Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Impact of consumer preferences on decarbonization of transport sector in India

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that India's official targets for decarbonizing private road transport—20% ethanol blending by 2025, 30% electric-vehicle sales by 2030, and the COP26 greenhouse-gas reduction for the road sector—will be missed under a…

desk verdict Useful extension of an India transport model with consumer awareness, but EV calibration overpredicts 2020–21 sales by ~10–25x, so the EV30@30 claim and the abstract overstate what the model shows. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15352 v1 pith:6ZJ36GN3 submitted 2024-11-22 physics.soc-ph

Nandita Saraf , Yogendra Shastri This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.soc-ph
keywords systemdynamicselectricvehiclesbiofuellogitmodelenvironmentalawarenessclimatechangeIndiatransportGHGemissions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to show that India's official targets for decarbonizing private road transport—20% ethanol blending by 2025, 30% electric-vehicle sales by 2030, and the COP26 greenhouse-gas reduction for the road sector—will be missed under a wide range of plausible futures. It extends a system dynamics model of car and two-wheeler adoption so that purchase decisions depend on both ownership cost and annual life-cycle emissions, with four consumer classes holding different priorities. Simulations to 2050 show that rising environmental awareness alone pushes novel vehicles (E85, EV, CNG) to 54% of the vehicle stock by 2050, but still leaves the 2030 targets unmet; combining a renewable electricity grid, a carbon tax, and reduced private driving brings GHG emissions closest to target (272 Mt CO2e vs 263 Mt CO2e) while ethanol blending reaches at most 16.3%. The one target that can be met, 30% EV sales share, requires both a greener grid and a carbon tax, reaching 31.8–33.7% in the modeled scenarios. A sympathetic reader would care because the results imply that current policies, even with additional instruments, are insufficient for the stated goals.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a system dynamics model whose purchase decision is a multi-nominal logit model with utility $U_i = \mu_p / OC_i + \mu_e / E_i$, where $OC_i$ and $E_i$ are the annualized ownership cost and annual life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of vehicle option $i$. Four consumer categories (cost-first P1, balanced P2, indifferent P3, emission-first P4) have different sensitivity coefficients $\mu_p$, $\mu_e$, and the category shares $\alpha_k^{P_j}$ evolve along Gompertz curves under awareness scenarios. Emissions include life-cycle fuel/feedstock emissions, electricity-grid emissions, and battery manufacturing/recycling/discard emissions, which feed back through the logit choice into vehicle stocks, fuel demand, prices, infrastructure inconvenience costs, and hence into the next period's ownership costs and emissions.

