Evidence-Based Market Overview of Incentives and Disincentives in Electric Mobility as a Key to the Sustainable Future
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Paper Review – Future Transportation-1228834
Paper Title: “EVIDENCE-BASED MARKET OVERVIEW OF INCENTIVES AND DISINCENTIVES IN ELECTRIC MOBILITY AS A KEY TO THE SUSTAINABLE FUTURE”.
This paper aims to provide an overview focused specifically on the market penetration of battery electric vehicles (BEV). Authors list the main hurdles to market penetration and the different European measures to boost BEV adoption. Moreover, the paper aims to establish interdependencies between incentives through a descriptive analysis. Consequently, it aims to bridge the gap between government expectations, societal experiences and market realities. The paper classifies available measure into three types: financial incentives, non-financial incentives and disincentives.
The article’s strength is the attempt to synthesise measures that can contribute to the future success of BEVs, helping to resolve the gap between expectations and experiences.
The article’s weakness consists of the lacking of some declared goals: interdependencies between the different measures missing (or they do not emerge from the reading). Also, the literature analysis is applied only for certain measures.
Here below some major and minor suggestion to improve the quality and effectiveness of the paper:
Major comment 1
In section 1, the authors explain several electric vehicle types (BEV, PHEV, HEV, ICEV). However, it is never stated what type of transport they analyse (e.g., cars, heavy vehicles, micro-mobility, all of them). I believe that it is necessary to point it. Also, I suggest inserting a sentence on the ever-expanding market of electric micro-mobility vehicles in urban travel (talking about electric mobility many scientific articles discuss about it); an article to cite that summarises state of the art is:
- Boglietti, S.; Barabino, B.; Maternini, G. Survey on e-Powered Micro Personal Mobility Vehicles: Exploring Current Issues towards Future Developments. Sustainability2021, 13, 3692. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073692
Major comment 2
In section 1, the authors briefly introduce hurdles that limit the adoption of electric vehicles. However, in row 68-72, they assert: “These hurdles have hence necessitated the need for incentives specifically crafted for BEVs to accelerate their uptake compared to other alternative fuel vehicles and to increase their market share in the automobile market so as to harness the social benefits of GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions reduction”. The sentence may be misunderstood: it seems that incentives, often understood only as financial, can solve all those hurdles, even those related to the charging infrastructure. I suggest specifying and anticipating here a list of incentives types that you will deal with later. Indeed, they are missing from the introduction.
Major comment 3
In section 2, in row 96-99, the authors say: “These factors include but are not limited to purchase cost, specific user needs and requirements, limited information and technological uncertainty, and other demographic (country-specific) factors”. I haven’t understood the sentence: “include but are not limited to”? Do they only address a few factors? Why have not they analysed others? Since these factors are relevant, I suggest clarifying them. It could be useful to insert one table that shows the list of several factors that affect the decision to buy an EV. I suggest two references integration:
- Biresselioglu, M.Efe., Kaplan, M.D., Yilmaz, B.K. (2018). Electric mobility in Europe: A comprehensive review of motivators and barriers in decision making processes, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 109, 1-13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.01.017.
- Philipsen, R., Schmidt, T., Van Heek, J., Ziefle, M. (2016). Fast-charging station here, please! User criteria for electric vehicle fast-charging locations. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 40, 119-129, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.04.013.
Major comment 4
In section 2, in row 127-129, the authors say: “While batteries with larger capacities appear like a logical solution, it is not practical on the one hand as it will further raise the retail price of the vehicles”. This statement is interesting. Has the curve of the relationship between capacity increase and price increase been evaluated?
Major comment 5
In section 3, only a few incentives are accompanied by references to studies demonstrating their effects. These are limited to sections: 3.1.4, 3.1.6, 3.1.7, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3. In my opinion, remain sections need to be improved with studies that show effects of the related incentives.
