IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/complx/v2022y2022i1n3444856.html

Analysis of Mutual Influence Relationships of Purchase Intention Factors of Electric Bicycles: Application of DEMATEL Taking into Account Information Uncertainty and Expert Confidence

Author

Listed:
  • Ching-Te Lin
  • Jen-Jen Yang
  • Wen-Jen Chiang
  • Jen-Jung Yang
  • Chin-Cheng Yang

Abstract

As the negative environmental impacts of transportation systems become more severe, governments and environmental groups are seeking more sustainable transportation options, such as replacing fuel‐powered vehicles with electric vehicles and expanding public transportation systems to reduce the number of people driving on their own, in order to reduce the environmental impacts of transportation systems. At present, the rapid expansion of public transportation systems is not an easy task and requires a long period of time to plan for expansion and construction, so people are increasingly looking to find means of transportation that meet sustainable conditions as solutions. In this context, electric bicycles are one of the solutions that people can choose, with benefits such as energy saving, carbon reduction, effective air pollution reduction, and simple and labor‐saving riding. However, in Taiwan, despite the many benefits of electric bicycles, their popularity is not high. Therefore, this study focuses on the factors that affect the purchase of electric bicycles in Taiwan. The Influential Network Relation Map (INRM) generated by the Z‐based Decision‐making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (Z‐DEMATEL) technique is used to describe the influence relationships among the factors and to establish the key evaluation criteria of electric bicycle purchase intention. The results indicate that vehicle price, safety, motor performance, battery life, and battery durability are the most important factors in purchasing electric bicycles. Furthermore, the power of motor is considered as the factor that most significantly affects other criteria, while safety and price are most likely to be affected by other criteria. This study has contributed to academia and industry, for the dependency weights of these factors are set to provide a scientific and systematic way to show how consumers think in the decision‐making process and to provide more reliable information and management implications for the electric bicycle industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Ching-Te Lin & Jen-Jen Yang & Wen-Jen Chiang & Jen-Jung Yang & Chin-Cheng Yang, 2022. "Analysis of Mutual Influence Relationships of Purchase Intention Factors of Electric Bicycles: Application of DEMATEL Taking into Account Information Uncertainty and Expert Confidence," Complexity, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2022(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:complx:v:2022:y:2022:i:1:n:3444856
    DOI: 10.1155/2022/3444856
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3444856
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1155/2022/3444856?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cherry, Christopher R. & Yang, Hongtai & Jones, Luke R. & He, Min, 2016. "Dynamics of electric bike ownership and use in Kunming, China," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 127-135.
    2. Piers M. Forster & Amanda C. Maycock & Christine M. McKenna & Christopher J. Smith, 2020. "Latest climate models confirm need for urgent mitigation," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 7-10, January.
    3. Lin, Boqiang & Shi, Lei, 2022. "Do environmental quality and policy changes affect the evolution of consumers’ intentions to buy new energy vehicles," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 310(C).
    4. Hung, Nguyen Ba & Lim, Ocktaeck, 2020. "A review of history, development, design and research of electric bicycles," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    5. Wojciech Sałabun & Krzysztof Palczewski & Jarosław Wątróbski, 2019. "Multicriteria Approach to Sustainable Transport Evaluation under Incomplete Knowledge: Electric Bikes Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, June.
    6. Esther Salmeron-Manzano & Francisco Manzano-Agugliaro, 2018. "The Electric Bicycle: Worldwide Research Trends," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-16, July.
    7. Carroll, Paraic & Caulfield, Brian & Ahern, Aoife, 2019. "Modelling the potential benefits of increased active travel," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 82-92.
    8. Andrii Shekhovtsov & Volodymyr Kozlov & Viktor Nosov & Wojciech Sałabun, 2020. "Efficiency of Methods for Determining the Relevance of Criteria in Sustainable Transport Problems: A Comparative Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-23, September.
    9. Jen-Jen Yang & Yen-Ching Chuang & Huai-Wei Lo & Ting-I Lee, 2020. "A Two-Stage MCDM Model for Exploring the Influential Relationships of Sustainable Sports Tourism Criteria in Taichung City," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-16, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nenad Djokic & Nikola Milicevic & Branimir Kalas & Ines Djokic & Vera Mirovic, 2023. "E-Bicycle as a Green and Physically Active Mode of Transport from the Aspect of Students: TPB and Financial Incentives," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-11, January.
