Barriers to Electric Vehicle Adoption: A Framework to Accelerate the Transition to Sustainable Mobility

Abstract

The increasing demand for transportation has created economic, social, and environmental challenges that sustainable mobility solutions can help address. Electric vehicles (EVs) represent a promising alternative by lowering greenhouse gas emissions and improving energy efficiency. However, EV adoption remains limited due to barriers such as high costs, insufficient charging infrastructure, technological constraints, and low consumer awareness. This study aims to identify and classify the main barriers to EV adoption and propose a prioritization framework to guide decision-makers in resource allocation and policy design. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify barriers to EV adoption, which were grouped into six thematic categories: vehicle-related, battery-related, charging infrastructure, energy supply, personal and behavioral, and governance and policy. A degree of impact (DI) metric was developed to quantify each barrier’s influence, allowing hierarchical classification. The results highlight that inadequate charging infrastructure, high purchase and maintenance costs, limited public knowledge, and long charging times are the most critical issues. The proposed framework will help policymakers, industry leaders, and energy providers focus their efforts on the most impactful barriers. This research supports the global shift toward sustainable mobility and contributes to the literature by introducing a quantitative method for ranking barriers, addressing a gap in previous studies that lacked prioritization.

1. Introduction

The high demand for mobility, accompanied by the poor quality of mass transportation services and inefficient or non-existent urban planning, has led to an increase in the use of private cars, which, according to Mesquita et al. [1], is an unsustainable practice. Consequently, fossil fuel consumption has increased, which has further exacerbated environmental concerns.

The rising demand for transport and associated greenhouse gas emissions has triggered multifaceted socio-environmental and economic challenges. Traffic congestion, accidents, poor infrastructure, high maintenance costs, worsening quality of life, and negative health impacts are just some examples of these problems [2,3,4]. To address these issues, sustainable transportation systems have been increasingly promoted, with the aim of meeting present mobility needs without compromising future generations [5,6].

As part of this transition, electric vehicles (EVs) have been recognized as a key alternative to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving energy efficiency in transportation [7,8]. However, despite their benefits, the adoption of EVs has been slow due to several barriers, including high costs, range limitations, a lack of charging infrastructure, and policy gaps [9,10,11,12].

One of the most cited obstacles is the high initial cost of EVs, which remains a deterrent for many consumers, particularly in developing economies [9,13,14]. Additionally, the availability of charging infrastructure is a crucial factor influencing consumer decisions. The lack of an adequate charging network contributes to range anxiety, further slowing down the adoption rate [15]. Policy and regulatory challenges also impact EV adoption, as inconsistencies in government incentives create uncertainties for manufacturers and consumers. Given these challenges, EV adoption plays a key role in sustainability efforts by reducing emissions and promoting cleaner energy use [16].

This study aims to provide a structured and data-driven approach to evaluating and prioritizing barriers to EV adoption. By employing a degree of impact (DI) metric, this research systematically assesses the severity of each barrier and its influence on EV market expansion. This study’s findings are intended to guide policymakers, industry stakeholders, and urban planners in developing evidence-based strategies to address the most pressing challenges. The following sections present a literature review, a methodological framework, key findings, and recommendations to support the acceleration of EV adoption and the transition toward sustainable, low-emission transportation systems.

2. Literature Review

This section aims to provide an in-depth analysis of the challenges that hinder the adoption of EVs, both from a technological and social perspective. Through Section 2.1–2.3, the general barriers faced by this innovative technology will be explored, alongside a detailed examination and specific identification of these barriers and the benefits of EV adoption.

By comprehensively understanding the reasons behind the slow global uptake of EVs, we can develop effective strategies that encourage their adoption and facilitate the transition toward a more sustainable transport system. Ultimately, this section aims to provide insight into how we can overcome these barriers to make EVs more accessible and promote a greener future for transportation.

In previous studies, different methodological approaches have been employed to investigate these barriers. Some research efforts have conducted literature reviews to consolidate key challenges across various regions and contexts [17,18]. Others have adopted empirical approaches, using surveys and interviews with stakeholders such as policymakers, industry representatives, and potential consumers to understand their perspectives on EV adoption [13,15]. Additionally, studies like that of Rubens, Noel, and Sovacool [19] have conducted field experiments, simulating real-world interactions in car dealerships to assess how information asymmetry affects EV sales.

Despite these contributions, most existing studies focus on identifying barriers, but few propose a structured prioritization framework to classify them based on their impact. Given the diversity of challenges, from economic constraints to infrastructure limitations and psychological factors, it is crucial to establish a hierarchy of barriers that can help policymakers prioritize actions and allocate resources effectively.

This study stands out by not only identifying the key barriers but also employing a systematic classification methodology that ranks them according to their degree of impact. By providing a structured prioritization model, this research aims to bridge the gap between problem identification and strategic decision-making, offering policymakers actionable insights to accelerate EV adoption.

2.1. Key Barriers to EV Adoption

Different countries face distinct barriers to EV adoption, which are influenced by economic, technological, and infrastructural conditions. In India, Panwar, Kumar, and Chakrabarti [10] identified major obstacles, including the lack of lithium reserves, insufficient charging infrastructure, the lack of regulations, high battery costs, and an energy matrix dominated by fossil fuels. However, in Nepal, a neighboring country, Adhikari et al. [20] found that the lack of charging stations, high purchase costs, and the absence of long-term government planning were the primary deterrents.