What would settle it

A national, well-sampled stated-preference survey (or the first few years of actual post-2025 sales data) that measures the actual distribution of consumers across the four priority classes and the actual cost/emission sensitivities; in particular, if observed EV sales share exceeds about 30% by 2030 without both a greener grid and a carbon tax, or if ethanol blending surpasses 20% by 2025, the model's conclusion that the targets are out of reach would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that government targets regarding ethanol blending, EV adoption, and GHG emission reduction are very optimistic, and even technology development and various policy options such as carbon tax and increased public transportation are insufficient to meet the targets. The model-based evidence: in the base case with static consumer awareness, GHG emissions from private road transport reach 392 Mt CO2e in 2030, about 49% above the computed target of 263 Mt CO2e; with early awareness growth, emissions fall to 371 Mt CO2e but remain 41% above target; and the best combination—early awareness, renewable grid, carbon tax, and reduced driving—yields 272.1 Mt CO2e, still 9 Mt above target. Ethanol blending peaks at 16.31% under the most favorable combination, below the 20% target. EV sales reach the 30% target only when a renewable electricity grid is combined with a carbon tax (31.77–33.65% across awareness scenarios), not with either measure alone or with reduced driving.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fitted consumer-priority shares and cost/emission sensitivities, plus the assumed Gompertz growth of environmental awareness saturating at P1=15%, P2=45%, and P4=30%, represent the real evolution of Indian consumer behavior; if the actual awareness trajectory or priority distribution differs, the scenario rankings and the sizes of the target gaps could change substantially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under the model, India's private road transport sector alone would miss its 2030 COP26-consistent GHG target by at least about 9 Mt CO2e even in the most favorable combination of awareness, grid, carbon tax, and reduced driving.
  • Ethanol blending stays below the 20% target in every scenario, maxing out around 16.3%, meaning the 2025 target is achievable only if consumer demand for E85 vehicles or the blending obligation itself is far stronger than modeled.
  • The EV30@30 target of 30% EV sales by 2030 is achievable in the model, but only when a 50%-renewable grid is paired with a carbon tax; neither policy alone is sufficient.
  • Accounting for battery life-cycle emissions reverses the intuitive EV-friendly effect of environmental awareness: as awareness grows, E85 and CNG cars outcompete electric cars because their life-cycle emissions per km are lower, so EV car share falls.
  • The timing of awareness growth matters more than its eventual level: raising awareness while vehicle demand is rising quickly (early awareness) shifts adoption toward low-carbon options far more than the same awareness increase arriving after 2030.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extending the paper's logic, the same four-category consumer framework could be used to test other disruptive options (e.g., hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, shared mobility, or scrappage policies) without re-architecting the model, since only the option-specific utility terms would change.
  • The finding that battery-related emissions can make EVs less attractive than E85/CNG on a life-cycle basis suggests that consumer-facing labels or awareness campaigns that report only tailpipe or grid emissions may systematically over-advertise EVs relative to other low-carbon options.
  • The model's sensitivity to the Gompertz saturation values implies a testable extension: repeat the scenario analysis with saturation levels fitted to observed awareness-tracking surveys over the next few years to bracket the target-gap uncertainty.
  • A policy consequence implicit in the results: combining a carbon tax with a renewable grid strengthens EV adoption, but adding reduced private driving erodes it by lowering petrol prices—so public-transport investment may need to be paired with carbon pricing to avoid the rebound the model identifies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends a previously developed system dynamics model of Indian private road transport by adding annual GHG emissions to the multinomial logit utility function and dividing consumers into four preference categories. It calibrates the model to 2020-2021 sales data, projects adoption of petrol, diesel, E85, electric, and CNG vehicles to 2050, and evaluates scenarios of changing environmental awareness, renewable electricity, carbon tax, and reduced driving against the Indian government's ethanol blending, EV30@30, and COP26 GHG targets. The central claims are that rising awareness alone is insufficient to meet the targets, that battery life-cycle emissions can reverse EV adoption trends, and that a green grid plus carbon tax can achieve 30% EV sales by 2030.

Significance. If reliable, the model would be a useful quantitative decision-support tool for Indian transport policy, and the inclusion of battery life-cycle emissions in consumer utility is a valuable addition. The model's reproduction of the historical ethanol blending trajectory (3.1/6.9/9.3% vs 5/8.1/10%, Section 5.1) is a point in its favor. However, the significance is conditional: the EV calibration overprediction and the absence of sensitivity analysis mean that the quantitative scenario results should be treated as illustrative rather than definitive.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 5.5; Table 2] The abstract states that a combination of a greener electricity grid, carbon tax, and reduced vehicle driving 'can possibly achieve the GHG emissions target in 2030', but Table 2 shows the best such combination ('All scenarios together', early awareness) reaching 272.1 Mt CO2e against the 263 Mt target, and Section 5.5 states that no scenario met the target. Please correct the abstract or the scenario reporting so that the two are consistent.
  2. [Section 4.1; Table A.3] The model is calibrated to 2020-2021 sales, yet Table A.3 shows that it overpredicts electric car sales by a factor of 25 in 2020 (5% vs 0.2%) and by a factor of 17 in 2021 (6.87% vs 0.4%), and electric two-wheeler sales by a factor of 9 (9% vs 1%). Because the headline EV30@30 result in Table 2 is measured in EV sales share, this systematic overprediction of the very technology being projected means the '30% EV sales by 2030' conclusion may be an artifact of the inflated starting point. A recalibration that reproduces the observed EV shares, or a sensitivity analysis over the EV-specific parameters, is required before that claim can be accepted.
  3. [Section 4.2; Table 1] No sensitivity analysis is provided for the central behavioral assumptions. The Gompertz saturation values for P1, P2, and P4 (15%, 45%, 30%) and the awareness rate x are assumed without uncertainty, and the MNL sensitivities in Table 1 are point estimates. Since the scenario rankings and the magnitude of the target gaps in Table 2 are produced by these parameters, the absence of any one-at-a-time or ensemble sensitivity analysis is a load-bearing gap, especially because the conclusion that even all policies leave a 9 Mt gap rests on these assumptions.
  4. [Section 5.1; Fig. 6] The 263 Mt CO2e target is derived as 10% of total national emissions times an 87% road-transport share, i.e., a target for the entire road transport sector, but the model only simulates private cars and two-wheelers. Comparing model output (e.g., 392 Mt in the base scenario) to a whole-road target is therefore inconsistent. The authors should either re-derive the target for their actual model boundary (for example, using the private-vehicle share of road emissions) or extend the model boundary; otherwise, the 'GHG target is missed' conclusion is not supported by the comparison as presented.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The term 'multi-nominal' should be 'multinomial' (for example, in Section 3.1).
  2. [Appendix B, Table B.4] The P4 row is listed as '10 + x/2', but the text and the P4 saturation value of 30% imply that it should be '5 + x/2'; please correct this entry.
  3. [Abstract; Section 5.1] The abstract's figures of 67.42% and 22.3% for car and two-wheeler stocks are not clearly attributed to a specific scenario in the results section; please state which scenario produces these numbers.
  4. [References] Several online references (e.g., The Economic Times 2020, 2021, 2022b) lack stable attribution details; consistent citation of author, title, and access date would improve verifiability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

