Survey study reveals positive views on electric vehicle quality but dissatisfaction with infrastructure among urban residents, suggesting enhanced policy support is essential for adoption.
The growth of Indonesia’s population has led to a significant increase in vehicle volume, contributing substantially to CO2 emissions and air pollution. Central Java Province ranks third nationally in vehicle numbers, with Semarang City recorded as having the highest air pollution level in Indonesia, reaching an air quality index (AQI) score of 107 in March 2024. One of the strategies to mitigate this pollution is the transition from conventional vehicles to electric vehicles (EVs). However, this transformation requires an understanding of public perception and readiness. This study aims to analyze public sentiment toward the transformation of electric vehicles in Semarang City using sentiment analysis based on the Indonesian RoBERTa model. Data was collected using an online questionnaire distributed to 1,025 respondents aged 17 years or above. Respondents answered questions covering three aspects: (Q1) perception of EV quality as a personal vehicle, (Q2) perception of the government’s role in policy and infrastructure, and (Q3) perception of the EV transformation process in Semarang City. The results indicate that positive sentiment dominates only in Q1 (49.95%), reflecting public confidence in EV quality for personal use. Besides, Q2 and Q3 are dominated by neutral sentiment (41.5% and 52%, respectively), with Q2 even showing a higher percentage of negative sentiment (33.8%) than positive sentiment (24.7%), indicating dissatisfaction with current government policy and infrastructure support. These findings suggest that although Semarang City has strong potential for EV transformation, government policies and supporting infrastructure, such as public EV charging stations (SPKLU), need substantial improvement to accelerate public adoption and strengthen positive sentiment toward electric vehicles.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arsyad et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: