one choice.
Response: We have made necessary correction for consistent in manuscript with ICEVs terminology.
Comment: Lines 162-164. This sentence is not clear at all: “Electricity accounts for only 4.1% of the total energy supply of the country, generation of electricity mainly comes from hydropower. Petroleum products provide approximately 13% of the country’s total energy supply.”
Response: We have omitted this confused sentence in the manuscript.
Comment: Line 245; Line 302 – battery life given as 3-5 years. Most have warranties of 8-10 years, and that is to 70% of rated initial capacity, so this seems unduly pessimistic.
Response: We have update manuscript with following text.
However, the typical warranty for an EV battery improved these days which lasts eight to ten years. After the period of battery life, battery replacement should be borne by the user. Please find in line 268-269.
Comment: If necessary, the authors could shorten the manuscript by putting more explanation of the barriers in an SI; they are mostly self-explanatory and the summary table and diagram would suffice, with only a brief introduction.
Response: I agree with reviewer that we could shorten the manuscript by more explanation of barriers as they are mostly self-explanatory. However, we considered all potential readers of this paper might have limited knowledge of EVs. Thus, for the purpose of better understating, we think it would be wise choice to include text as well.
Comment: Lines 504-505. This is not clear at all what the authors are trying to say.
Response: We have edited the sentence: First this study attempted to present the approach for barriers study against EVS use. Secondly presented framework was applied in the context of Nepal
Comment: The Conclusions should be slightly expanded to indicate that this methodology can be used in any country Given that some barriers are common globally whereas others tend to be country-specific, the results of one study will likely not be applicable to another country.
Response: Proposed framework can be replicated to other countries to identify the barriers and ranking of barriers. Thus, a customized analysis is important for a region/country. Proposed framework can be replicated to other countries to identify the barriers and ranking of barriers. Thus, a customized analysis is important for a region/country. Please find in line 652-656.
It is difficult to say which barriers country specific or common are in globally. However, for example, lack of long term plan and goal, and higher purchase price could be important barriers to Nepal. At the same these tow barriers might be crucial to those countries who already have long term plan and goal with subsidy/tax exemption policy for EVs. Ranking results this study might not be relevant to other countries, this ranking is particularly for the context of Nepal. However, framework can be applied to identify the barriers. Please find in line 657-662.
Comment: Either in the Discussion or the Conclusion sections it should be mentioned that although the upfront cost of the vehicles is still higher (perhaps cite Bloomberg and other studies that show a crossover point around 2025) the operating costs (fuel, repairs) are much lower and that this lifecycle thinking is always a difficult barrier of its own; the overall cost of ownership is likely cheaper for the EVs right now (author would need to check that this is true). Operating costs in Nepal would be about US$8/100km for ICEVs (8liter/100km) and US$1.5/100km for EVs (6km/kWh @ US$0.09/kWh)
Response: Higher purchase price of EVs have doubt about their economic benefit in long run. Upfront cost of the EVs is still higher, however; operating cost is much lower. We expect researcher should focus economic analysis of EVs use compared with ICEVs. We believe operating cost in Nepal would considerably lower compared with ICEVs. Please find in line 664-667.
Comment: Two links did not work:
http://www.nepaloil.com.np/import
Response: I think Nepal Oil Corporation revised the website. Thus, we have updated accordingly; http://noc.org.np/import
http://mof.gov.np/en/archive-documents/economic-survey-21.html?lang
Response: This link is still working.