    2. Liu, Yixiao & Tian, Zihao & Pan, Baoran & Zhang, Wenbin & Liu, Yunqi & Tian, Lixin, 2022. "A hybrid big-data-based and tolerance-based method to estimate environmental benefits of electric bike sharing," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    3. Paweł Ziemba & Izabela Gago, 2022. "Compromise Multi-Criteria Selection of E-Scooters for the Vehicle Sharing System in Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-26, July.
    4. Mihai Machedon-Pisu & Paul Nicolae Borza, 2019. "Are Personal Electric Vehicles Sustainable? A Hybrid E-Bike Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-24, December.
    5. repec:osf:osfxxx:5xgch_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Ziwen Ling & Christopher R. Cherry & John H. MacArthur & Jonathan X. Weinert, 2017. "Differences of Cycling Experiences and Perceptions between E-Bike and Bicycle Users in the United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-18, September.
    7. Chen, Junjie & Liu, Pei & Lin, Borong & Zhou, Hao & Papachristos, George, 2025. "The diffusion of prefabrication technology and its potential for CO2 emissions reduction in China: A combined system dynamics and agent-based study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    8. Hui Zheng & Baohong He & Mingwei He & Jinghui Guo, 2022. "Impact of Urban Spatial Transformation on the Mobility of Commuters with Different Transportation Modes in China: Evidence from Kunming 2011–2016," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-22, June.
    9. Asma Fahim & Qingmei Tan & Bushra Naz & Qurat ul Ain & Sibghat Ullah Bazai, 2021. "Sustainable Higher Education Reform Quality Assessment Using SWOT Analysis with Integration of AHP and Entropy Models: A Case Study of Morocco," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-19, April.
    10. Esther Salmerón-Manzano & Francisco Manzano-Agugliaro, 2018. "Unaccompanied Minors: Worldwide Research Perspectives," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-15, December.
    11. Sun, Shan & Guo, Liang & Yang, Shuo & Cao, Jason, 2024. "Exploring the contributions of Ebike ownership, transit access, and the built environment to car ownership in a developing city," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    12. Fei-Hsin Huang & Hann Nguyen, 2022. "Selecting Optimal Cultural Tourism for Indigenous Tribes by Fuzzy MCDM," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(17), pages 1-12, August.
    13. Aldery Silveira Junior & Rafael Rabelo Nunes, 2022. "Assessment of the Satisfaction Level of Users of Brazilian Cabotage—Containerized Cargo Segment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-19, September.
    14. Nikoleta Mikušová & Gabriel Fedorko & Vieroslav Molnár & Martina Hlatká & Rudolf Kampf & Veronika Sirková, 2021. "Possibility of a Solution of the Sustainability of Transport and Mobility with the Application of Discrete Computer Simulation—A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-24, September.
    15. Tao, Xuezong & Zhu, Lichao, 2024. "Drivers of transportation CO2 emissions and their changing patterns: Empirical results from 18 countries," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    16. Esther Salmerón-Manzano & Francisco Manzano-Agugliaro, 2019. "The Role of Smart Contracts in Sustainability: Worldwide Research Trends," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-16, May.
    17. Shi, Lei & Wu, Rongxin & Lin, Boqiang, 2023. "Where will go for electric vehicles in China after the government subsidy incentives are abolished? A controversial consumer perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 262(PA).
    18. Zhang, Yongping & Fu, Wenyan & Yan, Jiaxin & Chao, Hao & Kong, Hui, 2025. "The effect of dockless e-bike-sharing on reducing carbon emissions: A dynamic investigation of two small Chinese cities between 2020 and 2022," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    19. Rémy Bonnet & Didier Swingedouw & Guillaume Gastineau & Olivier Boucher & Julie Deshayes & Frédéric Hourdin & Juliette Mignot & Jérôme Servonnat & Adriana Sima, 2021. "Increased risk of near term global warming due to a recent AMOC weakening," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-9, December.
    20. Mohammad Zahirul Khaiyum & Sudipa Sarker & Golam Kabir, 2023. "Evaluation of Carbon Emission Factors in the Cement Industry: An Emerging Economy Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-15, October.
    21. Gaofeng Gu & Tao Feng & Chixing Zhong & Xiaoxi Cai & Jiang Li, 2021. "The Effects of Life Course Events on Car Ownership and Sustainable Mobility Tools Adoption Decisions: Results of an Error Component Random Parameter Logit Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-21, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:complx:v:2022:y:2022:i:1:n:3444856. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/8503 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.