Major comment 6
In section 3.2.1, some facets need to be clarified. There are transport and sociological studies that associate the charging infrastructure with the success of electric mobility. However, criticism of its effectiveness in the urban environment derives from the fact that urban travel is often unsustainable as it replaces sustainable infrastructures with zero or reduced impact, such as public transport itself, cycling and pedestrian mobility. The real challenge lies in intercity travel. Please, have a look at this contribution:
- Newman, D., Wells, P., Donovan, C., Nieuwenhuis, P., Davies H.,Urban, sub-urban or rural: where is the best place for electric vehicles? International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, 14 (3/4), pp. 306-323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJATM.2014.065295
Major comment 7
In section 4, row 382-384, the authors say: “The extent of the impacts may vary across the countries, so the demographic, economic, geographical, and cultural makings could tone these findings”. I believe that is what is missing from this contribution. In fact, the incentives of European countries are presented without giving any indication of how they have increased the electric vehicles. It is an evaluation of the "political" options incentives.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Comment 1
In section 1, row 24-45, there are many repetitive sentences. They could be summarised.
Minor Comment 2
In section 1, row 34 data is old and could be updated.
Minor Comment 3
In section 2, row 122, the sub-title is “Limited range and refuelling time (technological issues)”. However, the limited range is not only a technological issue but also psychological (autonomy anxiety).
Minor Comment 4
In section 2, row 133-135. The sentence needs data and literature references. Also, row 135-136, “considering these”. These what?
Minor Comment 5
In section 2, row 146-156. The sentence needs literature references.
Minor Comment 6
In section 2, row 148-151. Apart from the factors of ‘employment ratio’, ‘gasoline price’, and ‘education level, the others are not socio-economic or socio-demographic factors.
Minor Comment 7
In section 4, several sub-title could be eliminated to make the reading more fluid and since the parts of the text are very short. Moreover, I suggest changing the main title to “discussion and conclusion”.
Minor Comment 8
A minor revision of the English is required. There is some grammar mistake in row 101-102, 111, 118, 124, 140, 183, 188, 194, 244, 275, 282, 331, 344, 357, 411.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript reviews and provides an evidence-based market overview of battery electric vehicles (BEVs). The authors categorise different factors which may influence market incentives, and also provide policy recommendations in order to improve the implementation of BEVs. The structure of the manuscript is clear, and the paper is easy to read. However, in the introduction, the authors could break down the research questions more. In addition, the reasons why sustainable transport is so important need to be clarified in more detail. The links between Sections 2 are 3 are a bit weak. In Section 4, it would have been advisable to discuss the market for BEVs and sustainable transport development in more depth, rather than simply reiterating material from previous sections, such as from Section 3. More detailed comments can be found below.
Introduction
- On page 1, line 29, the concept of carbon neutrality and Paris goals have already been highlighted. Therefore, I would suggest linking the global temperature goal to the new and common declaration.
- On page 2, lines 58 to 72, the advantages of BEVs need to be emphasised and explored more, for instance, why are BEVs better than plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and Plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs)?
Barriers inhibiting wider adoption
- On page 3, lines 97 to 99, references are needed.
Incentivizing market adoption and penetration
- On page 5, lines 208 to 219, Section 3.1.3 is too descriptive. As well as critically discussing the benefits of vehicle registration tax, the authors also need to summarise the policy measures that should be implemented to promote the BEV market.
- On page 5, in Section 3.1, the authors mention many factors here; however, I doubt whether all the variables should be categorised at the same level.
- On page 7, line 314, I do not think that infrastructure development can really be summarised as non-financial incentives. Alternatively, please defend this claim and provide evidence.
Discussion
- On pages 8 and 9, what are the key contributions to the existing literature. What are the links between the potential variables discussed earlier?
- In addition, the key theme of the research, sustainable transport, needs to be discussed and highlighted to a greater extent.
Conclusions
- I would suggest including a conclusions section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I'm glad to tell the authors that my comments were addressed satisfactory and the paper can be accepted in the current form.
Author Response
We are grateful for your valuable comments and your support!
Reviewer 2 Report
I can see that the authors have adequately addressed my queries. Thanks.
Line 30, page 1, Paris Agreement, references are needed. Other than that, all fine with me.
Author Response
We are grateful for your valuable comments and your support. The missing reference has been completed.