Despite the geographical proximity of these countries, only two main barriers are common to both countries: the lack of charging infrastructure and the action of the federal government, which either sets goals or enforces regulations. The similarity of these barriers suggests that the two problems are common across countries. However, the distinction between the other barriers suggests that each country has its own peculiarities regarding the rejection of EVs.

Haider, Zhuang, and Ali [21], Goel et al. [22], and Patyal, Kumar, and Kushwah [23] also analyzed the barriers to EVs in India. Like Panwar, Kumar, and Chakrabarti [10], the authors [21,22,23] highlighted the environmental concern with the insertion of EVs in the country, since the country’s energy matrix is not sustainable. Additionally, Goel et al. [22] emphasized the need for clear and comprehensible public policies to enhance consumer trust.

Over time, some EV adoption barriers have shifted. For instance, in 2014, Xue, You, and Shao [24] noted that the low acceptance and lack of EV production by major automakers were significant obstacles. However, today, many global manufacturers have embraced electrification.

New concerns have emerged, particularly regarding after-sales services and maintenance infrastructure. Studies have noted that a lack of specialized labor, a lack of workshops, and a lack of battery recycling programs are growing barriers [9,14,20,22,25]. Moreover, the resale value of used EVs and concerns about the circular economy of EV components have also been highlighted [9,17,22,23].

Beyond these technical and economic issues, studies have identified active resistance from car dealerships. Rubens, Noel, and Sovacool [19] found that, in 65% of the European dealerships that they surveyed, sales representatives either provided false information about EV availability or directed consumers toward combustion vehicles. This behavior may be due to limited product knowledge among sellers rather than deliberate deception, as consumers often seek reassurance from knowledgeable sales personnel [15].

A lack of consumer awareness and information has been cited as a critical barrier by numerous researchers over the years [10,11,12,14,15,18,19,20,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31]. In Romania, Tanţău and Gavrilescu [28] identified five major barriers to EV adoption: the limited availability of models on the market, high purchase prices, distrust in electric vehicle technology, range anxiety, and billing anxiety. Notably, three of these—distrust in technology, range anxiety, and billing anxiety—are psychological in nature, reflecting consumer perceptions and behavioral resistance rather than structural limitations.

These findings align with a broader trend observed in the more recent literature, which highlights the growing relevance of psychological and informational barriers as EV markets mature [15,17,32]. Range anxiety, defined as the fear of insufficient battery charge to complete a journey, and billing anxiety, referring to uncertainty about the cost and transparency of public charging, are particularly prominent in contexts where technical infrastructure is expanding but consumer trust and familiarity lag behind.

These diverse challenges highlight the complexity of EV adoption and the necessity of region-specific policies to overcome both universal and localized barriers. Policymakers must consider a combination of economic incentives, consumer education, infrastructure expansion, and regulatory clarity to encourage widespread EV adoption. By addressing both technological and psychological concerns, governments and industry stakeholders can create a more favorable environment for the transition to electric mobility.

To ensure a relevant and representative view of the recent academic literature, this study focused on papers published over a period of more than 10 years, from 2012 to 2024. This time frame was chosen to cover the key advancements, trends, and research efforts in the area of EV adoption and sustainable transportation systems.

Table 1. Publications per year and country.

Year	Authors	Country
2012	[13]	EUA
2013	[26]	Germany
2014	[24,33]	Sweden; China
2015	[27,34]	Germany; China
2016	-	-
2017	[17,25,35,36]	USA; China; China; China
2018	[9,18,19,37]	USA; Turkey; Poland; USA
2019	[10,21,28,38,39,40,41]	Italy; Germany; Germany; France; India; Greece; Romania
2020	[11,14,15,20,32,42,43,44]	Nepal; Italy; Spain; South Korea; France; Brazil; India; Slovakia
2021	[12,22,23,29,30,31,45,46]	India; Brazil; India; Thailand; Poland; Iran; India; Iran
2022	[47,48]	China; Malaysia
2023	[49,50,51,52,53]	India; China; China; Thailand
2024	[54,55,56]	Spain; Pakistan; Saudi Arabia; Italy; United Arab Emirates; China

shows the distribution of the published articles by year and country, highlighting the evolution of research in this field.

As shown in Table 1, the number of studies on EV adoption barriers has grown significantly in recent years, particularly after 2016. This trend suggests that the challenges associated with EV adoption have gained greater visibility in the scientific community, likely due to increased government incentives, industry investments, and consumer interest in alternative energy sources.

The upward trend in the number of publications reinforces the need for structured frameworks to analyze and prioritize these barriers, while ensuring that research findings translate into effective policy actions. It is also observed that the studies are concentrated in countries with a strong presence of public policies focused on electric mobility, such as the United States, China, Germany, and India, which reflects the significance of these nations in advancing EV adoption and researching its challenges.

This geographic concentration reveals a research gap in regions like South America and Africa, where empirical insights into EV adoption challenges are still scarce. Future studies should address this imbalance by incorporating more diverse regional contexts to develop globally inclusive strategies.

2.2. Methods for Identifying Barriers in Existing Studies

According to Giansoldati, Monte, and Scorrano [14], some authors evaluated the barriers to the deployment of EVs. However, the ways used to identify them were different. Reference [9], for example, asked survey participants to rate their degree of agreement with several statements, while Noel et al. [15] asked what barriers were faced by participants.

