Understanding Electric Vehicle Adoption in Türkiye: Analyzing User Motivations Through the Technology Acceptance Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The topic of understanding EV adoption using TAM is fascinating and relevant to the current situation. Overall, this paper is very well structured, a comprehensive literature review is conducted, and appropriate statistical methodology is used to validate the proposed model.
At the end of the abstract, a sentence could be added to touch upon the implications of the results briefly. Aslo, please consider including the limitations of this research and suggestions that incorporate the gaps yet to be filled by future research.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
I found a few places that can be improved regarding grammar, punctuation, etc.
Author Response
At the end of the abstract, a sentence could be added to touch upon the implications of the results briefly.
We appreciate Reviewer 1's valuable feedback and constructive comments.The following sentence is added to the end of the Abstract (page 1, lines 20-22):
“Our findings suggest improving the charging station network and technology, as well as implementing informative activities related to the features of electric vehicles, in order to contribute to users' adoption of electric vehicles.”
Aslo, please consider including the limitations of this research and suggestions that incorporate the gaps yet to be filled by future research.
We are grateful to Reviewer 1 for their insightful suggestions. The following paragraph is added to the Discussion section (page 17, lines 497-503):
“One of the limitations of our study is that, since EV usage is not yet widespread, characteristics such as participants' gender, age, and education level could not be thoroughly considered during the sampling process, as participants are required to have used an EV. So, the results obtained cannot be generalized to Türkiye due to the sample size and characteristics. Another limitation is the inability to establish a connection with participants' actual purchasing behavior. It is recommended that future studies include a more detailed analysis of demographic factors and actual purchasing actions.”
The following paragraph is added to the Conclusion section (page 18, lines 535-541):
“A significant criticism and concern surrounding electric vehicles is that the resources allocated for battery production may contradict the environmental benefits these vehicles aim to provide. Moreover, the adoption of less expensive compounds is anticipated to lead to reduced battery and vehicle costs. Furthermore, considering the observed decline in the impact of social norms as EV usage grows, it is recommended that similar studies be conducted to identify the factors influencing the intention to use electric vehicles, analyzing both familiar and novel external effects.”
I found a few places that can be improved regarding grammar, punctuation, etc.
The grammar and punctuations are checked as suggested.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript did not include sufficient scientific contribution for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. In addition, the content of this manuscript is outside of the topics of Sustainability. The English grammar and style of all the sections of the manuscript must be improved. This manuscript only incorporates the results of a questionnaire on the factors of adopting electric vehicles in Turkey. The abstract is weak and confusing. This does not add the scientific contribution, the main results, and a conclusion. The introduction section did not include the research problem and the scientific contribution of this manuscript compared to others reported in the literature. The section on materials and methods is not clear. The description of this section must be significantly improved. The results are not sufficient for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. These results are outside of the topics of Sustainability.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English grammar and style of all the sections of the manuscript must be improved.
Author Response
We thank the Reviewer 2 for the valuable time dedicated, we are grateful. We hope that the enhancements made may lead to a change in the reviewer's opinion.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Tables 6 and 7, as well as Figure 5 contain a vital information and important remarks of the study, thus, authors are recommended to develop a more intensified and extended interpretation of these numerical data in the form of explanatory paragraphs.
2. The text content of Discussion section can be reorganized into 2 subsections in which the key-aspects, the trading/commercial motivations, the environmental benefits, and the buying advantages/attributes of customers towards: “electric vehicles (EVs) become increasingly popular, it is important to identify the factors influencing users' choices and what they consider when deciding to use or purchase them ”, to be pointed out. For this the existing text content, as well as any other information related to technological constraints, environmental cost-benefits of a large scale manufacturing production of EV, can be conveyed by authors.
3. In subsection 3.1 the presentation of Results in Tables 2,3,4, and in Figure 4 cannot be placed “per-se” without explanatory text, but to be accompanied by a short explanatory text (no repetition of data in plain text, but narrative style) of interpreting the physical meaning of data and their role to specific research topic.
4. The format of citations in the text can be numbers in brackets, and the order of them in the References section to be in successive numbering, not in numbered but actually alphabetic order.
5. The 2nd, 3rd, and last paragraph of Discussion section are not cross-cited, thus, checking and citing the relevant text content can better validate and verify it in alignment with other published studies that have been published on the same, EV-perspectives, topic.
