Towards Environmental Sustainability: A Study of Motivations Driving the Adoption of Alternative Fuel Vehicles

Towards Environmental Sustainability:

A Study of Motivations Driving the Adoption of

Alternative Fuel Vehicles

A comparison between the motivations driving men and women

Towards Environmental Sustainability:

A Study of Motivations Driving the Adoption of

Alternative Fuel Vehicles

A comparison between the motivations driving men and women

Master Thesis

University of Groningen

Faculty Economics and Business

Department

Marketing Management & Marketing Research

August, 2011

Author:

Suzanne IJntema

Van Brakelplein 9b

9726 HB Groningen

0031-(0)6 29 04 08 38

Supervisors

Student number 1534246

Dr. S. Gensler(1

₎

Management Summary

Environmental sustainability is a hot topic these days. Because carbon dioxide emissions are a great source of contamination to the environment, the government and manufacturers are searching for new ways to reduce this. One of the areas where much research is conducted, is the automobile industry. Many eco-innovations are developed and currently carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced by the replacement of traditional fuels (gasoline and diesel) by environmental friendly ones. However, in order to have a real impact on environmental sustainability, these cars should be adopted by the major (consumer) markets.

The goal of this research is to explore which motivations drive the adoption of alternative fuel vehicles (AFV’s); these are vehicles driving on other fuel than gasoline or diesel, that are less polluting the environment. Many authors have investigated different motivations that can drive the adoption of AFV’s (Kahn, 2007; Coad, de Haan & Worsdorfer, 2009), but never were these motivations researched in an integrative manner. Of special interest in this research is the determination of the possible role that gender plays within the context of pro-environmental buying behavior.

Six motivations were identified in the literature that may have a positive influence on the intention of an individual to buy an alternative fuel vehicle. These were biospheric value (environmental concern that is purely caused by an individual’s biospheric value orientation), altruistic value (environmental concern that is purely caused by an individual’s social-altruistic value orientation), moral beliefs (the ethical conviction that an individual should feel the moral obligation to contribute to environmental sustainability), social norms (the importance that an individual attaches to the desire to be accepted by a certain social group), symbolic value (the importance that an individual attaches to the possibilities to express itself through the purchase of an eco-friendly product), and financial benefits (the perception that one receives financial benefits from the purchase of an alternative fuel vehicle). The survey, which was about the assessment of the motivations, was conducted among 378 respondents in the Netherlands varying in gender, age, income and household size. Finally, by running moderated multiple regression, the statements about the relationships between the motivations and the intention to buy an alternative fuel vehicle could be tested, as well as the moderating effect of gender on those relationships.

desired to be accepted by a social group that placed a high value on alternative fuel vehicles, and/or perceived financial benefits from the purchase of an alternative fuel vehicle, the higher was his intention to actually purchase an AFV in the future. The moderating role of gender, could be detected in the case of three motivations: Concerning moral beliefs and social norms, female respondents showed stronger positive effects of these motivations on the intention to buy an alternative fuel vehicle, than men. On the opposite symbolic value was proven to have a stronger positive effect on the buying intention of an alternative fuel vehicle in the case of men, instead of women.

Preface

The master thesis that lies in front of you is the final chapter of my studies in Groningen. The thesis reflect my personal interest in environmental sustainability and consumer behavior, and therefore I have really enjoyed writing it. Of course, there were some hard moments were I did not know how to progress or what to do, but that is part of the game. In general, I thought it was really interesting to read and learn about eco-innovations and the complex interrelations when one starts to think about diffusion to the major markets. Hopefully this thesis will also trigger your interest in this topic, because one thing may become clear: for environmental sustainability to success, everybody has to participate.

Finally I want to thank some people. First, I want to thank my partner. He supported me throughout the process by listening to me and accepting my new time management. Second, I want to thank my board of UniPartners Groningen to have accepted that I reduced my work for the organization in order to be able to finalize my thesis within a month. Last, I want to thank my supervisor, Sonja Gensler, for have helped me with my issues on the thesis. I appreciated especially the rapidity within which she provided answers. That made it possible to get in a nice work flow. Also, I want to thank my second supervisor, Jenny van Doorn, to have taken the effort to read and feedback my thesis.

Enjoy reading!

1. INTRODUCTION ... 8

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 12

2.1THE CONCEPT OF ECO-INNOVATIONS ... 12

2.1.1 Categorization of (eco-) innovations ... 13

2.1.2 A categorization of car innovations and their impact on the environment ... 14

2.2THE ADOPTION OF ECO-INNOVATIONS ... 15

2.2.1 The diffusion process of eco-innovations ... 16

2.2.2 The current state of the diffusion process ... 17

2.2.3 Intervention strategies ... 19 2.3MOTIVATIONS OF ADOPTION ... 23 2.3.1 Environmental concern ... 24 2.3.2 Biospheric value ... 26 2.3.3 Altruistic value ... 28 2.3.4 Moral beliefs ... 29 2.3.5 Social norms ... 30 2.3.6 Symbolic value ... 32 2.3.7 Financial benefits ... 33

2.3.7 Geopolitical and policy-related benefits ... 35

2.3.8 Factors influencing the relation between motivation and pro-environmental behavior ... 35

2.4CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ... 39

2.4.1 Dependent variable: intention to buy and AFV ... 39

2.4.2 Independent variables: motivations ... 40

2.4.3 Moderating role of gender ... 40

2.4.4 Hypotheses ... 45

3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ... 46

3.1ITEM CONSTRUCTION AND MODIFICATION ... 46

3.1.1 Intention to buy an alternative fuel vehicle ... 46

3.1.1 Biospheric value ... 46 3.1.2 Altruistic value ... 47 3.1.3 Moral beliefs ... 47 3.1.4 Social norms ... 48 3.1.5 Symbolic value ... 48 3.1.6 Financial benefits ... 49 3.1.7 Control variable ... 50 3.2DATA COLLECTION ... 50 3.2.1 Data transformation ... 50

3.2.2 Missing value analysis ... 51

3.2.3 Internal scale reliability ... 52

3.2.4 Normality of the scales ... 53

3.2.5 Data overview ... 54

3.3PLAN OF ANALYSIS ... 54

4. RESULTS ... 57

4.2LINEAR REGRESSION AND ACTUAL BUYING AN ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE ... 58

4.2.1 Linear regression ... 58

4.2.2 Testing model assumptions ... 64

5. DISCUSSION ... 66

5.1CONCLUSION ... 66

5.3LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ... 70

REFERENCES ... 72

APPENDICES ... 78

APPENDIX A:SURVEY ... 78

APPENDIX B:HISTOGRAMS WITH NORMALITY LINES... 81

APPENDIX C:SCATTERPLOTS DEMOGRAPHIC AND BEHAVIORAL VARIABLES WITH ACTUAL BUYING INTENTION ... 82

1. Introduction

The amplitude of the automobile industry is enormous today; an estimation on the amount of vehicles shows that there are currently more than 600 million cars worldwide (Well, 2009). An economic assessment in 2006 from the Austrian Institute of Economic Research predicts that the number of private cars on the world's roads will skyrocket from today's figure of over 600 million cars to between 1.4 and 2.7 billion cars by 2050 (Jones, 2006). The prognosis is that carbon dioxide emissions will duplicate from today’s carbon emissions of two gigatonnes a year or even quadruple from this number in 2050 (Jones, 2006).