Rubens, Noel, and Sovacool [19] conducted a different assessment to find the reasons for low EVs sales. The authors conducted a simulation of EV purchases at 126 car dealerships located in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden to identify the barriers. Reference [28], on the other hand, applied questionnaires (online and in person) to analyze the main factors that prevent the purchase of EVs in Romania.

Egbue and Long [13] identified potential barriers to EV adoption in the US based on an applied survey that was distributed among technology and vehicle experts. Noel et al. [40] conducted a similar survey to that of Egbue and Long [13]. However, the survey was conducted with 227 transportation and electricity experts in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden [15,40]. Chhikara et al. [29], meanwhile, conducted 41 interviews with stakeholders in the advancement of EVs in India, including car manufacturers, academics, consultants, government, and EV owners. The research by Kim et al. [32] was also applied among Korean specialists and drivers.

Kongklaew et al. [46] applied a questionnaire to find the reasons that lead the Thai population to adopt EVs or not. This same research model was adopted by the following authors: Shetty et al. [11] in India and Sri Lanka; Wang et al. [36] in China; Bühne et al. [34] in Europe; Higueras-Castillo et al. [42] in Spain; Costa et al. [45] in Brazil; Giansoldati, Monte, and Scorrano [14] in Italy; and Globisch et al. [39] in Germany.

Berkeley, Jarvis, and Jones [9] also adopted the questionnaire methodology among the English population and She et al. [25] did the same among the Chinese population. However, before applying the method, Berkeley, Jarvis, and Jones [9] carried out a literature review to define the barriers that would possibly be found and determined that, of the 19 barriers found in the literature review, 12 apply in England, whereas She et al. [25] predefined 14 barriers with their literature review.

Patyal, Kumar, and Kushwah [23] found 13 barriers through a literature review and validated them through a group of experts. Adhikari et al. [20] identified 17 barriers to the adoption of EVs and ranked them in order of importance in Nepal based on expert opinion, a method that is similar to that adopted by Patyal, Kumar, and Kushwah [23]. Meanwhile, Kowalska-Pyzalska et al. [31] carried out research to identify barriers for potential vehicle buyers.

Mahdavian et al. [12], Berkeley et al. [17], and Biresselioglu et al. [18] identified barriers to the implementation of EVs through a literature review. These authors used different academic databases, such as Web of Science, Science Direct, Springer, Sage, Taylor & Francis, and Google Scholar, in addition to combined keywords to identify the papers of interest and, consequently, the barriers.

By employing these diverse methodologies, researchers have been able to build a holistic understanding of EV adoption barriers. Each approach has its advantages and limitations, and the choice of method depends on the research objective. Literature reviews provide theoretical insights, surveys offer consumer perspectives, expert consultations enable barrier ranking, and field experiments uncover hidden adoption challenges. Understanding these methods is crucial for designing effective policies and industry strategies that address the real obstacles faced by consumers. A compilation of the main barriers observed in our literature review is presented in

Table 2. Main barriers to electric vehicle adoption identified in the literature.

Barrier Category	Specific Barriers	Relevant Notes
Technological	- Limited driving range (range anxiety) - Long charging time - Low performance on long trips	Frequently cited in developing markets; linked to technological maturity.
Economic	- High purchase price - High maintenance cost - Low resale value	Particularly significant in low- and middle-income countries.
Infrastructure	- Lack of charging stations - Incompatibility between chargers - Lack of fast-charging network	A key factor contributing to range anxiety.
Psychological and Behavioral	- Distrust in technology - Billing anxiety - Lack of consumer knowledge	Increasingly emphasized in high-income countries with existing infrastructure.
Governance and Policy	- Absence of long-term planning - Inconsistent incentives - Lack of clear regulations	Undermines predictability for consumers and investors.
Market and Industry	- Limited model availability - Resistance from automakers and dealerships	Highlights the role of industry in slowing the energy transition.

.

2.3. Benefits of EV Adoption

While the adoption of EVs faces several challenges, their potential benefits are significant from the environmental, economic, and social perspectives [57,58,59]. The shift towards EVs aligns with global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, improve air quality, and promote sustainable transportation systems [7,8].

One of the primary advantages of EVs is their positive impact on the environment [57]. Unlike internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, EVs produce zero tailpipe emissions, contributing to reduced air pollution and lower carbon footprints in urban areas [34,38,39]. As nations commit to the decarbonization of their economies under agreements like the Glasgow Pact [16], the electrification of transport is seen as a key strategy to meet sustainability goals [6,58].

Another crucial benefit of EVs is the improvement in energy efficiency [59]. EVs have significantly higher energy conversion efficiency compared to traditional gasoline or diesel-powered vehicles, reducing energy waste and dependency on fossil fuels [4]. Furthermore, when powered by renewable energy sources, EVs can contribute to a cleaner and more sustainable energy matrix [10,22].

From an economic perspective, EV adoption can lead to lower operational and maintenance costs. Studies indicate that EVs have fewer moving parts than conventional vehicles, requiring less maintenance over their lifespan [17,20]. Additionally, as battery technologies advance and production scales up, the initial costs of EVs are expected to decrease, which will make them more financially accessible to consumers [12,32].