Author Response
- Tables 6 and 7, as well as Figure 5 contain a vital information and important remarks of the study, thus, authors are recommended to develop a more intensified and extended interpretation of these numerical data in the form of explanatory paragraphs.
Reviewer 2's constructive input is greatly appreciated. In the Results section the paragraph explaning the results of the final model (page 15, lines 391-403) is revised as follows.
“It has been confirmed that all hypotheses, except for H10 and H12, are valid. Hypotheses H10 and H12 are those suggesting that Compatibility affects Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use. According to the results, Compatibility has a direct effect on Intention to Use, but its impact on Perceived Usefulness is indirect and occurs through its effect on Perceived Ease of Use, as demonstrated by the findings in Tables 7 and 8.
Perceived Ease of Use, one of the core elements of Davis' [31] Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), plays a significant role in both Perceived Usefulness and Intention to Use. The results show that Ease of Use has a direct effect on Usefulness, supporting the validity of hypotheses H1, H2, and H3. Additionally, the constructs of Image and Social Norm have been identified as influential on the three key components of the Technology Acceptance Model: Ease of Use, Perceived Usefulness, and Intention to Use. This is reflected in hypotheses H4, H5, H6, H7, H8, and H9. The final model, illustrating the relationships between these variables, is presented in Figure 5.”
Also the following paragraph is added to the Results section (page 15, lines 406-412).
“Based on the final model, Perceived Usefulness was identified as the most influential factor on Intention to Use, with a weight of 0.384. This was followed by Social Norm (0.331) and Perceived Ease of Use (0.137). Social Norm and Image were found to be the most impactful factors on Perceived Usefulness (PU). As shown in Table 6, compatibility had no direct effect on either Intention to Use or PU. However, Image was the strongest factor affecting Perceived Ease of Use, with Compatibility also playing a significant role, holding a weight of 0.24, just behind Image.”
- The text content of Discussion section can be reorganized into 2 subsections in which the key-aspects, the trading/commercial motivations, the environmental benefits, and the buying advantages/attributes of customers towards: “electric vehicles (E.V.s) become increasingly popular, it is important to identify the factors influencing users' choices and what they consider when deciding to use or purchase them ”, to be pointed out. For this the existing text content, as well as any other information related to technological constraints, environmental cost-benefits of a large scale manufacturing production of E.V., can be conveyed by authors.
The following paragraph is added to the Discussion (page 17, lines 497-503) section:
“One of the limitations of our study is that, since EV usage is not yet widespread, characteristics such as participants' gender, age, and education level could not be thoroughly considered during the sampling process, as participants are required to have used an EV. So, the results obtained cannot be generalized to Türkiye due to the sample size and characteristics. Another limitation is the inability to establish a connection with participants' actual purchasing behavior. It is recommended that future studies include a more detailed analysis of demographic factors and actual purchasing actions.“
The following paragraph is added to the Conclusion (page 18, lines 530-541) section:
“EVs offer significant environmental benefits, producing fewer emissions than traditional vehicles. However, challenges remain, such as the environmental impact of battery production and technological limitations like limited range and long charging times. Ongoing innovations, such as faster charging and longer battery life, are expected to improve user experience and adoption rates.
A significant criticism and concern surrounding electric vehicles is that the resources allocated for battery production may contradict the environmental benefits these vehicles aim to provide. Moreover, the adoption of less expensive compounds is anticipated to lead to reduced battery and vehicle costs. Furthermore, considering the observed decline in the impact of social norms as EV usage grows, it is recommended that similar studies be conducted to identify the factors influencing the intention to use electric vehicles, analyzing both familiar and novel external effects.”
- In subsection 3.1 the presentation of Results in Tables 2,3,4, and in Figure 4 cannot be placed “per-se” without explanatory text, but to be accompanied by a short explanatory text (no repetition of data in plain text, but narrative style) of interpreting the physical meaning of data and their role to specific research topic.
The following text is added to explain Table 3 (formerly Table 2) under section 3.1 (page 9-10, lines 257-269).