The growing number of cars and corresponding growing emissions of carbon dioxide are a great threat to environmental sustainability (Jones, 2006; Shrivastava, 1995; Lehman & Geller, 2004; Kazimi, 1997). It contributes to environmental problems like global warming, urban air pollution and environmental noise (Steg & Vlek, 2009; Shrivastava, 1995; Kazimi, 1997). However, not only is the environment threatened, as a consequence of environmental pollution also the public health gets threatened (Kazimi, 1996). Because conventional automobiles are polluting the environment seriously, manufacturers have to find new ways to reduce the contamination of these cars to the environment (Jones, 2006, Rennings, 2000). Many technological innovations in the automobile industry have already taken place to reduce the tremendous pollution of the environment. For instance, alternative fuel vehicles have entered the market, just like electric vehicles, and more efficient ones.

Although innovations have taken place to reduce the growing pollution caused by emissions of carbon dioxide, environmental sustainability is not obtained with just these innovations being invented and developed. In his article about redefining innovation, Rennings (2000) summarizes different areas where changes are needed to obtain endurable development for environmental sustainability: “sustainability means long-term and far-reaching changes in technologies, infrastructure, lifestyles and institutions” (p. 319-320). These different areas do not act independently, they are interrelated (see e.g. Lynn, Reddy & Aram, 1996 for a review on the relation of technology adaption and institutional actions for the commercialization of innovations).

differentiated four classes of behavior. Now, these classes are assumed as a general classification of pro-environmental behavior.

The first class is environmental activists’ behaviors and consists of individuals that are actively involved in environmental organizations and demonstrations. Second, nonactivists’ behaviors in the public sphere represent nonactivists’ support of movement objectives. The cause for such behavior lies in the awareness of environmental problems (Stern, 2000). In the private sphere, pro-environmental behaviors are directed at the purchase, use and disposal of personal and household products that have environmental impact. The last category of behaviors is “other environmental significant behaviors”. These are for instance behaviors of individuals when they influence the actions of organizations in which they belong by taking into account the environmental consequences of their actions .

In this paper, behaviors lying in the private sphere will be investigated. These behaviors are the sole of the categories with a direct impact on the environment (Jansson, 2009). According to Stern (2000) behaviors in the private sphere can have a significant impact on the environment, especially when they encompass purchase behaviors (see also Thøgersen as cited in Jansson, Marell, & Nordlund, 2009). So, pro-environmental buying behaviors can have an important positive impact on the environment (Stern, 2000; Jansson, Marell, & Nordlund, 2009; Steg & Vlek, 2009; Lehman & Geller, 2004). However, behavioral change is crucial when the vast majority of society has to adopt the pro-environmental (buying) behaviors. This commercialization of pro-environmental buying behavior is very important because, for the alternative fuel vehicle to have a real impact on environmental sustainability, it has to be adopted by a great majority of society (Cantono & Silverberg, 2009).

Since the 1970s behavioral analysts have been active in finding ways to change current behavior into pro-environmental behavior (Lehman & Geller, 2004). Many studies have been conducted in the field of behavioral interventions (see e.g. Steg & Vlek, 2009; Lehman & Geller, 2004; McKenzie-Mohr, 2000), and since the 1990s behavioral attitudes have also been subject to many researches (Lehman & Geller, 2004).

In his norm activation model a value was defined as “a belief pertaining to desirable end states or modes of conduct that transcends specific situations, guides selection or evaluation of behavior, people and events, and is ordered by importance relative to other values to form a system of value priorities” (Schwartz, 1994, p.20). Later work by Stern, Dietz and Kalof (1993) added two other value orientations that led to pro-environmental behavior, namely biospheric orientations and egoistic orientations. The first was defined as “concern with nonhuman species or the biosphere”, the second as “egoism or self-interest” (Stern, Dietz & Kalof, 1993, p. 326). All three value orientations, when considered on their own, can act as a motivator for individuals to engage in pro-environmental behavior through enhanced concerns for the environment (Stern, Dietz and Kalof, 1993).

Although the work of Schwartz (1986) and Stern, Dietz and Kalof (1993) is amongst the most frequently cited researches in the field of environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior (see e.g. Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Spash, 2006), the cited value orientations in these researches are not the only motivators that might be relevant in influencing pro-environmental buying behavior. Other research suggest that for instance symbolic value, extracted from the purchase of an eco-product, may also act as a motivator for an individual to engage in pro-environmental buying behavior (Steg & Vlek, 2009; Coad, de Haan & Woersdorfer, 2009). Currently, there is no research that investigate and integrate the findings about the value orientations (that act as motivators) and other motivations in the context of pro-environmental buying behavior of alternative fuel vehicles. Yet, new research in this context is needed because several authors point to the fact that “environmental behaviors need to be investigated holistically within a specific context to best understand the motivations behind pro-environmental action” (Jansson, Marell & Nordlund, 2009, p. 249).

Research in the context of pro-environmental buying behavior of alternative fuel vehicles seems crucial in order to improve incentives aimed at changing buying behaviors and ameliorate the commercialization of these vehicles. Moreover, By knowing which motivations are positively driving individuals to the purchase of an alternative fuel vehicle, managers will be better able to create appropriate positioning strategies and advertising campaigns. Therefore, the aim of this research is to explore which motivations influence the intention to buy an alternative fuel vehicle.

(2002) found a significant effect in their research of gender on attitudes and pro-environmental behavior. This effect was a moderating one, showing that the positive relationship between pro-environmental attitudes and pro-pro-environmental behavior was increased when being a female. Another study, performed by Dietz, Stern and Guagnano (1998), showed a positive direct effect of gender on pro-environmental behavior. In their study, women were more likely to engage in such behaviors than men. The last example concerns a study of Schultz, Oskamp and Mainieri (1995) where no significant effect of gender on pro-environmental behavior was found.

The investigation of the role that gender plays within the context of pro-environmental buying behavior, is mostly theoretically interesting. This research will aid in the understanding of the relationships that may exist between gender and pro-environmental buying behavior, by empirically researching the nature of the relationship between gender, motivations, and the formation of consumer purchase intentions of AFV’s. Although the contribution is mostly theoretically interesting, there is also a smaller contribution to managerial insights: If a difference exist in motivations that drive men and women to engage in pro-environmental buying behavior, this information can help managers in targeting and positioning decisions of AFV’s. So, not only will the aim of this research be to further explore the motivations driving pro-environmental buying behaviors; special interest will be given on the role of gender.