Socially, EVs contribute to improved public health by reducing air pollution-related diseases such as respiratory and cardiovascular conditions [3]. Noise pollution is also mitigated, as EVs operate much more quietly than ICE vehicles, enhancing urban quality of life [15].

Despite the challenges outlined in previous sections, these benefits highlight the importance of accelerating EV adoption [33,38,58]. By addressing existing barriers strategically, policymakers can maximize these advantages and facilitate the transition towards a more sustainable and efficient transport system [8,9,25]. These benefits are summarized in

Table 3. Summary of EV benefits.

Dimension	Benefits
Environmental	- Zero local tailpipe emissions [33] - Reduced carbon footprint [38,58] - Improved urban air quality [35,44] - Integration with renewable energy sources [7,38] - Supports climate goals and decarbonization efforts [4,16]
Economic	- Lower operational and maintenance costs [6,25] - Reduced dependence on fossil fuels [4,18] - Battery cost reduction with scale and innovation [17,38] - Higher energy efficiency compared to ICE vehicles [27,33]
Social	- Reduced air pollution-related diseases (e.g., respiratory, cardiovascular) [13,44] - Lower noise pollution [15,25] - Improved urban quality of life [1,7]

.

3. Methodology

This study aims to develop a framework for the global prioritization of barriers to EV adoption. To achieve this, a structured multi-step methodology was applied, beginning with the identification of barriers through a systematic literature review. The methodological process is summarized in Figure 1, which outlines the key steps taken to identify, classify, and rank the barriers.

3.1. Identification of Barriers Through Systematic Literature Review

The Web of Science database was used as the primary search tool, with the keywords “electric vehicle” AND “barrier” being applied. The search, conducted on 1 July 2025, was restricted to peer-reviewed journal papers published between 2012 and 2024, to ensure that only recent and scientifically validated sources were included in the analysis. The initial search retrieved 640 papers, which were subjected to a preselection process based on title and abstract screening, which reduced the dataset to 56 papers.

A subsequent full-text review further refined the selection, leaving 47 papers that were directly relevant to this study. Each of these papers was carefully analyzed to extract the barriers to EV adoption, which allowed for a comprehensive mapping of challenges identified in the literature.

3.2. Categorization of Barriers into Thematic Groups

Following the identification of barriers, a categorization process was undertaken to group them into thematic groups, which facilitated a structured classification. The barriers were classified into six major groups: vehicle-related barriers, battery-related barriers, charging infrastructure barriers, energy supply barriers, personal and behavioral barriers, and governance and policy barriers.

This classification was essential for understanding the broader trends in EV adoption challenges and ensuring that no single aspect was disproportionately emphasized. To maintain statistical relevance, only barriers cited by at least two different studies were retained in the analysis, which resulted in the exclusion of outliers or region-specific issues that may not be globally applicable.

3.3. Impact Assessment and Degree of Influence Calculation

The premise underlying the degree of impact (DI) metric is that the more frequently a barrier is cited in peer-reviewed studies, the more influential it is perceived to be by the research community. While citation frequency is not a direct measure of empirical severity, it serves as a reliable proxy for perceived relevance across diverse geographic and socioeconomic contexts. Thus, the DI is a literature-based indicator that reflects a consensus of academic attention rather than stakeholder perception or field data alone. The DI score was calculated using Equation (1):

$$DI={\displaystyle \frac{nc}{np}}\times 10$$

(1)

where the variables are defined as follows:

DI: is the degree of impact of each barrier;

nc: represents the number of times a barrier was cited across the analyzed papers;

np: refers to the total number of selected studies (47);

F = normalization factor (set to 10), applied to scale the values from 0 to 10 for intuitive interpretation.

This transformation preserves the relative weight of each barrier while enabling straightforward comparison across items. A multiplication factor of 10 was applied to facilitate comparability across barriers. Based on their DI scores, barriers were classified into four impact levels:

• Very High: DI > 3.0;
• High: 2.0 < DI ≤ 3.0;
• Medium: 1.0 < DI ≤ 2.0;
• Low: 0 < DI ≤ 1.0.

These thresholds were established based on the observed distribution of DI values across all barriers and are consistent with quartile-based stratification approaches used in the prioritization literature. By transforming qualitative insights into a quantitative index, the DI metric serves as a foundational component of the prioritization framework proposed in this study. It enables government agencies, researchers, and mobility planners to allocate resources more effectively, focus interventions on high-impact areas, and monitor the evolution of perceived barriers over time.

3.4. Prioritization Framework Development

Despite the challenges outlined in previous sections, the environmental, economic, and social benefits of EVs underscore the urgency of advancing the adoption of EVs. By strategically addressing the existing barriers, it becomes possible not only to enhance the efficiency of transport systems but also to contribute meaningfully to broader sustainability goals, such as emission reductions and improved public health. These benefits, when fully realized, offer significant value to both individuals and society at large. Therefore, understanding and prioritizing the barriers to EV adoption is a crucial step toward unlocking these advantages.

Thus, the prioritization framework proposed in this study not only supports strategic planning but also emphasizes what is at stake when action is delayed. By placing the benefits of EVs at the center of the discussion, the framework provides clarity on why overcoming key obstacles is not merely a technological or economic imperative, but a social and environmental necessity as well. The outcomes of this prioritization and their implications are examined in detail in Section 4, which presents and discusses the main findings of this study.