One in-sample calibration step is presented as validation, but the central 2030 scenario projections are not circular by construction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1 and Appendix A Table A.3]
    "Values of µ P j p and µ P j e that resulted in a good prediction of the sales values for years 2020 and 2021 were finalized and reported in Table 1. A comparison of reported annual vehicle sales (in %) for 2020 and 2021 with the model output is given in Appendix A Table A.3. The comparison shows that the model outputs match well with the reported sales data."

    The 2020-2021 sales values are the same data used to calibrate the model's behavioral parameters, so Table A.3 shows an in-sample fit rather than an independent prediction. The match is forced by construction because the parameter values were chosen specifically to reproduce those sales figures. This makes the claim that the model 'matches well' a restatement of the fitting objective, not a validation. The 2030 scenario results are not directly fitted to the target values, so the central headline does not reduce entirely to this step, but the overconfident validation supports the credibility of the calibrated model used for those projections.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is not circular: the modified multinomial logit utility in Eq. 2 combines ownership cost and annual emissions, consumer category shares are specified exogenously from survey data, and the 2030 target projections follow from dynamical simulation of the calibrated model rather than from the target values themselves. The only clear circularity-adjacent step is in Section 4.1 and Appendix A: the parameters are tuned to 2020-2021 sales, and those same two years are then reported as a successful comparison, making the match an in-sample fit rather than an independent check. The self-citation to Saraf and Shastri (2023) supplies the base model structure and many inputs, but the paper's stated contribution—environmental awareness as an additional utility attribute—is implemented and simulated in this work, so the central scenario conclusions do not reduce to that citation. The authors' own limitations paragraph correctly cautions that model results are 'predictions of one of the many future possibilities' and that re-parameterization may be needed as data become available. The over-prediction of 2020/2021 EV sales in Table A.3 is a calibration-quality concern that can bias the headline EV30@30 result, but it is not a definitional circularity of the 2030 projections.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central scenario results rest on fitted logit coefficients, survey-derived consumer shares, assumed awareness saturation values, an exogenous vehicle demand path, and a specific utility functional form. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • MNL sensitivity coefficients mu_p and mu_e = Table 1 (e.g., P1 car: mu_p=430000, mu_e=10; P4 car: mu_p=10, mu_e=3000)
    Chosen so that model output matches reported 2020 and 2021 sales shares; no confidence intervals are given.
  • Initial consumer category shares alpha (2020) = P1=65%, P2=20%, P3=10%, P4=5%
    Taken from a single Economic Times survey with small sample; used to calibrate the base case.
  • Saturation shares for awareness (Gompertz) = P1=15%, P2=45%, P4=30%
    Assumed, described as 'one of many possibilities'; drives delayed and early awareness scenarios.
  • Awareness rate parameter x = not specified
    Appendix B defines x but no value is given; the timing of P1 decline is set by scenario curves in Fig C.8.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Multinomial logit form P_i = exp(U_i)/sum(exp(U_i)) with U_i = mu_p/OC_i + mu_e/E_i
    Functional form assumed without empirical test; inverse relationship is asserted from Fig 1.
  • domain assumption Annual vehicle demand is an exogenous input that peaks around 2035 and declines
    Section 4.4: demand path is an input, not modeled endogenously; shapes timing results.
  • ad hoc to paper Consumers who leave P1 shift equally to P2 and P4; P3 stays constant
    Section 4.2: 'assumed here that the reduction in alpha_P1 will be equally distributed between alpha_P2 and alpha_P4'.
  • domain assumption EV battery GHG emissions are annualized over battery life and included in consumer utility
    Section 3.3 and 5.4: inclusion determines the counter-intuitive EV result; the authors test the alternative of grid-only emissions.
  • domain assumption Uniform spatial distribution of refueling stations for EVs and CNG
    Section 4.1: the model's overprediction of EV/CNG sales is attributed to this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of consumer preferences on decarbonization of transport sector in India." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6ZJ36GN3