This research will be conducted in the fields of behavioral research and academic research about eco-innovations. Aim of this research is to contribute to this academic literature by providing insights in the motivations that drive pro-environmental buying behaviors of alternative fuel vehicles. Next to this, this paper will contribute to academic research by providing additional evidence for the role of gender in the context of pro-environmental behavior. The main managerial implication will be that managers can use the results on motivations to help positioning their alternative fuel vehicles in the consumer market.

distinction will be made between men and women. Subsequently the results will be described. Last, the conclusion and discussion will follow and some remarks for further research will be given. 2. Theoretical Framework

This section will start with an overview of different definitions of eco-innovation. In this part, also the different kinds of eco-innovations will be described, just as their impact on the environment. Next, the process and current state of the diffusion of eco-innovations will be described and analyzed. In the third section, literature about motivations influencing the adoption of eco-innovations will be overviewed and analyzed. In this research, solely factors that do not include the vehicle itself (such as convenience) and its performance will be considered. This is because the aim of this paper is to give marketing insights into the motivations that come from other sources than characteristics of the car. The theoretical framework will end up with a conceptual framework and hypotheses that will serve together as a basis for empirical research.

To be included in the theoretical framework, academic papers had to satisfy some criteria: First, all papers have to originate from 1995 or later. The only exception here is when a paper can be considered as the foundation of a certain theory. This is the case when it is repeatedly cited, at least 250 times, by other scholars in (top) journals. Second, all articles have to be mentioned in the list compiled by the research school SOM. Every theory should be supported by at least one 3-point or 5-point journal. That way, the theoretic framework will be based on theory found in top journals, supported by articles in other scientific journals.

2.1 The concept of eco-innovations

research specifically focuses on innovations of automobiles aimed to make them less polluting to the environment. So, innovations directed at environmental sustainability.

Because the focus of this report is on innovations made with the primary goal of positively influencing environmental sustainability, the following definition of eco-innovation will be applied in this research:

“Eco-innovation is any form of innovation aiming at significant and demonstrable progress towards the goal of sustainable development, through reducing impacts on the environment or achieving a more efficient and responsible use of natural resources, including energy” (European Commission,

2007).”

In this research solely innovations of vehicles will be considered, so only technical innovations will be treated as eco-innovations here. Consequently, pro-environmental behavioral changes in using automobiles are not considered as eco-innovations in this research. This doesn’t mean that these kinds of changes aren’t eco-innovations by any means; they just aren’t considered as such for the purpose of this study.

The focus of this report is on new types of cars, developed to reduce environmental pollution in comparison to normal cars. To achieve a better understanding of the concept of eco-innovation it is useful to categorize the types of innovations.

2.1.1 Categorization of (eco-) innovations

Innovations have generally been referred as in changing the way something is done (Carillo-Hermosilla, del Rìo and Könnöla, 2010; Hemmelskamp, 1997). Mostly, innovations are classified in two broad categories: incremental changes and radical changes. Incremental changes are small, but continuous competence-enhancing modifications which basically leave existing processes and systems the same, but create added value in the existing system (Carillo-Hermosilla, del Rìo and Könnöla, 2010). Radical changes, in contrast, are competence-destroying, discontinuous changes in entire systems or components of that system and the creation of new networks, seeking to obtain added value (Carillo-Hermosilla, del Rìo and Könnöla, 2010).

consists of organizational innovations. These innovations include new forms of management, like for instance lean manufacturing.

The described categorizations of innovations are useful to typify normal innovations, but seem too limited to describe eco-innovations (Rennings, 2000). Eco-innovations imply a reduction in environmental burdens in at least one environmental issue, intentionally (Rennings, 2000). So, when speaking of eco-innovations, the aforementioned types of innovations and the areas where these innovations can originate are just means to accomplish the goal of reducing environmental burden and attaining environmental sustainability. Hence, it seems more appropriate to describe eco-innovations in terms of their goal-accomplishment: Reducing environmental burden to improve environmental sustainability (Rennings, 2000). The following section will describe categories of eco-innovations in the automobile industry through their intended impact on the environment when adopted.

2.1.2 A categorization of car innovations and their impact on the environment

For the purpose of this research, innovations of cars will be divided into three categories. Remind that the focus of this report is on technical aspects of the car and not on the process of producing cars or the usage of it. Therefore, only technical innovations will be considered here.

The first category of vehicles consists of cars manufactured of recyclable or environmentally beneficial materials. Although most cars already consist partly of these materials due to European legislation (Gerrard & Kandlikar, 2007), still a distinction can be made between vehicles manufactured almost solely of these materials and vehicles that solely contain the ‘green materials’ prescribed by the government. In this category, cars are considered only as an eco-innovation when they are for a great part manufactured with recyclable or environmentally beneficial materials. In this research these cars are referred to as ‘recyclables’. The impact on the environment lies mostly in the saving of natural sources (Gerrard & Kandlikar, 2007) and in effective fuel-saving through the use of lighter materials (Beise & Rennings, 2005).

vehicles (Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2009). This category of cars will be referred as “efficiencies”.

The last category of vehicles has the strongest impact on reducing environmental burden and improving environmental sustainability. This category consists of alternative fuel vehicles: Vehicles running on fuels other than traditional ones (diesel and gasoline), or containing a technology that is able to power an engine that does not involve solely petroleum. By using alternative fuels like for instance electricity, natural gas or ethanol, these cars help saving natural sources which are threatened by depletion. Moreover are alternative fuel vehicles drastically reducing the carbon dioxide emissions, and consequently weakening the greenhouse effect. Adoption of these kind of vehicles is, just like the ‘efficiencies’, not mandatory (yet). Nevertheless, adoption is motivated by providing (financial) benefits to the people who buy alternative fuel vehicles, and moreover, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) sets a goal of replacing thirty percent of conventional fuel use with alternative fuels by 2010 (Leiby & Rubin, 2001). In this research this category of cars are referred as

“alternative fuel vehicles, or AFV’s”.

This research only considers the last category of eco-innovations as being subject to investigation. This is because the AVF’s have the biggest positive impact on the environment (Hackney & de Neufville, 2001). Goal of the categorization of eco-innovations is to make clear what types of innovations are considered in this research and which not.