3.5. Advantages and Limitations of the Methodology

The methodological approach proposed in this study offers several notable strengths and contributions to the field of sustainable mobility and policy prioritization. Among its key potentialities, the following stand out:

• Innovative contribution: This research introduces a novel and structured metric—the DI—to prioritize EV adoption barriers, addressing a critical gap in the literature. Most previous studies focused solely on identifying barriers without proposing a transparent mechanism to rank their relevance;
• Systematic and scalable framework: The DI metric, based on a quantitative review of 47 peer-reviewed studies, provides a scalable tool that can be replicated or adapted for other countries, regions, or thematic areas. This allows for comparative analyses across time and space, reinforcing the value of the model for global monitoring;
• Policy-oriented applicability: The resulting prioritization is directly aligned with policymaking needs. It supports the efficient allocation of public and private resources by identifying which barriers exert the greatest influence on EV adoption, and thus where interventions are likely to be most impactful;
• Transparency and reproducibility: All stages of the methodology—from the systematic literature review to the DI calculation—are guided by explicit procedures and equations. This level of transparency enhances the credibility of the results and facilitates future replications or extensions by other researchers;
• Accessibility: The simplicity of the DI formula makes it accessible to a wide range of stakeholders, including policymakers, planners, and academics. Its use does not require complex statistical software or advanced modeling skills, which makes it highly usable in both academic and applied contexts.

Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge certain methodological limitations that suggest pathways for refinement in future studies:

• The DI metric is derived solely from frequency analysis in the literature and does not account for regional contextualization or practical severity as experienced by stakeholders on the ground;
• The equal weighting of all studies means that methodological quality, scope, and relevance are not differentiated in the final rankings;
• Recent or emerging barriers that have not yet gained prominence in the literature may be underrepresented, despite their growing importance in dynamic policy environments.

A particularly relevant enhancement to the approach would be the incorporation of expert validation techniques, such as the Delphi method. This technique involves structured, iterative consultation with a panel of domain specialists, allowing for convergence around a shared judgment on the most critical barriers. By integrating expert insights, the literature-based rankings can be enriched with practical knowledge, contextual expertise, and awareness of real-time policy and market dynamics.

In addition, the framework can be expanded through multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), which would enable the inclusion of other dimensions such as cost-effectiveness, implementation feasibility, and stakeholder acceptability. This would result in a more comprehensive, multidimensional prioritization matrix.

Despite these limitations, the approach presented here serves as a solid foundation for evidence-based decision-making in the transition towards electric mobility. It empowers researchers, governments, and industry actors with a tool that is both rigorous and pragmatic. Most importantly, it advances the state of the art by moving beyond qualitative barrier identification toward a replicable, policy-relevant model for strategic prioritization.

This methodological contribution not only adds value to academic discourse but also has the potential to influence national and local EV strategies, particularly in contexts where resources are limited and decisions must be based on impact-focused criteria.

4. Results and Discussion

Following the methodological procedures described in the previous chapter, the present section provides a structured analysis of the key findings of this study. It begins by describing the results of the thematic categorization of the identified barriers and their prioritization according to their degree of impact. Subsequently, the meaning of these results is discussed considering the literature and their implications for public policies and EV adoption strategies.

4.1. Results

The analysis of the selected studies reveals a growing academic interest in the barriers to EV adoption. To synthesize this body of knowledge,

Table 4. Categorization of selected studies by major barrier type.

Major Groups	Definition of Barrier Groups	Authors
Vehicle-related barriers	Obstacles are associated with the features, availability, performance, cost, or maintenance of EVs themselves.	[9,13,14,15,17,18,20,22,23,24,25,27,28,30,31,32,34,53,55]
Battery-related barriers	Challenges related to battery technology, such as cost, driving range, lifespan, recycling, and dependency on critical raw materials.	[9,10,11,12,13,14,17,18,20,21,22,23,25,29,30,32,40,41,42,46,55,56]
Charging infrastructure barriers	Issues involving the availability, accessibility, standardization, and compatibility of public and private EV charging stations.	[9,11,12,13,14,15,17,18,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,29,30,31,34,36,39,41,42,43,45,46,47,50,51]
Energy supply barriers	Limitations related to the energy grid’s capacity, reliability, and integration of renewable energy sources for EV charging, as well as the environmental impact of electricity generation.	[10,12,14,15,18,21,22,23,33,34,35,37,38,44]
Personal and behavioral barriers	Psychological, social, or informational factors that affect consumer decisions.	[9,10,11,12,14,15,17,18,19,20,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,32,40,48,49,54]
Governance and policy barriers	Institutional, regulatory, or policy-related gaps, including insufficient incentives, unclear legislation, and lack of strategic planning for EV adoption and infrastructure.	[10,12,15,17,20,22,23,24,26,27,29,32,34,45,48,49,50,51,56]

classifies the reviewed studies according to the six major thematic groups of barriers adopted in this article: vehicle-related, battery-related, charging infrastructure, energy supply, personal and behavioral, and governance and policy.

This organization provides a more coherent comparison across the studies, highlighting the variety of approaches and the recurrence of certain issues. By aligning each author’s contribution with the paper’s analytical framework, the table enhances the clarity of the results and facilitates understanding of the discussion. Additionally, this structured categorization serves as a practical reference for future research, supporting more targeted literature reviews and helping identify research gaps and thematic trends within the field.