@misc{pith2026241115352,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of consumer preferences on decarbonization of transport sector in India},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6ZJ36GN3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15352}
}
read the original abstract

Decarbonization of transport sector through adoption of cleaner vehicle options will depend on the environmental awareness of consumers and their priorities. This work develops and uses a system dynamics approach to understand possible adoption pathways of novel vehicle options, i.e., ethanol-blended fuel (E85), electric, and compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles in India. A system dynamics model using a multi-nominal logit model to capture consumer choices has been previously developed for the private road transport sector of India. The model has been modified to also include annual vehicular emissions as a decisionmaking attribute in addition to the annual cost. Four different classes of consumers with different priorities to cost and annual emissions are modeled. The model coefficients are identified using historical data. Model simulations over a period of 30 years till 2050 are performed to determine possible vehicle adoption trends. Different scenarios of changing environmental awareness, policy interventions, and technology development were analyzed to achieve targets such as COP26 greenhouse gas emission reduction, ethanol blending, and EV adoption. Simulation results showed that an increase in environmental awareness resulted in the adoption of novel vehicle options by 67.42% and 22.3% of the car and two-wheeler stocks, respectively. However, rising environmental awareness was not enough to meet the target values. Scenario analysis showed that a greater share of renewables in the electricity grid, carbon tax on transport fuel, and reduced vehicle driving together can possibly achieve the GHG emissions target in 2030. Battery-related GHG emissions were shown to be very important and led to counter-intuitive trends in EV adoption. 30% EV sales by 2030 could be achieved with a greener electricity grid and carbon tax.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15352 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram to explain the multi-nominal logit model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The schematic diagram demonstrates a methodology to incorporate the variations in preferences for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The modified causal loop diagram with the annual emissions from each vehicle option is included as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Adoption trend of various options in cars and two-wheelers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: This figure shows the petrol and diesel prices for the three scenarios. A feedback effect of an increase in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: This figure shows the GHG emission trend for the three scenarios and the COP26 emission reduction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Impact of neglecting the EV battery emissions in the purchase decision. The numbers mentioned [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , author Kumar, R.R

    author Bansal, P. , author Kumar, R.R. , author Raj, A. , author Dubey, S. , author Graham, D.J. , year 2021 . title Willingness to pay and attitudinal preferences of indian consumers for electric vehicles . journal Energy Economics volume 100 , pages 105340

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    , author N rbech, T.E

    author Bjerkan, K.Y. , author N rbech, T.E. , author Nordt mme, M.E. , year 2016 . title Incentives for promoting battery electric vehicle (BEV) adoption in Norway . journal Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment volume 43 , pages 169--180

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    , author Chakravarty, S

    author Chakraborty, R. , author Chakravarty, S. , year 2021 . title Acceptance of Electric Two-Wheelers in India: Results From a Stated Choice Survey . journal Available at SSRN 3949403