2.2 The adoption of eco-innovations

Ziolkowska and Ziolkowski (2008) reveal in their article about the current state of eco-innovations in the European Union, both the growing importance of eco-innovations in the competition process among organizations as well as the improving development possibilities for this concept in the future (see also Auger, Devinney, Louviere & Burke, 2008; Straughan & Roberts, 1999; Peres, Mahajan & Muller, 2010). Because of its positive contribution to environmental sustainability, eco-innovations are strongly supported by the European Commission by setting European goals and providing European funds (Ziolkowska & Ziolkowski, 2008; Jansson, Marell & Nordlund, 2009; Beise & Rennings, 2005). Nevertheless, eco-innovations must not only be developed, they also have to be used by their target group. In this case, AFV’s have to be adopted by car drivers to have an influence on the environment. The adoption of alternative fuel vehicles is therefore a critical element in the process of improving environmental sustainability (Steg & Vlek, 2009; Kollmusss & Agyeman, 2002; Jansson, Marrel & Nordlund, 2009).

causes of their decisions? What problems do arise? In the last part an overview of the current efforts made to make people adopt eco-innovations will be given as well as the outcomes of these efforts. Goal of this section is to understand the diffusion process of eco-innovations and what bottlenecks exist.

2.2.1 The diffusion process of eco-innovations

Major innovations do not come overnight. It is realistic to take into account about half a decade for major changes to be realized in important economic and social sub-systems (Rennings, 2000), like for example major regime shifts in a certain kind of behavior, energy supply and/or infrastructure. “New types of vehicles, renewable energy systems or corresponding infrastructures often need at least a decade or more for invention, for adaption and for diffusion, respectively” (Rennings, 2000, p. 320). Diffusion is defined as the spread of an innovation in the market (Peres, Mahajan & Muller, 2010). The diffusion of eco-innovations is among other things very time-consuming because of the complex critical interrelationships with other disciplines, like social changes (Peres, Mahajan & Muller, 2010; Cantono & Silverberg, 2009; Kollmusss & Agyeman, 2002; Cantono & Silverberg, 2009).

people to adopt alternative fuel vehicles, better suited decisions can be made in the allocation of subsidies.

The demand-pull interventions make clear that social aspects are critical for the diffusion of innovations (see also Peres, Mahajan & Muller, 2010). Without people adopting eco-innovations and using them in proper ways, diffusion is unsuccessful (see e.g. Steg & Vlek, 2008; Carillo-Hermosilla, del Rìo & Könnöla, 2010; Kollmusss & Agyeman, 2002; Jansson, Marrel & Nordlund, 2009). This statement is supported by Cantono and Silverberg (2009) who found that the diffusion of new technologies often depends upon the interrelations between social and technical aspects. The next section will elaborate on the social aspects influencing the diffusion of AFV’s and the corresponding current state of adoption.

2.2.2 The current state of the diffusion process

The current state of green marketing is not what authorities, manufacturers, dealers and environmental activists hoped for (Ginsberg & Bloom, 2004; Lehman & Geller, 2004; Cornelissen, Pandelaere, Warlop & Dewitte, 2008). As described in the previous section, major innovations like new technologies take more than a decade for invention, adaption, and diffusion (Rennings, 2000). In the process of diffusion, eco-innovations have to pass a threshold that allows for widespread adoption and competitive market pricing (Cantono & Silverberg, 2009; Beise & Rennings, 2005). This widespread adoption is needed to attain the goal of sustainable development and environmental sustainability (Cantono & Silverberg, 2009). At the moment, eco-friendly products are not adopted sufficiently (Ginsberg & Bloom, 2004; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002), and new ways have to be explored to make these products (as for instance AFV’s) more successful at the marketplace (Pujari, 2006). Figure 1 shows a grapgh of the dynamic process of the adoption of cleaner technologies, as developed by Coad, de Haan and Woersdorfer (2009). The figure shows that there is an S-curve from the second stage to the third. This S-curve is the threshold that has to be overcome to attain widespread adoption of an innovation.

Because the adoption of eco-innovations (in this research alternative fuel vehicles) requires people to change their attitudes, thoughts and/or behavior towards the eco-innovation (Ginsberg & Bloom, 2004; Lehman & Geller, 2004), insights into the reasons why people are not adopting the eco-innovation currently, are very valuable to gain more understanding about adoption and rejection of it. When these are known, efforts can be made to eliminate or reduce the barriers to adopt. A more attractive platform will then be given to consumers to adopt those innovations.

In their article about choosing the appropriate green marketing strategy, Ginsberg and Bloom (2004) argue that consumers in fact prefer eco-friendlier products over ones that are less friendly and therefore are more harmful to the environment (see also Cornelissen et al., 2008). However, consumers are only willing to adopt green products when “all other things” are equal (Ginsberg & Bloom, 2004; Bleda & Valente, 2009). At this moment, “all other things”, at least in the mind of consumers, are not equal: “…when consumers are forced to make trade-offs between product attributes or helping the environment, the environment almost never wins” (Ginsberg & Bloom, 2004, p. 79). Exceptions are specific target markets (niche markets) where the greenness of products is of such an important added value, that the trade-offs are made in favor of the eco-friendlier products (Cantono & Silverberg, 2009). Nevertheless, as already mentioned, adoption in the niche markets is not sufficient to attain environmental sustainability (Cantono & Silverberg 2009).

One of the main “things” that is not equal in the mind of consumers is the price of eco-products (see e.g. Ginsberg & Bloom, 2004; Straughan & Roberts, 1999; Cornelissen et al., 2008). Often, green products are more expensive than normal products, due to their high upfront costs (Cantono & Silverberg, 2009; Pujari, 2006). Because of this, high learning cost curve reductions are tremendously important for expensive eco-innovations or new technologies in order to be adopted by the great majority (Cantono & Silverberg, 2009). If a new technology or eco-innovation has the possibility to first be developed and learned of in niche markets, one could exploit cost reductions in these markets when the innovation is introduced into the mainstream markets (Cantono & Silverberg, 2009; Carillo-Hermosilla, del Rìo & Könnöla, 2010). Without prices decreasing to normal margins, adoption seems unlikely according to Cantono and Silverberg (2009)(see also Ginsberg & Bloom, 2004; Carillo-Hermosilla, del Rìo & Könnöla, 2010; Beise & Rennings, 2005).

the longer run (Lehman & Geller, 2004). However, some other eco-innovations are not seen as trustworthy. It do not becomes clear in the article of Ginsberg and Bloom (2004) if this is the case for alternative fuel vehicles. Another important factor that thwarts the adoption of for example electric cars, is convenience (Cornelissen et al., 2008; Ginsberg & Bloom, 2004). For instance, the Ford Think, a two-seated electric car needed six hours of recharging for every 50 mile (+- 80 KM) driven (Ginsberg & Bloom, 2004). Although the product was quite friendly for the environment, its introduction failed tremendously: Consumers were not willing to trade-off their convenience and comfort in their normal cars just to “do well” for the environment.

It is more or less accepted that the main factor responsible for the slow adoption of eco-innovations is the perception of people that they have to give up too much in favor of eco-friendlier product (see e.g. Cornelissen et al., 2008; Ginsberg and Bloom, 2004; Pujari, 2006; Cantono & Silverberg, 2009). In order to get consideration from the vast majority and consequently an opportunity of getting widespread adoption “… green products must match up on the attributes of convenience, availability, price, quality and performance against nongreen products...” (Ginsberg & Bloom, 2004, p. 80).