Building upon this body of research, this study identifies and prioritizes the main barriers to EV adoption, using a degree of impact metric to quantify their relevance. Each barrier is labeled with an alphanumeric ID that indicates its thematic category:

• V: vehicle-related;
• B: battery-related;
• I: charging infrastructure;
• E: energy supply;
• P: personal and behavioral;
• G: governance and policy.

These IDs will be used consistently throughout the following analysis to facilitate clarity and traceability. Among all identified barriers, the lack of charging points (I1) was the most critical, with a DI score of 5.75, being cited in 27 out of 47 papers.

Additionally, the high purchase and maintenance cost (V1) scored 4.04 for its DI, appearing in 19 papers, which confirms previous findings by Berkeley, Jarvis, and Jones [9] that financial constraints significantly hinder EV market penetration, especially in regions with limited subsidies or financial incentives. Another major challenge is the lack of consumer knowledge and information (P4), which also scored 3.83 for its DI and was cited in 18 studies. This result is consistent with the work of Egbue and Long [13] and Noel et al. [15], who emphasize that consumer uncertainty regarding EV range, charging convenience, and long-term economic benefits continues to be a major adoption barrier.

Furthermore, long charging times have been identified as another significant concern, with a DI score of 3.19 and appearing in 14 papers. While improvements in charging technology are mitigating this issue, the lack of ultra-fast charging solutions remains a challenge in many regions. Recently, BYD announced a new ultra-fast charging system that is capable of delivering 400 km of range with just a 5 min charge [60]. This innovation, featuring a 1000 kW charging platform, positions BYD ahead of competitors like Tesla in terms of charging speed [60]. However, the implementation of such technology faces challenges, including the need for extensive infrastructure development and potential impacts on battery safety and durability.

A full ranking of the barriers, along with their DI scores and classification, is presented in

Table 5. Degree of impact, definition, and classification of each barrier.

ID	Barriers	Barrier’s Definition	DI	Barriers Classification
V1	Purchase and maintenance cost	Refers to the high initial cost of acquiring an EV and the associated expenses for regular maintenance	4.04	Very High
V2	Resale and reuse of parts	Difficulties related to the resale value of EVs and uncertainties about the reuse or recycling of their components	1.28	Medium
V3	Available models	Limited variety of EV models available on the market, restricting consumer choice	1.49	Medium
V4	Low performance	Concerns about EVs’ power, acceleration, or performance under specific conditions such as long-distance travel	1.49	Medium
V5	Automotive industry	Resistance or lack of readiness from traditional automotive manufacturers to invest in or transition to EV production	0.43	Low
V6	Maintenance (labor and workshops)	Limited availability of qualified professionals and workshops specialized in EV maintenance	1.28	Medium
B1	Battery cost	High cost of EV batteries, which significantly impacts the final price of the vehicle	2.55	High
B2	Limited range	The relatively short driving distance of EVs on a single charge, often considered insufficient for long trips	2.55	High
B3	Raw material reserve	Dependency on scarce or geopolitically sensitive raw materials for battery production	1.06	Medium
B4	Battery life	Concerns regarding the long-term durability and replacement cost of EV batteries	2.34	High
I1	Lack of charging points	Insufficient public and private charging infrastructure to meet growing EV demand	5.75	Very High
I2	Lack of chargers’ compatibility	Lack of standardization among charging connectors and protocols, which limits interoperability	0.64	Low
I3	Recharge time	The long duration required to fully charge an EV compared to refueling conventional vehicles	3.19	Very High
E1	Energy insufficiency and network impact	Concerns about the capacity of the electrical grid to support large-scale EV charging without compromising stability	1.49	Medium
E2	Generating source	Environmental implications of electricity generation sources used to power EVs	2.13	High
P1	Environmental concern	Consumer awareness or skepticism about the real environmental benefits of EVs across their lifecycle	1.06	Medium
P2	Collection anxiety	Consumer fear of logistical or technical problems related to EV battery collection, return, or exchange	0.85	Low
P3	Range anxiety	Worry that an EV might not have enough charge to reach its destination, especially in areas with limited charging options	1.49	Medium
P4	Lack of knowledge and information	Lack of clear, accessible, and reliable information about EVs among the public	3.83	Very High
G1	Legislation (insufficient or unclear)	Absence or ambiguity of regulations and legal frameworks that support EV adoption	2.76	High
G2	Lack of benefits (economic and non-economic)	Perceived or real absence of incentives that make EVs more attractive	2.76	High

. As detailed in the Methodology (Section 3.3), the DI metric was used to quantify each barrier’s relative importance based on its frequency across the reviewed studies. To facilitate interpretation, the barriers were grouped into four levels of impact: Very High, High, Medium, and Low. This classification provides a clear basis for identifying the most critical obstacles to EV adoption and supports a structured prioritization of policy and strategic responses. Each barrier is also labeled with a reference code (e.g., V1, I1, P4) for consistency throughout this study.

4.2. Discussion of Results

In Table 5, the barriers classified under the “Very High” impact category require immediate attention, as they represent the most significant obstacles to EV adoption. Meanwhile, barriers categorized under “High” and “Medium” impact, such as limited model availability (V2), grid capacity issues (E1), and lack of standardization in charging technologies (G2), are also relevant but may be addressed through progressive policy measures and market developments.