“The demographic characteristics of the participants are summarized in Table 3. The study surveyed 414 individuals, comprising 36.96% females (153 participants) and 63.04% males (261 participants). Most participants (41.55%) were aged 26-35, followed by 17.15% aged 18-25. Those in the 36-45 age group comprised 21.01%, 14.73% were aged 46-55, and 5.56% were over 55. Regarding marital status, nearly half (49.52%) of the respondents were single. A significant proportion (42.03%) were married with children, while 8.45% were married without children. Most participants (66.66%) had completed graduate education, while 15.22% had postgraduate degrees. Smaller percentages had completed pre-graduate (7.49%), high school (9.66%), or primary education (0.97%). Monthly income varied, with the largest group (31.40%) earning between $1,094 and $1,563. About 20.05% earned between $1,563 and $2,344, while 15.94% had incomes exceeding $2,344. Additionally, 12.32% earned less than $531, 5.80% earned between $531 and $781, and 14.49% earned between $781 and $1,094.”
For Table 4 (formerly Table 3) the following is added (page 10, lines 273-275):
“Of the participants, 299 people, representing 64.4%, stated that they knew electric vehicles, while 155 participants (24.8%) indicated they had detailed knowledge. The 50 participants who declared they did not know were excluded from the study.”
For Table 5 (formerly Table 4) and Figure 4 the following explanations are added (page 11 and 12, lines 280-285, 289-303):
“Table 5 presents participant responses across various items, with percentages for each response category (from "Disagree strongly" to "Agree strongly"), along with the mean and standard deviation for each item. Generally, the highest levels of agreement were found in the Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use, while the Compatibility and Image sections displayed the highest disagreement.”
“Figure 4, which visualizes Table 5, presents the distribution of responses more clearly. Accordingly, when examining the items related to PU (Perceived Usefulness), it can be seen that the distribution is similar for all questions. Participants generally reported a high level of positive opinions regarding the PU questions. In the case of PEU (Perceived Ease of Use), the distributions are similar for all questions except for PEU4. The PEU4 question ("I think I can easily charge an electric vehicle anywhere") is related to the ease of charging and has a lower average (2.53) compared to the other PEU questions (with averages of 3.80, 4.16, and 4.05, respectively). This indicates that individuals who generally do not have problems using the vehicle or learning the charging process expressed negative opinions regarding the ease of charging. The same situation applies to UI (Usage Intentions). The IU4 question, which states that the intention to purchase a vehicle will increase with the increase in number of charging stations, shows a slightly different distribution compared to the other three questions in the construct (IU1, IU2, IU3). This suggests that the expansion of charging infrastructure may positively influence participants' intentions to purchase vehicles.”
- The format of citations in the text can be numbers in brackets, and the order of them in the References section to be in successive numbering, not in numbered but actually alphabetic order.
The citation format in the text is corrected as in brackets. However, according to the journal's reference list format, references should be listed in the order of citation within the text, not in alphabetical order. That's why the list has been arranged this way, but if the alphabetical order is desired, we will be happy to make the necessary adjustments.
- The 2nd, 3rd, and last paragraph of Discussion section are not cross-cited, thus, checking and citing the relevant text content can better validate and verify it in alignment with other published studies that have been published on the same, EV-perspectives, topic.
The references no 3, 11, 14, 20, 22, 52, 53, 54, 55 are cited in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of Discussion section. References 52, 53, 54 are newly added.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe goals of this research are clearly expressed, however they are not clearly highlighting which are the innovative aspects compared to related recent works and which critical points and limitations of current studies are addressed.
The discussion on related research and the scheme in Table 1 should be moved to a subsequent paragraph and not be included in the introductory section which should, instead, describe the limitations of current research and the motivations for the study.
Why is a sample of 414 users sufficient for the research? How was it ensured that this sample represents a significant sample? For example, by partitioning the sample by education status, it emerges that over 81% of the interviewees are graduates or postgraduates. Doesn't this make the sample tend towards users with a higher education than the average of the statistical population?
Furthermore, the sample is not balanced with respect to gender. It includes many more men (63%) than women (37%). This imbalance towards the male gender could affect the results of the analysis. The authors must justify this choice.
A more in-depth discussion of the results shown in Tab. 4 and Fig. 4 is needed.
Similarly, it is necessary to discuss in more detail the final model shown in Fig. 5, , linked to the model scheme shown in Fig.3..
Author Response
The goals of this research are clearly expressed, however they are not clearly highlighting which are the innovative aspects compared to related recent works and which critical points and limitations of current studies are addressed.
We thank Reviewer 4 for their detailed and helpful feedback. The following paragraphs are added to Discussion section (page 17, lines 483-503).
“When examining the studies in the literature (Table 1), TAM and its subsequent versions, together with SEM, emerge as frequently used methods in the context of electric vehicle adoption. According to the results of these studies, key concepts such as permitted priorities, environmental concerns, trust, and social influence have been highlighted.
This study offers a different perspective by analyzing the effects of compatibility, image, and social norms. In Tu and Yang's study, the impact of the concept of compatibility on behavior-oriented attitudes was examined. In this context, exploring the effects of compatibility on Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived Usefulness, and Intention to Use is one of the distinctive aspects of this study. Similarly, another concept that is rarely encountered in TAM and electric vehicle adoption studies is image. The effects of the concept of image included in the research by Khurana [56] on attitude and intention have been examined. The presented study is also significant in terms of investigating the effects of the image concept on PEU (Perceived Ease of Use), PU (Perceived Usefulness), and UI (Intention to Use).
One of the limitations of our study is that, since EV usage is not yet widespread, characteristics such as participants' gender, age, and education level could not be thoroughly considered during the sampling process, as participants are required to have used an EV. So, the results obtained cannot be generalized to Türkiye due to the sample size and characteristics. Another limitation is the inability to establish a connection with participants' actual purchasing behavior. It is recommended that future studies include a more detailed analysis of demographic factors and actual purchasing actions.”
And, the following paragraph is added to Conclusion (page 18, lines 530-541).
“EVs offer significant environmental benefits, producing fewer emissions than traditional vehicles. However, challenges remain, such as the environmental impact of battery production and technological limitations like limited range and long charging times. Ongoing innovations, such as faster charging and longer battery life, are expected to improve user experience and adoption rates.
A significant criticism and concern surrounding electric vehicles is that the resources allocated for battery production may contradict the environmental benefits these vehicles aim to provide. Moreover, the adoption of less expensive compounds is anticipated to lead to reduced battery and vehicle costs. Furthermore, considering the observed decline in the impact of social norms as EV usage grows, it is recommended that similar studies be conducted to identify the factors influencing the intention to use electric vehicles, analyzing both familiar and novel external effects.”
The discussion on related research and the scheme in Table 1 should be moved to a subsequent paragraph and not be included in the introductory section which should, instead, describe the limitations of current research and the motivations for the study.
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the warning. We have changed the place of Table 1 and carried it to a previous page (page 2-4, lines 70-74) before the challenges are reported. We also replaced the following paragraph to page 4 (lines 102-107).
“Challenges remain, such as long charging times, limited infrastructure, and shorter driving ranges. Rapid progress in battery technology and charging station availability are addressing these issues. Consumers increasingly expect convenient and fast charging options, whether through public fast-charging stations, home charging units, or an expanding network of charging points. These improvements in charging accessibility play a significant role in the growing adoption of electric vehicles for everyday use.”
Why is a sample of 414 users sufficient for the research? How was it ensured that this sample represents a significant sample? For example, by partitioning the sample by education status, it emerges that over 81% of the interviewees are graduates or postgraduates. Doesn't this make the sample tend towards users with a higher education than the average of the statistical population?
We sincerely thank reviewer 4’s contribution to our study. The following paragraph is added to the Data section (page 8, lines 242-250).
“According to Hair et al.[44], the minimum sample size required for PLS-SEM analysis is ten times the maximum number of indicators used to measure a construct or the maximum number of paths directed toward a construct. Based on this approach, the minimum sample size required for the analysis has been set at 50. In another approach, considering the sample sizes suggested for different R² values (0.10, 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75) and significance levels (1%, 5%, and 10%), as recommended by Cohen [45] and tabulated by Hair et al.[44], the maximum suggested minimum value is found to be 212. The minimum numaber of sample requirement is satisfied once access to more than this number of individuals is obtained.”
Furthermore, the sample is not balanced with respect to gender. It includes many more men (63%) than women (37%). This imbalance towards the male gender could affect the results of the analysis. The authors must justify this choice.
Regarding the stratification of the sample: The distribution of drivers in Türkiye by gender is 28.2% female and 71.8% male. Participants were required to have knowledge about electric vehicles in order to participate in the study. Therefore, while an effort was made to accurately reflect the gender distribution, some discrepancy could not be avoided.