A lot of effort is made to resolve the aforementioned obstacles of adoption. Because electric cars are currently not convenient enough for widespread adoption, car manufacturers are now pinning their hopes on gas- and electric-powered hybrids (Ginsberg & Bloom, 2004). These are much more convenient in use and the learning cost curve reductions are higher for these kinds of vehicles, allowing for faster price reductions in this sector (Cantono & Silverberg, 2009). However, there is still no global adoption of these eco-innovations. So, what is in addition to the above-mentioned changed focus of car manufacturers needed for consumers to adopt? The following section will give a closer look at current intervention strategies followed, aiming at influencing the adoption of eco-innovations and changing the behavior of people into pro-environmental behavior.

2.2.3 Intervention strategies

Geller, 2004). Consequence interventions, on the other hand, focus on revealing the positive or negative consequences of certain behaviors (Steg & Vlek, 2009; Lehman & Geller, 2004). These strategies encompass for instance providing financial rebates to customers who adopt alternative fuel vehicles.

Although the intervention strategies in the article of Lehman and Geller (2004) are focusing on pro-environmental behavioral changes in a broad sense, it is applicable to this research too: Alternative fuel vehicles are a major eco-innovation that requires a behavioral change of people, namely the adoption of an AFV, opposed to the adoption of normal cars. General intervention strategies for pro-environmental behaviors can therefore be used a basis to assess its applicability to eco-innovations in the automobile industry.

break the commitment in favor of a non-environmental behavior because of the higher perceived personal risk. More research should be executed on the relation between this intervention strategy and high involvement decisions to make statements about the influence of commitment on the adoption of alternative fuel vehicles. The last category is environmental design. With environmental design, opportunities for pro-environmental behavior become more salient and convenient. Ginsberg and Bloom (2004) reveal in their paper the importance of environmental design by arguing that people don’t want to trade-off quality, convenience, availability, price and performance in favor of a green product. Design is therefore also of crucial importance for the adoption of alternative fuel vehicles.

Next to antecedent strategies, Lehman and Geller (2004) categorize consequence strategies into two groups. The first are rewards. Especially during the 1970s rewarding pro-environmental behavior was very popular (Lehman & Geller, 2004). However, the last two decades the use of reward interventions is drastically reduced because of the persistent character of the intervention: When removing the reward, people are very likely to return back to their non-environmental behavior (Dwyer et al., 1993; Geller, Winett, & Everett, 1982). The evolution of the use of rewards highlights the importance of intrinsic motivation to engage people in long-term pro-environmental behavior; when people are solely extrinsically motivated, they tend to return to their old non-environmental behavior when the incentive is removed. The second category is feedback. By providing people feedback about the consequences of their behavior the pro-environmental behavior becomes more salient and the likelihood increases that people will engage in the behavior corresponding with the consequences (Geller, Winett, & Everett, 1982; Lehman & Geller, 2004). People can feel proud about themselves because they are doing something good for the environment or because they do something good for themselves like saving costs (Ginsberg & Bloom, 2004). Feedback can be seen as a certain type of reward for people having made the good choice. However, this way the reward is more intrinsically based. This kind of rewarding is much more effective than extrinsic motivated rewards according to Lehman and Geller (2004).

stay the same. Unfortunately, purchase behavior, opposed to curtailment behaviors, have often been overlooked by many researchers (Jansson, Marell & Nordlund, 2009). According to Thøgersen (as cited in Jansson, Marell, & Nordlund, 2009) this is remarkable ˝because some green purchases have a possibility of reducing – In some instances even totally eliminate – the risk of environmental harm in the post-purchase stages of the consumption cycle (p.440).˝

The second proposed intervention strategy is implementing intervention evaluations of appropriate length and design, so that long-term effects can be evaluated and monitored. The last solution is designing interventions that maintain indefinitely. However, intervention costs could be a problem here (Lehman & Geller, 2004).

Because the purchase of an alternative fuel vehicle is a onetime investment, the first finding of Lehman and Geller (2004) is of most importance in this research: focus on getting people buying pro-environmental products, like AVF’s. The buying motivation of the eco-friendly product has to emerge when an individual makes the decision of which type of car it will choose. After the purchase, it is less crucial that this individual remains environmentally motivated because he already adopted the innovation. Steg and Vlek (2009) conclude in their research that in order to adopt eco-innovations, both informational and structural strategies are needed. Informational strategies are strategies aiming at changing perceptions, motivations, knowledge and norms without changing the external context wherein choices are made. Structural strategies, on the other hand, are strategies aiming at changing the contextual situation wherein choices are made. The structural strategies correspond to the efforts made to eliminate the current barriers perceived by consumers as described by Ginsberg and Bloom (2004). Informational strategies correspond to the wide array of interventions aiming at motivating people and changing people’s behavior (as described in the review of Lehman & Geller, 2004). The outcome of this research will be valuable to develop informational strategies because it will provide more insight into the motivations leading to pro-environmental behavior.

researches about motivations possibly having a positive impact on the execution of pro-environmental behavior and their findings.

2.3 Motivations of adoption

To be motivated means ˝…to be moved to do something˝ (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 54). Research has shown that motivations to engage in pro-environmental behavior can roughly be categorized as extrinsic or intrinsic (Coad, de Haan, & Woersdorfer, 2009). Extrinsic motivations are primarily activated by extrinsic incentives like for instance subsidies and taxes, regulations, and social feedback. On the other hand, consumers who are intrinsically motivated are mostly triggered by intrinsic incentives like being environmentally concerned (Coad, de Haan, & Woersdorfer, 2009).

In this research, the framework of bounded rationality is followed, which explains the decision making process of purchases (see Mueller & de Haan, 2009). The framework of bounded rationality is a model that recognizes that decisions must be made with constraints on information availability and on the ability of a person to consider every possibility. In general, individuals do the best they can with the information and decision-making ability that is available (Malhorta, 2004; Mueller & de Haan, 2009). Some mainstream economic models treat individual consumers to be completely rational in their decision making; it is however generally accepted that the framework of bounded rationality in decision making applies to many more circumstances: In particular to car purchases (Coad, de Haan, & Woersdorfer, 2009). In the process of purchasing a car, a two-staged decision process can be distinguished (Mueller & de Haan, 2009): “In the first stage, bounded rational elements (brand loyalty, etc.) help to select a small number of car models to be evaluated in depth; in the second stage, car buyers apply unboundedly rational multi-attribute decision making rules (Mueller & de Haan, 2009,) to make their final choice” (Coad, de Haan, & Woersdorfer, 2009, p. 2079). The two-staged decision process is generally accepted in complex, consumer choice decision tasks where the complexity is determined by the number of alternatives available (Mueller & de Haan, 2009). In the automobile industry a myriad of alternatives are available,

which is the reason that the model of the two-staged decision process is followed. Figure 2 shows this decision process graphically.