To provide a structured strategy for addressing these challenges, a prioritization framework was developed, as shown in Figure 2. This framework visually organizes the barriers based on their urgency and level of impact, which will assist policymakers and industry stakeholders in designing effective interventions.

As demonstrated in Figure 2, the priority should be the expansion of charging infrastructure, followed by financial incentives to make EVs more competitive with ICE vehicles, consumer education campaigns to reduce misinformation, and technological advancements in charging speed and energy storage.

Specifically, the flowchart presented in Figure 2 was developed to reflect both the DI values and the thematic categorization of the barriers identified in the literature. The arrangement follows a top-down logic, beginning with the most critical obstacles—those classified as having “Very High Impact”—such as the lack of charging infrastructure (I1), high purchase and maintenance costs (V1), and limited consumer knowledge and information (P4). These barriers were not only the most frequently cited in the reviewed studies but also represent structural and behavioral bottlenecks that directly affect user adoption and market scalability. As the chart progresses, “High,” “Medium,” and “Low” impact barriers are presented in descending order of relevance, allowing stakeholders to visualize a continuum of challenges that require varying degrees of intervention.

By combining quantitative prioritization (via the DI metric) with thematic organization, the figure facilitates a strategic reading of the problem landscape, helping decision-makers to distinguish between universally critical issues and those that may be context-specific or less urgent. This visual synthesis aligns with best practices in evidence-based policymaking, where the allocation of financial, institutional, and technical resources should be guided by measurable indicators of impact. As such, the figure is intended to support the development of targeted and phased policies, enabling a more efficient and effective transition toward electric mobility across different socioeconomic and geographic contexts.

The findings also emphasize that public perception must be improved through targeted awareness programs and dealership engagement. Ensuring that accurate and compelling information reaches consumers is key to overcoming psychological and behavioral barriers. Additionally, continued investment in fast-charging infrastructure and battery technology is necessary to enhance the convenience and feasibility of EV ownership, reduce waiting times, and improve the overall user experience.

The adoption of EVs is also strongly aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as it contributes to multiple environmental, economic, and social objectives. The transition to electric mobility directly supports SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) by reducing reliance on fossil fuels and increasing the integration of renewable energy sources into transportation systems. Additionally, EV adoption is crucial for SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), as it mitigates urban air pollution and noise, contributing to healthier and more sustainable living environments. The impact of EVs on SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) is particularly relevant regarding battery manufacturing and recycling.

These SDG contributions are closely linked to the specific barriers identified in this study. For instance, the lack of charging infrastructure (I1) directly impacts SDG 7, as it limits access to clean and renewable energy-powered transport. Similarly, barriers such as urban air pollution and low EV availability (V3) are key to addressing SDG 11, which focuses on sustainable urban development. Issues such as battery recycling (B4) and raw material availability (B3) also resonate with SDG 12, highlighting the importance of circular economy initiatives in ensuring responsible production and consumption within the EV supply chain.

Advances in battery technologies and circular economic initiatives can ensure a more sustainable life cycle for EV components, minimizing the environmental impact of EV production. Finally, the shift to electric mobility plays a fundamental role in SDG 13 (Climate Action), as it reduces greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, aligning with global carbon reduction commitments. The results of this study highlight the need for coordinated policies that integrate EV adoption strategies with broader sustainability goals to ensure a just and effective transition to cleaner mobility solutions.

Governments, industry leaders, and research institutions must collaborate to develop comprehensive policies that facilitate the transition to electric mobility while ensuring that EV adoption remains accessible and equitable across different socioeconomic contexts. Future research should focus on assessing the effectiveness of these policy interventions over time and monitor how targeted investments and regulatory measures impact market dynamics and consumer behavior. Evaluating real-world applications of the proposed framework in different geographical and economic contexts will also be essential for refining and optimizing EV adoption strategies globally. Only through a coordinated and equity-driven transition can electric mobility truly fulfill its promise as a pillar of sustainable urban transformation.

4.3. Differentiation of Barriers by Country Income Level

While the degree of impact (DI) metric offers a global prioritization framework, it is essential to acknowledge that the barriers to EV adoption vary significantly across countries, depending on their income levels and development contexts. The relevance and urgency of each obstacle are shaped by local infrastructure, economic capabilities, policy maturity, and consumer behavior patterns.

High-income countries, such as Norway, Germany, and the United States, typically present a more advanced stage of EV adoption, as it is supported by strong government incentives, widespread charging infrastructure, and diversified vehicle offerings. In these contexts, psychological and behavioral barriers—such as range anxiety (P3), lack of information (P4), and distrust in new technologies (P1)—tend to gain prominence. This is because the physical and policy infrastructure is largely in place, which shifts the focus to consumer perceptions, preferences, and resistance to change.

In contrast, low- and lower-middle-income countries (e.g., India, Nepal, Nigeria) face more structural and systemic barriers, such as the lack of charging infrastructure (I1), limited grid capacity (E1), high purchase cost (V1), and absence of public incentives (G2). In these regions, the affordability gap and underdeveloped energy systems significantly hinder EV market penetration. Here, the primary focus remains on economic and infrastructure-related obstacles rather than consumer behavior.