An explanation about the sample size as a limitation of the study is added to Discussion section as follows (page 17, lines 497-503):
“One of the limitations of our study is that, since EV usage is not yet widespread, characteristics such as participants' gender, age, and education level could not be thoroughly considered during the sampling process, as participants are required to have knowledge about EVs. So, the results obtained cannot be generalized to Türkiye due to the sample size and characteristics. Another limitation is the inability to establish a connection with participants' actual purchasing behavior. It is recommended that future studies include a more detailed analysis of demographic factors and actual purchasing actions.”
A more in-depth discussion of the results shown in Tab. 4 and Fig. 4 is needed.
For Table 5 (formerly Table 4) and Figure 4 the following explanations are added (page 11 and 12, lines 280-285, 289-303):
“Table 5 presents participant responses across various items, with percentages for each response category (from "Disagree strongly" to "Agree strongly"), along with the mean and standard deviation for each item. Generally, the highest levels of agreement were found in the Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use, while the Compatibility and Image sections displayed the highest disagreement.”
“Figure 4, which visualizes Table 5, presents the distribution of responses more clearly. Accordingly, when examining the items related to PU (Perceived Usefulness), it can be seen that the distribution is similar for all questions. Participants generally reported a high level of positive opinions regarding the PU questions. In the case of PEU (Perceived Ease of Use), the distributions are similar for all questions except for PEU4. The PEU4 question ("I think I can easily charge an electric vehicle anywhere") is related to the ease of charging and has a lower average (2.53) compared to the other PEU questions (with averages of 3.80, 4.16, and 4.05, respectively). This indicates that individuals who generally do not have problems using the vehicle or learning the charging process expressed negative opinions regarding the ease of charging. The same situation applies to UI (Usage Intentions). The IU4 question, which states that the intention to purchase a vehicle will increase with the increase in number of charging stations, shows a slightly different distribution compared to the other three questions in the construct (IU1, IU2, IU3). This suggests that the expansion of charging infrastructure may positively influence participants' intentions to purchase vehicles.”
Similarly, it is necessary to discuss in more detail the final model shown in Fig. 5, , linked to the model scheme shown in Fig.3..
In the Results section the paragraph explaning the results of the final model is revised as follows (page 15, lines 391-403).
“It has been confirmed that all hypotheses, except for H10 and H12, are valid. Hypotheses H10 and H12 are those suggesting that Compatibility affects Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use. According to the results, Compatibility has a direct effect on Intention to Use, but its impact on Perceived Usefulness is indirect and occurs through its effect on Perceived Ease of Use, as demonstrated by the findings in Tables 7 and 8.
Perceived Ease of Use, one of the core elements of Davis' [31] Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), plays a significant role in both Perceived Usefulness and Intention to Use. The results show that Ease of Use has a direct effect on Usefulness, supporting the validity of hypotheses H1, H2, and H3. Additionally, the constructs of Image and Social Norm have been identified as influential on the three key components of the Technology Acceptance Model: Ease of Use, Perceived Usefulness, and Intention to Use. This is reflected in hypotheses H4, H5, H6, H7, H8, and H9. The final model, illustrating the relationships between these variables, is presented in Figure 5.”
Also the following paragraph is added to the Results section (page 15, lines 406-412).
“Based on the final model, Perceived Usefulness was identified as the most influential factor on Intention to Use, with a weight of 0.384. This was followed by Social Norm (0.331) and Perceived Ease of Use (0.137). Social Norm and Image were found to be the most impactful factors on Perceived Usefulness (PU). As shown in Table 6, compatibility had no direct effect on either Intention to Use or PU. However, Image was the strongest factor affecting Perceived Ease of Use, with Compatibility also playing a significant role, holding a weight of 0.24, just behind Image.”
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic of the paper is up-to-day but the Authros shoudl include some improvements to be considered for publication:
- It gives a broad overview of EVs, then sets the global context, but it does not really go into detail concerning the Turkish market. It would have been even stronger if the introduction could elaborate more on how Turkey faces its own particular challenges in infrastructure development, government policies concerning the flow of EVs, and cultural perception towards electric vehicles. This would have furthered the justification of this study with comparative statistics on EV adoption in Turkey versus international trends.