Motivation can be an important driver in the first stage of the two-staged decision making process, when alternatives are screened to develop the relevant choice set. In this stage, consumers are using simple, non-compensatory rules to develop the choice set. Actual situational, personal and contextual factors play a minor role in this stage (Mueller & de Haan, 2009). Because motivation moves someone to act in a certain way, it helps determine which alternatives are put in the relevant choice set. In the second stage, wherein the alternatives are evaluated using multi-attribute decision making rules, motivations will still be in place, but they will become less influential in the decision making process. This is because other factors, like situational and technical factors, come majorly into play in determining the final purchase of a vehicle (Mueller & de Haan, 2009; Jansson, Marell & Nordlund, 2009; Steg & Vlek, 2009).

To get an overview and deeper understanding of the possible motivations that influence an individual’s buying decision, different academic papers were reviewed. Considerable researches exist about motivations and values and their relationship with pro-environmental behavior, and most scholars come with rather similar conclusions. Therefore, a clear overview can be given concerning different theories about the motivations that influence pro-environmental behavior. The reviewed papers focus on motivations, attitudes and values that have a positive impact on pro-environmental buying, supporting, and curtailment behaviors. These findings will be used to develop hypotheses concerning the relationship between motivations and pro-environmental buying behavior of alternative fuel vehicles. Table 1 (p. 37-38) gives an overview of the reviewed theories.

2.3.1 Environmental concern

One of the most frequently cited motivations that influence pro-environmental (buying) behavior is having concerns for environmental sustainability (see e.g. Kahn, 2007; Karp, 1996; Kollmusss & Agyeman, 2002; Axelrod & Lehman, 1993). In most researchers, this concern for the sustainability of the environment is simply referred to as “environmental concern”. This term will also be adopted in this research with the following definition: an individual’s concern for environmental quality (Dunlap, van Liere, Mertig & Jones (2000).

the environment increases. The relationship between environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior is argued to be caused by the adverse consequences that people experience in a certain value orientation that is important to them. When an object in an individual’s value orientation is at stake, which is caused by the environmental condition, the individual will get involved in environmental issues to alter the experienced or expected adverse consequences (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Stern, Dietz & Kalof, 1993).

The value orientations in the VBN theory that act as the building blocks of environmental concern are biospheric value orientations, social-altruistic value orientations, and egoistic value orientations. The first value orientation includes concerns with nonhuman species or the biosphere, social-altruistic value orientations include concerns for the welfare of other human beings, and egoistic value orientations can be defined as egoism of self-interest (Stern, Dietz & Kalof, 1993). So, when an individual’s environmental concern is for instance solely caused by biospheric value orientations, it will become motivated to act in a pro-environmental way when species are threatened or when the natural habitat is at stake. The value orientations can act individually as a building block of environmental concern, but they can also interrelate and determine together environmental concern and the according motivation to act on environmental issues (Stern Dietz, Kalof, 1993; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002).

In this research, the building blocks proposed by Stern Dietz and Kalof (1993) are investigated independently as motivator of pro-environmental behavior. So in fact, the main effects of these value orientations on pro-environmental behavior are assessed. That way, the contribution of each individual value orientation on environmental conscious behavior is revealed. This treatment of the value orientations is in line with other researches that take one value orientation as a cause for environmental concern and investigate accordingly the relation between this environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior (see e.g. Karp, 1996; Steg & Vlek, 2009). Karp, for instance, argues altruistic value orientations to be the cause of environmental concern, which motivates a person to engage in pro-environmental behavior (1996).

outcome is beneficial to the self, but those do not fit in the definition of the egoistic value orientation. For instance, Ozaki and Sevastyanova (2011) mention receiving financial benefits from the purchase of an AFV as being a possible motivation for the purchase of it. Although this motivation directly benefits the individual, it cannot be interpreted as an egoistic value orientation. First, because it is not an orientation, but a benefit. Second, because it doesn’t fit in the definition of egoism where someone is acting pro-environmentally to alter the negative consequences that may harm himself (Stern, Dietz and Kalof, 1993).

The mentioned motivations by other scholars that benefit the self, but are not interpretable as egoistic value orientations, will be included in the research because they showed to have a significant effect on predicting pro-environmental intentions and behavior. The egoistic value orientation as a motivation will nevertheless be excluded from this research. This motivation is currently not tested outside the VBN theory, and other researches provide more explicit motivations that influence individual’s intention to act in a pro-environmental way.

Last, there are different views about the role that environmental concern play in relation to pro-environmental behavior: Some authors argue that environmental concern is mainly a moderator influencing other constructs, like right-based ethical beliefs (see e.g. Spash, 2006), and others argue that it is a standalone construct influencing pro-environmental behavior (see e.g. Kollmusss & Agyeman, 2002). This issue will be dealt with in the individual sections of environmental concern caused by biospheric orientations and environmental concern caused by altruistic orientations.

2.3.2 Biospheric value

Environmental concern that is purely caused by an individual’s biospheric value orientation, is termed “biospheric value” in this research. Herein, the terminology of Steg and Vlek (2009) is followed who define biospheric value as the strength that individuals subscribe to values beyond their immediate interest that concerns other species and nature. So, the concern for environmental quality comes from the feeling that other species or environmental sustainability is at stake.

notion that “…techniques of contingent valuation direct individuals to focus on a monetary calculus for evaluating goods and services”(Stern, Dietz & Kalof, 1993, p. 337). As a consequence, general motivations that encompass broad value beliefs become less significant than motivations that are directly related to financial topics. So, the significance of the motivation depends for some extent on the measurement method. Therefore, the authors conclude that biospheric values are to be used to predict nonfinancial measures of behavioral intent (Stern, Dietz & Kalof, 1993).

In the research of Ozaki and Sevastyanova (2011) a significant positive effect is found between biospheric values and pro-environmental buying behavior. In their research, they label biospheric values as environmental values, but the envisioned goal and cause of the motivation is the same as with biospheric values. The goal of the pro-environmental behavior that is influenced by the motivation is to reduce environmental burden, and the cause of the motivation lies in the belief that the natural balance is at stake (Ozaki and Sevastyanova, 2011). Therefore, the researched motivation of environmental values can be interpreted as biospheric value. This term will be adopted. In the research by Ozaki and Sevastyanova (2011) respondents mentioned biospheric values as a motivation to buy a hybrid car, after they mentioned comfort, financial gain and practicality as motivations. Finally, biospheric value was found to have a small significant effect on the reason to buy a hybrid vehicle (Ozaki and Sevastyanova, 2011).