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    , author Pathak, M

    author Dhar, S. , author Pathak, M. , author Shukla, P. , year 2018 . title Transformation of India's transport sector under global warming of 2 C and 1.5 C scenario . journal Journal of Cleaner Production volume 172 , pages 417--427

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    title Electric vehicles to match petrol car rates only after 2030

    author Financial Express , . title Electric vehicles to match petrol car rates only after 2030 . journal https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/electric-vehicles-to-match-petrol-car-rates-only-after-2030-bnef/1664789/(Last accessed on August 15 2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    , author Chugh , author Drishti, G

    author Gandhi, H. , author Chugh , author Drishti, G. , author Niharika, P. , author Abhishek, C. , author Priti , year 2021 . title Fossil fuels driving towards slow lane . journal CRISIL Research

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    , author Ardeshiri, A

    author Ghasri, M. , author Ardeshiri, A. , author Rashidi, T. , year 2019 . title Perception towards electric vehicles and the impact on consumers’ preference . journal Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment volume 77 , pages 271--291

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    , author Madlener, R

    author Hackbarth, A. , author Madlener, R. , year 2013 . title Consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles: A discrete choice analysis . journal Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment volume 25 , pages 5--17

    work page 2013

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    , author Ou, X

    author Hao, H. , author Ou, X. , author Du, J. , author Wang, H. , author Ouyang, M. , year 2014 . title China’s electric vehicle subsidy scheme: Rationale and impacts . journal Energy Policy volume 73 , pages 722--732

    2014

  2. [10]

    , author Mohamed, M

    author Higgins, C.D. , author Mohamed, M. , author Ferguson, M.R. , year 2017 . title Size matters: How vehicle body type affects consumer preferences for electric vehicles . journal Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice volume 100 , pages 182--201

    2017

  3. [11]

    title India 2020 Energy Policy Review

    author International Energy Agency , year 2020 . title India 2020 Energy Policy Review . journal https://www.iea.org/events/india-energy-policy-review-2020(Last accessed on August 18 2022)

    2020

  4. [12]

    title Majority of New Renewables Undercut Cheapest Fossil Fuel on Cost

    author International Renewable Energy Agency , year 2021 . title Majority of New Renewables Undercut Cheapest Fossil Fuel on Cost . journal https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2021/Jun/Majority-of-New-Renewables-Undercut-Cheapest-Fossil-Fuel-on-Cost(Last accessed on A...

    2021

  5. [13]

    , author Pettersson, T

    author Jansson, J. , author Pettersson, T. , author Mannberg, A. , author Br \"a nnlund, R. , author Lindgren, U. , year 2017 . title Adoption of alternative fuel vehicles: Influence from neighbors, family and coworkers . journal Transportation Research Part D: Transport and E...

    2017

  6. [14]

    , author K, S

    author Kaushik, A. , author K, S. , author G, R. , author Vohra, S. , year 2022 . title Transitioning to a Low Carbon Technology for the Road Transport in India . journal The Energy and Resources Institute

    2022

  7. [15]

    , author Lane, B.W

    author Krause, R.M. , author Lane, B.W. , author Carley, S. , author Graham, J.D. , year 2016 . title Assessing demand by urban consumers for plug-in electric vehicles under future cost and technological scenarios . journal International Journal of Sustainable Transportation v...

    2016

  8. [16]

    , author Tomer, N

    author Kushwah, P. , author Tomer, N. , year 2021 . title Electric Vehicle Adoption in India: A Study Based on System Dynamic Approach . journal SAMVAD volume 22 , pages 41--45

    2021

  9. [17]

    , author Vi \'a fara, J

    author Larson, P.D. , author Vi \'a fara, J. , author Parsons, R.V. , author Elias, A. , year 2014 . title Consumer attitudes about electric cars: Pricing analysis and policy implications . journal Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice volume 69 , pages 299--314

    2014

  10. [18]

    , author Molin, E

    author Liao, F. , author Molin, E. , author van Wee, B. , year 2017 . title Consumer preferences for electric vehicles: a literature review . journal Transport Reviews volume 37 , pages 252--275

    2017

  11. [19]

    , author Sprei, F

    author Mersky, A.C. , author Sprei, F. , author Samaras, C. , author Qian, Z.S. , year 2016 . title Effectiveness of incentives on electric vehicle adoption in Norway . journal Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment volume 46 , pages 56--68