-While the paper does provide a good overview of TAM and similar studies, it does need to include recent literature on the matter, more so focusing on electric vehicle adoption studies from developing markets that resemble Turkey. More recent studies conducted in countries faced with similar infrastructure challenges and consumer behaviors could be integrated in order to carry out more comparative value, showing what contribution the present study makes to the global discourse on the issue of EV adoption.
-The conclusion summarizes briefly but would be much better if it ended with a more formal ending. Clearly restate the contributions made to the study, at both the theoretical level - TAM in the context of EVs - and the level of practice through policy recommendations for Turkey. It would, therefore, be more in its place to conclude with a review of the objectives set out for the study and how they were accomplished, then a forward-looking statement regarding the future of EV adoption in Turkey, so it leaves clear on the effect of this study.
-While large-scale, the PLS-SEM analysis in itself was extensive; the presentation of the statistical results can be made clearer. Perhaps further explanation of the statistical significance of the effect, as represented by p-values, and their practical importance may shed more light on the way to making them meaningful to the readers. Further discussion concerning the nonsupport of hypotheses H10 and H12 should provide an insight into unexpected results, with more elaboration that ought to contribute toward the discussion.
-The discussion does mention a few limitations in the present study; however, those have not been elaborated on. The section could be more enriched with discussions on limitations that may be brought out in regard to the sample size, reliance on self-reporting data, or reliance on the non-users of EVs. This would give a better idea about the transparency of the authors concerning this study. It would have enriched the paper if it had included a detailed roadmap for future research based on the gaps found in this study.
-It discussed some factors influencing EV adoption; it would be more useful if this translated into some actionable insight for policymakers and businesses. The findings on social influence and compatibility, for instance, allow some recommendations on the way to increase EVs adoption, public campaigns, improvements in charging infrastructures, or governmental incentives targeted especially at the Turkish market. That will enhance the contribution this paper would make in practical terms.
Author Response
The topic of the paper is up-to-day but the Authros shoudl include some improvements to be considered for publication:
- It gives a broad overview of E.V.s, then sets the global context, but it does not really go into detail concerning the Turkish market. It would have been even stronger if the introduction could elaborate more on how Turkey faces its own particular challenges in infrastructure development, government policies concerning the flow of E.V.s, and cultural perception towards electric vehicles. This would have furthered the justification of this study with comparative statistics on E.V. adoption in Turkey versus international trends.
We appreciate Reviewer 5’s time and effort dedicated to enhance our study. The following paragraph is added to the Introduction section (page 2, lines 52-65).
“According to Tax Benefits and Incentives Report of Acea [2], In Germany, funding applications are no longer accepte since 31 December 2023. France offers partial tax exemptions and subsidies based on emission levels, with up to €5,000 in scrappage incentives for low-emission vehicle purchases. In Italy, fully electric or hybrid vehicles are tax-exempt for five years, with subsidies changing between €5,000-€11,000 for low-emission models. In Spain, low-emission vehicles are tax-exempt, and electric vehicles can receive up to €7,000 in subsidies with scrappage incentives [2]. Compared to these examples in EU countries, it is evident that there is no direct purchase support or scrappage incentive program for fully electric and hybrid vehicles in Türkiye. Türkiye has announced an additional 40% customs duty on China-origin BEV (Battery Electric Vehicle) vehicles. However, fully electric vehicles benefit from tax support through lower special consumption tax (ÖTV) brackets compared to their internal combustion engine counterparts. There is no similar support for hybrid electric vehicles. The motor vehicle tax (MTV) for fully electric vehicles is 25% of that for their internal combustion counterparts.”
-While the paper does provide a good overview of TAM and similar studies, it does need to include recent literature on the matter, more so focusing on electric vehicle adoption studies from developing markets that resemble Turkey. More recent studies conducted in countries faced with similar infrastructure challenges and consumer behaviors could be integrated in order to carry out more comparative value, showing what contribution the present study makes to the global discourse on the issue of E.V. adoption.
The following paragraph is added to Discussion section (page 17, lines 483-503).
“This study offers a different perspective by analyzing the effects of compatibility, image, and social norms. In Tu and Yang's study, the impact of the concept of compatibility on behavior-oriented attitudes was examined. In this context, exploring the effects of compatibility on Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived Usefulness, and Intention to Use is one of the distinctive aspects of this study. Similarly, another concept that is rarely encountered in TAM and electric vehicle adoption studies is image. The effects of the concept of image included in the research by Khurana [56] on attitude and intention have been examined. The presented study is also significant in terms of investigating the effects of the image concept on PEU (Perceived Ease of Use), PU (Perceived Usefulness), and UI (Intention to Use).
One of the limitations of our study is that, since EV usage is not yet widespread, characteristics such as participants' gender, age, and education level could not be thoroughly considered during the sampling process, as participants are required to have knowledge about EVs. So, the results obtained cannot be generalized to Türkiye due to the sample size and characteristics. Another limitation is the inability to establish a connection with participants' actual purchasing behavior. It is recommended that future studies include a more detailed analysis of demographic factors and actual purchasing actions.“
-The conclusion summarizes briefly but would be much better if it ended with a more formal ending. Clearly restate the contributions made to the study, at both the theoretical level - TAM in the context of E.V.s - and the level of practice through policy recommendations for Turkey. It would, therefore, be more in its place to conclude with a review of the objectives set out for the study and how they were accomplished, then a forward-looking statement regarding the future of E.V. adoption in Turkey, so it leaves clear on the effect of this study.
The following paragraph is added to Conclusion section (page 18, lines 530-541).
“EVs offer significant environmental benefits, producing fewer emissions than traditional vehicles. However, challenges remain, such as the environmental impact of battery production and technological limitations like limited range and long charging times. Ongoing innovations, such as faster charging and longer battery life, are expected to improve user experience and adoption rates.
A significant criticism and concern surrounding electric vehicles is that the resources allocated for battery production may contradict the environmental benefits these vehicles aim to provide. Moreover, the adoption of less expensive compounds is anticipated to lead to reduced battery and vehicle costs. Furthermore, considering the observed decline in the impact of social norms as EV usage grows, it is recommended that similar studies be conducted to identify the factors influencing the intention to use electric vehicles, analyzing both familiar and novel external effects.”
-While large-scale, the PLS-SEM analysis in itself was extensive; the presentation of the statistical results can be made clearer. Perhaps further explanation of the statistical significance of the effect, as represented by p-values, and their practical importance may shed more light on the way to making them meaningful to the readers. Further discussion concerning the nonsupport of hypotheses H10 and H12 should provide an insight into unexpected results, with more elaboration that ought to contribute toward the discussion.
In the Results section the paragraph explaning the results of the final model is revised as follows (page 15, lines 391-403):
“It has been confirmed that all hypotheses, except for H10 and H12, are valid. Hypotheses H10 and H12 are those suggesting that Compatibility affects Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use. According to the results, Compatibility has a direct effect on Intention to Use, but its impact on Perceived Usefulness is indirect and occurs through its effect on Perceived Ease of Use, as demonstrated by the findings in Tables 7 and 8.
Perceived Ease of Use, one of the core elements of Davis' [31] Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), plays a significant role in both Perceived Usefulness and Intention to Use. The results show that Ease of Use has a direct effect on Usefulness, supporting the validity of hypotheses H1, H2, and H3. Additionally, the constructs of Image and Social Norm have been identified as influential on the three key components of the Technology Acceptance Model: Ease of Use, Perceived Usefulness, and Intention to Use. This is reflected in hypotheses H4, H5, H6, H7, H8, and H9. The final model, illustrating the relationships between these variables, is presented in Figure 5.”
Also the following paragraph is added to the Results section (page 15, lines 406-412):
“Based on the final model, Perceived Usefulness was identified as the most influential factor on Intention to Use, with a weight of 0.384. This was followed by Social Norm (0.331) and Perceived Ease of Use (0.137). Social Norm and Image were found to be the most impactful factors on Perceived Usefulness (PU). As shown in Table 6, compatibility had no direct effect on either Intention to Use or PU. However, Image was the strongest factor affecting Perceived Ease of Use, with Compatibility also playing a significant role, holding a weight of 0.24, just behind Image.”
-The discussion does mention a few limitations in the present study; however, those have not been elaborated on. The section could be more enriched with discussions on limitations that may be brought out in regard to the sample size, reliance on self-reporting data, or reliance on the non-users of E.V.s. This would give a better idea about the transparency of the authors concerning this study. It would have enriched the paper if it had included a detailed roadmap for future research based on the gaps found in this study.