In both researches, the positive influence of biospheric values on environmentally conscious behavior could be explained by the increased environmental concern caused by the biospheric value (Stern, Dietz & Kalof, 1993). When people belief that their biospheric value orientation is or will be threatened, their environmental concern increases and they are more willing to engage in pro-environmental behavior. By engaging in such behaviors, they feel that they can contribute to the environment and act in accordance with their values (Ozaki and Sevastyanova, 2011).

other researches treat environmental concern as a possible combination of altruistic, biospheric and egoistic value orientations, which is not the case here.

Based on the aforementioned findings in the reviewed researches, I expect biospheric value to have a positive effect on the intention to buy an alternative fuel vehicle.

Hypothesis 1: Biospheric value is positively related to AFV purchase intentions.

2.3.3 Altruistic value

Environmental concern that is purely caused by an individual’s social-altruistic value orientation, is termed “altruistic value”. To define this value, the terminology of Steg and Vlek (2009) is followed who define altruistic values as the strength that individuals subscribe to values beyond their immediate interest that concerns other human beings. So, the concern for environmental quality comes from the belief that other human beings are threatened, caused by the current or future state of the environment.

Stern, Dietz and Kalof (1993) found the same significant effects for the relation of altruistic values on several pro-environmental behaviors, as they found for biospheric values. Just as with biospheric values, the strongest positive relation was found between altruistic values and political action. To a lesser extent, a positive relation was detected between altruistic values and the willingness to pay income taxes. No relation was found between altruistic values and the willingness to pay gasoline taxes. Also here, Stern, Dietz and Kalof (1993) explain the lack of significant relations in the willingness-to-pay constructs by the focus concept. Therefore, the authors conclude that altruistic values should, just like biospheric values, be used to predict nonfinancial measures of behavioral intent (Stern, Dietz & Kalof, 1993).

Another research by Karp (1996), found that altruistic values contribute positively to pro-environmental behavior. The pro-pro-environmental behaviors consisted of being a good citizen by buying eco-friendly products and the action of recycling, engaging in activist behavior by donating money to good causes, and being a healthy customer by consuming products that are not chemically treated and/or are biologically grown (Karp, 1996). Similar conclusions about altruistic values were drawn in other papers that reviewed motivations that influence pro-environmental. Both Steg and Vlek (2009), as well as Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) conclude in their papers that altruistic values have a positive effect on pro-environmental behavior.

individual with high altruistic values beliefs that other human beings are threatened, that individual will feel an increased concern for the environment. However, this will only occur when the threat comes from the current or future state of the environment (Stern, Dietz & Kalof, 1993). To alter the expected or experienced adverse consequences (other people that may be harmed), the individual will get involved in pro-environmental behavior (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Stern, Dietz & Kalof, 1993).

All the reviewed papers only find main positive effects of altruistic value on pro-environmental behavior (Steg & Vlek, 2009; Stern, Dietz & Kalof, 1993; Karp, 1996; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002), therefore this research will also focus on the main effect of altruistic value on pro-environmental behavior. The researched behaviors that were affected by altruistic values did not include buying behaviors of eco-friendly cars, nevertheless, I expect the same positive effect to happen between altruistic values and the buying intention of alternative fuel vehicles.

Hypothesis 2: Altruistic value is positively related to AFV purchase intentions.

2.3.4 Moral beliefs

In this research, the ethical conviction that an individual should feel the moral obligation to contribute to environmental sustainability is termed "moral beliefs". This naming is extracted from the terminologies that is used by different authors to identify the identical construct. Steg an Vlek (2009) write about moral concerns to indicate the moral obligations that an individual feels to act pro-environmentally. The cause of these moral concerns lies in the belief that everybody should participate at environmental sustainability (Steg & Vlek, 2009). In another research, Spash (2006) explains his introduced right-based ethical beliefs to be “…a personal moral obligation to undertake a pro-environmental act” (Spash, 2006, p. 609). The introduced expression of moral beliefs is a combination of the terms used by Steg and Vlek (2009), and Spash (2006), and highlights the source of the motivation. From now on, the term “moral beliefs” will be adopted in this research.

that, because of the focus concept, respondent will be more focused on monetary calculus when being confronted with contingent valuation issues. However, Spash (2006) investigates the willingness-to-pay construct by using nonfinancial measures as “willing to pay more” and “willing to pay less”. So, the statement of Stern Dietz and Kalof (1993) is not contradicted.

Other positive relations between moral belief and pro-environmental behaviors are found in the research of Steg and Vlek (2009), wherein different papers are reviewed concerning the encouragement of environmental behavior. In their paper, the authors identify several pro-environmental behaviors which are positively influenced by moral beliefs; these are willingness to change behavior, political behavior, environmental citizenship, and policy acceptability (Steg& Vlek, 2009). However, when the execution of environmental behavior is characterized by high behavioral costs or strong constraints on behavior, moral beliefs have less explanatory power. This is because other factors become more important to the individual than the motivation of moral belief (Steg & Vlek). Although the motivation had far less explanatory power in the latter situations, it still contributed significantly to the variation explained of pro-environmental behavior.

The positive influence of moral beliefs on environmentally conscious behavior is explained by the importance that people attach to their deeply held beliefs (Spash, 2006). When an individual is able to act in accordance with those beliefs, he feels good about himself and feels gratification (Spash, 2006). As a consequence, the individual is prepared to make a trade-off in favor of the pro-environmental behavior (Spash, 2006).

All reviewed papers in the research of Steg and Vlek (2009), and the research of Spash (2006), found main positive effects of moral belief on pro-environmental behavior. Although moral beliefs were not investigated in the context of alternative fuel vehicles, the findings in the paper of Steg and Vlek (2009) provide useful information for the development of the hypothesis. As already mentioned, they stated that moral beliefs had less explanatory power when the behavior had high constraints through costs or requested efforts (Steg & Vlek, 2009). The purchase of an AFV can be considered as such a behavior. Therefore, I expect moral beliefs to have a positive effect on the buying intention of alternative fuel vehicles, but I expect this positive effect to be a small one.

Hypothesis 3: Moral beliefs are positively related to AFV purchase intentions.

2.3.5 Social norms

Injunctive norms refer to the extent that a certain behavior is approved or disapproved by a social group, descriptive norms refer to the extent to which behavior is perceived as common in society (Steg & Vlek, 2009). In this research, social norms only encompass injunctive norms. There are two reasons for this: First, in the Netherlands the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles is not perceived as common behavior in society. Second, significant relations found in other papers consisted of injunctive norms and did not tested for descriptive norms (Axelrod & Lehman, 1993; Ozaki & Sevastyanova, 2011; Kahn, 2007).

In their research about which motivations drive individuals to purchase the Toyota Prius (an alternative fuel vehicle), Ozaki and Sevastyanova (2011) find social norms to have a positive influence. Social norms proved to be a strong predictor of pro-environmental behavior, indicating that people find it very important to be accepted by a targeted or current social group. In their particular research, the reference group was the social group wherein an individual already participated (Ozaki and Sevastyanova, 2011).