Upper-middle-income countries, such as Brazil, China, and South Africa, often find themselves in a transitional phase. They may exhibit a hybrid barrier landscape, where both infrastructure limitations and psychological factors coexist. For instance, while cities like São Paulo or Beijing may have relatively advanced EV infrastructure, secondary cities still struggle with grid readiness and public investment gaps. Additionally, uncertainty about resale value (V2) and limited model availability (V3) are common concerns in these markets.

Table 6. Dominant EV adoption barriers by country income group.

Income Group	Primary Barrier Categories	Representative Barriers
High-income	Behavioral, informational and psychological	P3—Range anxiety, P4—Lack of knowledge, P1—Environmental skepticism
Upper-middle-income	Financial, infrastructure and behavioral (mixed)	V1—High cost, I1—Lack of charging points, V3—Limited models
Low-income	Infrastructure, economics and governance	I1—Charging infrastructure, E1—Grid limitations, G2—Lack of incentives

presents the dominant barriers to EV adoption categorized by country income groups.

This differentiation emphasizes the need for tailored strategies based on national income levels. Global frameworks for EV adoption must be localized, integrating both structural and behavioral interventions, depending on the regional maturity, market readiness, and public policy capacity.

4.4. Considerations on Spatiotemporal Variability and Future Research Directions

Another promising direction for deepening the analytical potential of this study lies in the incorporation of spatiotemporal analysis to complement the global ranking of barriers. Although the current approach offers a consolidated view of recurring challenges, the evolution of specific barriers over time and across regions could reveal important trends that influence the effectiveness of policy responses.

For instance, the cost of EV batteries (B1), a high-impact barrier that is cited frequently in earlier studies (2012–2016), has shown a steady decline over the years, particularly in markets such as the United States, Germany, and China, where production scales and technological innovations have accelerated cost reductions. The more recent literature, from 2020 onwards, has increasingly shifted focus from battery cost to challenges such as battery lifespan (B4), raw material dependency (B3), and recycling infrastructure, indicating a temporal evolution in research and policy priorities.

Spatially, the review also highlights differences in emphasis between regions. In Europe, psychological barriers such as range anxiety (P3) and misinformation (P4) have been frequently addressed due to the higher level of baseline infrastructure and governmental incentives. In contrast, studies from South Asia, Latin America, and Africa often underscore barriers like a lack of charging infrastructure (I1), grid limitations (E1), and policy gaps (G1, G2), reflecting different stages of EV market maturity.

Although detailed spatial-temporal mapping was not the core focus of this study, the bibliographic dataset compiled here provides a rich foundation for such analysis. Incorporating georeferenced metadata and temporal segmentation in future studies would enable the construction of dynamic barrier profiles and thus enhance both the academic relevance and policy applicability of the findings.

Therefore, we recognize the value of complementing the current DI framework with two powerful enhancements:

(i)

A Delphi-based expert validation process to ensure alignment with real-world priorities;

(ii)

A spatiotemporal layer of analysis to account for the dynamic and regionalized nature of EV adoption challenges.

These additions represent fruitful avenues for future research and could significantly increase the methodological precision and contextual depth of barrier prioritization frameworks in sustainable transport studies.

5. Conclusions

This study provides a structured and data-driven approach to identifying and prioritizing the key barriers to EV adoption. By employing a Degree of Impact metric, it ranks the most critical challenges and offers strategic insights for policymakers, industry leaders, and researchers. The findings reinforce that the lack of charging infrastructure, high purchase costs, limited consumer knowledge, and long charging times remain the most significant obstacles to widespread EV adoption. Addressing these barriers through targeted policies, financial incentives, and technological advancements is essential to accelerating the transition toward sustainable mobility.

For policymakers, this study highlights the need to expand charging infrastructure, particularly in underserved regions, to reduce range anxiety and increase consumer confidence in EVs. Furthermore, financial policies, such as tax incentives and subsidies, should be designed to make EVs more affordable and competitive with internal combustion engine vehicles. Public awareness campaigns and dealership training programs are also crucial to mitigating misinformation and knowledge gaps, which remain significant deterrents for potential buyers.

For industry stakeholders, the results emphasize the importance of accelerating innovation in battery technology and fast-charging solutions. Reducing charging times and improving energy storage efficiency can significantly enhance the convenience of EV ownership. Automakers and energy providers must also collaborate to ensure that grid capacity and charging infrastructure development keeps pace with increasing EV demand.

For urban planners and sustainability advocates, this research supports the integration of EV policies with broader environmental and climate action strategies. EV adoption aligns with key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and SDG 13 (Climate Action). The shift toward EVs plays a crucial role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving urban air quality, and fostering long-term environmental sustainability.

Finally, for future researchers, this study provides a framework for evaluating EV adoption barriers in different geographic and economic contexts. Future research should focus on assessing the effectiveness of policy interventions, tracking the impact of charging infrastructure expansion, and analyzing the long-term behavioral shifts among consumers. Moreover, exploring the role of emerging technologies, such as vehicle-to-grid (V2G) systems and second-life battery applications, could further enhance the sustainability of electric mobility.

By addressing the challenges identified in this study, decision-makers and stakeholders can accelerate EV adoption in a structured and efficient manner, ensuring that the transition to sustainable mobility is both inclusive and impactful. A multi-stakeholder approach that integrates government policies, industry innovations, and consumer engagement is essential to overcoming the barriers to EV adoption and achieving a cleaner, more sustainable transportation ecosystem.