    2016

  12. [20]

    title Moving Forward Together: Enabling Shared Mobility in India

    author NITI Aayog, Rocky Mountain Institute and Observer Research Foundation , year 2018 . title Moving Forward Together: Enabling Shared Mobility in India

    2018

  13. [21]

    , author Tatari, O

    author Noori, M. , author Tatari, O. , year 2016 . title Development of an agent-based model for regional market penetration projections of electric vehicles in the United States . journal Energy volume 96 , pages 215--230

    2016

  14. [22]

    title Pricing carbon: Trade-offs and opportunities for India

    author Observer Research Foundation , year 2021 . title Pricing carbon: Trade-offs and opportunities for India . journal https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/pricing-carbon-trade-offs-opportunities-india/(Last accessed on August 16 2022)

    2021

  15. [23]

    , author Malyan, A

    author Puneet, K. , author Malyan, A. , author Kaur, H. , author Jain, H. , author Chaturvedi, V. , year 2022 . title India Transport Energy Outlook . journal New Delhi: Council on Energy, Environment and Water

    2022

  16. [24]

    , author Shastri, Y

    author Saraf, N. , author Shastri, Y. , year 2023 . title System dynamics-based assessment of novel transport options adoption in india . journal Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy volume 25 , pages 799--823

    2023

  17. [25]

    , author Kumar, S

    author Sarwal, R. , author Kumar, S. , author Mehta, A. , author Varadan, A. , author Singh, S. , author Ramakumar, S. , author Mathai, R. , year 2021 . title Roadmap for ethanol blending in India 2020-25 . journal NITI Aayog

    2021

  18. [26]

    , author Davidsdottir, B

    author Shafiei, E. , author Davidsdottir, B. , author Leaver, J. , author Stefansson, H. , author Asgeirsson, E.I. , year 2015 . title Simulation of alternative fuel markets using integrated system dynamics model of energy system . journal Procedia Computer Science volume 51 ,...

    2015

  19. [27]

    , author Bakker, S

    author Sierzchula, W. , author Bakker, S. , author Maat, K. , author Van Wee, B. , year 2014 . title The influence of financial incentives and other socio-economic factors on electric vehicle adoption . journal Energy policy volume 68 , pages 183--194

    2014

  20. [28]

    , author Mishra, T

    author Singh, N. , author Mishra, T. , author Banerjee, R. , year 2019 . title Greenhouse gas emissions in India’s road transport sector , in: booktitle Climate change signals and response . publisher Springer , pp. pages 197--209

    2019

  21. [29]

    title 53\ Report

    author The Economic Times , year 2020 . title 53\ Report . journal https://auto.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/53-indians-ready-to-pay-upto-rs-1-lac-more-for-ev-report/73438236(Last accessed on July 14 2022)

    2020

  22. [30]

    title About 90\ for buying EV: Survey

    author The Economic Times , year 2021 . title About 90\ for buying EV: Survey . journal https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/renewables/about-90-consumers-in-india-willing-to-pay-a-premium-for-buying-ev-survey/articleshow/84725945.cms (Last accessed on July 14 2022)

    2021

  23. [31]

    title India achieved 10 pc ethanol blending target ahead of schedule: Prime Minister Narendra Modi

    author The Economic Times , year 2022 a. title India achieved 10 pc ethanol blending target ahead of schedule: Prime Minister Narendra Modi . journal https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/oil-gas/india-achieved-10-pc-ethanol-blending-target-ahead-of-schedule-pri...

    2022

  24. [32]

    title Over 40\ alternative to petrol and diesel: Survey

    author The Economic Times , year 2022 b. title Over 40\ alternative to petrol and diesel: Survey . journal https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/oil-gas/over-40-of-indian-car-buyers-looking-at-alternative-to-petrol-and-diesel-survey/articleshow/89450771.cms?from...

    2022

  25. [33]

    , author Qin, G

    author Yan, Q. , author Qin, G. , author Zhang, M. , author Xiao, B. , year 2019 . title Research on real purchasing behavior analysis of electric cars in beijing based on structural equation modeling and multinomial logit model . journal Sustainability volume 11 , pages 5870

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.