The following paragraph is added to the Discussion section (page 17, lines 497-503):
“One of the limitations of our study is that, since EV usage is not yet widespread, characteristics such as participants' gender, age, and education level could not be thoroughly considered during the sampling process, as participants are required to have knowledge about EVs. So, the results obtained cannot be generalized to Türkiye due to the sample size and characteristics. Another limitation is the inability to establish a connection with participants' actual purchasing behavior. It is recommended that future studies include a more detailed analysis of demographic factors and actual purchasing actions.”
The following paragraph is added to the Conclusion section (page 18, lines 530-541):
“A significant criticism and concern surrounding electric vehicles is that the resources allocated for battery production may contradict the environmental benefits these vehicles aim to provide. Moreover, the adoption of less expensive compounds is anticipated to lead to reduced battery and vehicle costs. Furthermore, considering the observed decline in the impact of social norms as EV usage grows, it is recommended that similar studies be conducted to identify the factors influencing the intention to use electric vehicles, analyzing both familiar and novel external effects.”
-It discussed some factors influencing E.V. adoption; it would be more useful if this translated into some actionable insight for policymakers and businesses. The findings on social influence and compatibility, for instance, allow some recommendations on the way to increase E.V.s adoption, public campaigns, improvements in charging infrastructures, or governmental incentives targeted especially at the Turkish market. That will enhance the contribution this paper would make in practical terms.
The following explanation is added to the Introduction (page 2, lines 52-65).
“According to Tax Benefits and Incentives Report of Acea [2], In Germany, funding applications are no longer accepte since 31 December 2023. France offers partial tax exemptions and subsidies based on emission levels, with up to €5,000 in scrappage incentives for low-emission vehicle purchases. In Italy, fully electric or hybrid vehicles are tax-exempt for five years, with subsidies changing between €5,000-€11,000 for low-emission models. In Spain, low-emission vehicles are tax-exempt, and electric vehicles can receive up to €7,000 in subsidies with scrappage incentives [2]. Compared to these examples in EU countries, it is evident that there is no direct purchase support or scrappage incentive program for fully electric and hybrid vehicles in Türkiye. Türkiye has announced an additional 40% customs duty on China-origin BEV (Battery Electric Vehicle) vehicles. However, fully electric vehicles benefit from tax support through lower special consumption tax (ÖTV) brackets compared to their internal combustion engine counterparts. There is no similar support for hybrid electric vehicles. The motor vehicle tax (MTV) for fully electric vehicles is 25% of that for their internal combustion counterparts.“
The following explanation is added to the Introduction (page 5, lines 108-116).
“In Türkiye, BEV sales have seen a significant increase of 251% between the first quarter of 2022 and the first quarter of 2023. In 2023, 22,640 electric vehicles were sold in Türkiye, accounting for 12.9% of total vehicle sales. Similar sales proportions were observed in the U.S. (14.6%) and Australia (13.0%), while the average in Europe was 48.1% and in China, it was 28.8%. The average market share across the examined markets is 26.8%. The EU's international trade of used electric vehicles is growing rapidly, with the market increasing 70% in both 2021 and 2022. The majority of the trade is within the EU, while countries like Norway, the UK, and Türkiye are also key trading partners. Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain are the largest exporters [27].”
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors did not include the response to the reviewer's comments.
This manuscript did not include sufficient scientific contribution for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. In addition, the content of this manuscript is outside of the topics of Sustainability. The English grammar and style of all the sections of the manuscript must be improved. This manuscript only incorporates the results of a questionnaire on the factors of adopting electric vehicles in Turkey.
The abstract is weak and confusing. This does not add the scientific contribution, the main results, and a conclusion.
The introduction section did not include the research problem and the scientific contribution of this manuscript compared to others reported in the literature.
The resolutions of Figures 1, 2, and 3 must be improved.
The content of Table 1 must be enhanced. The English grammar and punctuation must be enhanced.
The section on materials and methods is not clear. The description of this section must be significantly improved.
The enumeration of the Tables must be corrected.
The results are not sufficient for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. These results are outside of the topics of Sustainability.
The authors must consider critical discussions of the main results.
The conclusion section should not include references. This section must be written in the past tense. In addition, this section must be significantly improved.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English grammar and style can be improved.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll my suggestions have been incorporated into the new version of the manuscript. I consider this paper publishable in the current version.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOn the basis of the materials send by Authors i think that the paper was improved according my remarks.