In the research of Axelrod and Lehman (1993), a positive relation was found between pro-environmental behavior and motivations that pertained social acceptance. The desire to be accepted by a certain social group, led individuals to the execution of different pro-environmental behaviors (Axelrod & Lehman, 1993). Although Axelrod and Lehman (1993) used another terminology, the concept is identical to the one of social norms. To test for pro-environmental behavior, Axelrod and Lehman (1993) asked for the frequency that an individual had executed all kinds of environmental behaviors like for instance recycling, donating money to pro-environmental organizations, attending environmental marches, buying environmentally safe products, campaigning for pro-environmental candidates, and promoting pro-environmental protection in conversation with friends and relatives.

The last reviewed empirical research that found a positive relationship between social norms and pro-environmental behavior, was the one of Kahn (2007). In his research he found that people voting on green parties in the US, are more likely to drive hybrid cars than people not voting on those parties. One of the reasons is that hybrid cars are accepted by their social group and are (implicitly) the norm for that social group (Kahn, 2007). The terminology of social status is used to explain an individual’s choice to buy eco-friendly cars instead of more polluting cars in order to be accepted by a social group (Kahn, 2007). The meaning however is similar to the defined meaning of social norms.

motivate the individual to engage in pro-environmental behaviors so that the desired outcomes will be produced (Axelrod & Lehman, 1993).

Two important notions are however made: First, the social group, to which a person identifies with and of which one desires acceptance, has to value the pro-environmental behavior high (Ozaki & Sevastyanova, 2011). Second, the effect of social norms on pro-environmental behavior depends on the salience of the behavior (Steg & Vlek, 2009).

In this research, the pro-environmental behavior is completely salient. Cars are present in everyday life, and everybody may become aware of the vehicle that an individual purchased. Because of this, I expect social norms to have a strong effect on the purchase intention of alternative fuel vehicles in the case that the social group value these vehicles high. This expectation is completely in line with the findings of Ozaki and Sevastyanova (2011.

Hypothesis 4: Social norms are positively related to AFV purchase intentions.

2.3.6 Symbolic value

The importance that an individual attaches to the possibilities to express itself through the purchase of an eco-friendly product is termed “symbolic value” in this research. By expressing itself through its eco-friendly products, an individual shows its environmental conscious behavior and related social status to that behavior (Lane & Potter, 2006).

Coad, de Haan and Woersdorfer (2009) mention in their research that symbolic values, elicited from green products, increase consumer’s intention to buy fuel efficient or hybrid cars. The symbolic value that is elicited from the eco-friendlierproduct can be of such a size, that it even overcomes the potential higher costs of eco-friendly products (Coad, de Haan & Woersdorfer, 2009). In such cases, the symbolic value is considered to be more important than the money saving characteristics of the car (Coad, de Haan & Woersdorfer, 2009). Hence, symbolic values can have a strong positive effect on the car buying decision on individual’s in favor of alternative fuel vehicles.

The previous findings are also supported in the review of Steg and Vlek (2009). In their review, they introduce Dittmar’s (1992) theory on the meaning of materials possessions. This theory proposes that “…the use of material goods fulfills three functions: instrumental, symbolic, and affective” (Steg & Vlek, 2009, p. 311). Steg and Vlek (2009) finally concludes that car use is most strongly related by symbolic and affective values.

The positive relation of symbolic values on the purchase of an alternative fuel vehicles, can be explained by an individual’s urge to express himself (Lane & Potter, 2006), and to show his social status (Coad, de Haan & Woersdorfer, 2009). By buying an alternative fuel vehicle, an individual can show that he is environmental conscious, trendy, and different from the other car drivers (Lane & Potter, 2006; Coad, de Haan & Woersdorfer, 2009).

In order for symbolic value to act as a motivator of pro-environmental buying behavior, the eco-friendly product has to be highly observable as well as easily recognizable as an environmental friendly product (Lane & Potter, 2006). Therefore, the use optical landmark, such as energy efficiency labels, may be very valuable to increase pro-environmental behavior (Coad, de Haan & Woersdorfer, 2009). A similar recommendation is given by Lane and Potter (2006), who advise to increase pro-environmental buying behavior by using striking elements on eco-friendly products, which makes it possible to tap into the symbolic value people elicit from these greener products.

Cars are very salient in society, so the eco-friendly product is highly observable. Because of this, I expect symbolic value to have a strong effect on the purchase intention of alternative fuel vehicles. This expectation is completely in line with the findings on empirical research of Lane and Potter (2006).

Hypothesis 5: Symbolic value is positively related to AFV purchase intentions.

2.3.7 Financial benefits

Concerning the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles, three reviewed researches found a positive significant effect of financial benefits on the purchase (intention) of hybrid cars. Both Lane and Potter (2006) as well as Ozaki and Sevastyanova (2011) found this positive relationships with inhabitants in the UK. Kahn (2007) on the other hand, performed his research with inhabitants in the United States that voted on green parties. All authors conclude that the perception of individuals on receiving financial incentives in the short run, and/or save money in the long run, leads them to the purchase of a hybrid car. An important notion is however made by Lane and Potter (2006), stating that the perceived financial benefit must be of a sufficient size to have a positive effect on the probability that someone will engage in pro-environmental buying behavior.

Coad, de Haan and Woersdorfer (2009) find in their research that financial incentives like subsidies, taxes, and financial rebates, motivate individuals to purchase an alternative fuel vehicle. The same mechanism as in the aforementioned researches comes into play here: the perception of receiving financial benefits from the purchase of an AFV, leads to a higher intention of buying that AFV. A similar conclusion is drawn by Steg and Vlek (2009) who conclude that rewards may positively influence pro-environmental behavior.

Last, Axelrod and Lehman (1993) find in their research that individuals may be in search of obtaining tangible rewards when executing pro-environmental behavior. These tangible rewards could be financial or material. The researched pro-environmental behaviors were of all kinds, but all 42 behaviors were less risky and time consuming in terms of monetary value and effort, than the purchase of a new car. Finally, the authors conclude that in order to promote these kinds of pro-environmental behaviors, offering financial incentives may be very fruitful (Axelrod and Lehman, 1993).

The positive relationship between financial benefits and pro-environmental behavior can be explained by economic utility theory. As explained by Axelrod and Lehman, according to this theory “…people are believed to be motivated to maximize their own economic or material gain from personal action” (1993, p. 152). Hence, when an individual believes that it can financially profit from the purchase of an alternative fuel vehicle, it will be more likely to buy one. Similar explanations were provided by the other authors (Lane & Potter, 2006; Ozaki & Sevastyanova, 2011; Kahn, 2007).

The hypothesis will be formulated in line with the researches of Lane and Potter (2006), Ozaki & Sevastyanova (2011), and Kahn (2007) who conducted their researches in the same field.