Effect of Policies to Accelerate the Adoption of Battery Electric Vehicles in Finland—A Delphi Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors chose an interesting and hot topic. The paper deals with a Delphi-based research study about accelerating the BEV market in Finland.

The authors well cited the recent and relevant scientific works and results from this field. However, they mentioned that the unwanted events in recent times raised new challenges in the BEV market, yet they cited only indirect references. Adding some really up-to-date citations and refining the conclusions (if necessary) would be useful.

The authors soundly introduced and applied the Disaggregative Delphi method to discover the possible EV adoption strategies in Finland. The way of the research fulfills all relevant criteria. Nevertheless, the authors also mentioned the possible doubts about the study process. They confirmed the study results based on the scientific literature’s findings. In a further research phase, a model-based statistical analysis and evaluation would be useful to strengthen the current findings and the drawn conclusions.

The title doesn’t reflect that this is a country study. I suggest indicating the related country (Finland).

In Chapter 2, the authors describe how they approached the scientific literature. Other research showed that the general EV experiences may differ from the specific BEV experiences. This does not affect the paper’s main findings, but additional rationale can be provided.

The Harvard referencing does not align with the Journal’s requirements. See „Instructions for Authors” at the Journal’s website.

Line 48-49: please place the two citations in the right place within the sentence

Line 287: I suggest writing some additional about the „private companies” – are they from the EV industry, or dealers, or transport companies, etc.?

Line 302, Table 1: explanation of „Other” organisation type is missing (comparing to Section 3.1, first paragraph)

The text is well-written, and the language used is easy to understand.

Author Response

Manuscript futuretransp-2688367
Response to Reviewer 1

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the newly titled manuscript “Effect of policies to accelerate the adoption of battery electric vehicles in Finland – A Delphi study” for publication in the MDPI Journal Future Transportation. We express gratitude for the time and effort invested by both you and the reviewers in offering feedback on our manuscript. We value the insightful comments and valuable improvements and have incorporated the majority of the reviewer's suggestions into our paper. Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript (in red). Please see below, in blue, for a point-by-point response to each of the comments and concerns. All page numbers and line numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Thank you again for your consideration of our revised manuscript.

Kind regards,
The authors

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Following the review process of the article entitled "Effect of policies to accelerate the adoption of battery electric vehicles - A Delphi study", the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. The article presents a Delphi analysis based on the answers given by the specialist from Finland regarding several questions related to the barriers in the car market to facilitate a massive adoption of electric vehicles. The final analysis, comments and conclusions are sufficiently well explained. Bibliographic references related to the subject are used (even if there is more recent research published that addresses the market and statistical analysis of both the performance of electric vehicles and national policies related to the promotion of these vehicles).

2. In general, the article presents a structure that allows it to convey to the reader the necessary information related to the treated subject, using an easy-to-understand language (including for those who do not speak English natively)

3. From the point of view of the theme/subject treated, it can be considered that it is in the field of interest of the journal Future Transportation.

4. There are some recommendations from the reviewer, which maybe in the future, will be taken into account by the authors:

• Continuation of the study by surveying customers from the car market and comparing these results with those of the experts (already present in this article) - something already highlighted by the authors in future research directions

• In the particular case of Finland, consideration of the effect of low temperatures on energy sources (batteries) by reducing the autonomy and in certain cases the life span (of operation) MUST be considered as an influencing factor in the purchase of electric vehicles

• Analysis and perception of the differences between battery electric vehicles and fuel cell electric vehicles (with hydrogen)

Taking into account the above, the reviewer's recommendation is that the article be accepted for publication (provided that there are no problems related to editing in the format requested by the editor).

Author Response

Manuscript futuretransp-2688367
Response to Reviewer 2

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the newly titled manuscript “Effect of policies to accelerate the adoption of battery electric vehicles in Finland – A Delphi study” for publication in the MDPI Journal Future Transportation. We express gratitude for the time and effort invested by both you and the reviewers in offering feedback on our manuscript. We value the insightful comments and valuable improvements and have incorporated the majority of the reviewer's suggestions into our paper. Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript (in red). Please see below, in blue, for a point-by-point response to each of the comments and concerns. All page numbers and line numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Thank you again for your consideration of our revised manuscript.

Kind regards,
The authors

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors conducted a Delphi study to compare factors/policies aimed at increasing BEV adoption.

1.    What do you mean by ‘search terms included’? Did you use a query using all search terms at the same time connected with an AND or an OR or a combination of a few? If you have not conducted a systematic review, then this is absolutely fine but please state so in the paper.
2.    Could use please list these factors in a table with their reference and how their (level of) influence?
3.    Table 1, why do you have someone participating in the first survey that you have not invited? See row 'other'. Since it is only one participant, you could maybe mention their profession or maybe exclude this participant if their profession doesn’t fit.
4.    Since the number of respondents in the second round was rather low, is there any way to increase this?
5.    Please state early in the paper, how much time passed between the first round and the second round.
6.    Why do you sometimes use the term Participant and sometimes the phrase respondents (experts). I am asking because I find it strange to use the term expert for one but not the other. As all of them are experts, I don’t think that you need to mention this every time.
7.     I think it would be good to compare the results stated by experts with the results stated by non-experts. (maybe a follow-up study?)

Author Response

Manuscript futuretransp-2688367
Response to Reviewer 3

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the newly titled manuscript “Effect of policies to accelerate the adoption of battery electric vehicles in Finland – A Delphi study” for publication in the MDPI Journal Future Transportation. We express gratitude for the time and effort invested by both you and the reviewers in offering feedback on our manuscript. We value the insightful comments and valuable improvements and have incorporated the majority of the reviewer's suggestions into our paper. Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript (in red). Please see below, in blue, for a point-by-point response to each of the comments and concerns. All page numbers and line numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Thank you again for your consideration of our revised manuscript.

Kind regards,
The authors

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf