IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i3p607-d133616.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can Next-Generation Vehicles Sustainably Survive in the Automobile Market? Evidence from Ex-Ante Market Simulation and Segmentation

Author

Listed:
  • Jungwoo Shin

    (Department of Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, Kyung Hee University, 1732 Deogyeong-daero, Giheung-gu, Yongin, Gyeonggi 17104, Korea)

  • Taehoon Lim

    (Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, 301 East Dean Keeton Street, C1700, Austin, TX 78712, USA)

  • Moo Yeon Kim

    (Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, 301 East Dean Keeton Street, C1700, Austin, TX 78712, USA)

  • Jae Young Choi

    (Graduate School of Technology & Innovation Management, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul 04763, Korea)

Abstract

Introduced autonomous and connected vehicles equipped with emerging technologies are expected to change the automotive market. In this study, using stated preference (SP) data collected from choice experiments conducted in Korea with a mixed multiple discrete-continuous extreme value model (MDCEV), we analyzed how the advent of next-generation of vehicles with advanced vehicle technologies would affect consumer vehicle choices and usage patterns. Additionally, ex-ante market simulations and market segmentation analyses were conducted to provide specific management strategies for next-generation vehicles. The results showed that consumer preference structures of conventional and alternative fuel types primarily differed depending on whether they were drivers or non-drivers. Additionally, although the introduction of electric vehicles to the automobile market is expected to negatively affect the choice probability and mileage of other vehicles, it could have a positive influence on the probability of purchasing an existing conventional vehicle if advanced vehicle technologies are available.

Suggested Citation

  • Jungwoo Shin & Taehoon Lim & Moo Yeon Kim & Jae Young Choi, 2018. "Can Next-Generation Vehicles Sustainably Survive in the Automobile Market? Evidence from Ex-Ante Market Simulation and Segmentation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-16, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:3:p:607-:d:133616
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/3/607/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/3/607/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joel Huber and Kenneth Train., 2000. "On the Similarity of Classical and Bayesian Estimates of Individual Mean Partworths," Economics Working Papers E00-289, University of California at Berkeley.
    2. Matthew J. Beck & Caspar G. Chorus & John M. Rose & David A. Hensher, 2013. "Vehicle Purchasing Behaviour of Individuals and Groups: Regret or Reward?," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 47(3), pages 475-492, September.
    3. Hackbarth, André & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Willingness-to-pay for alternative fuel vehicle characteristics: A stated choice study for Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 89-111.
    4. Chorus, Caspar G. & Koetse, Mark J. & Hoen, Anco, 2013. "Consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles: Comparing a utility maximization and a regret minimization model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 901-908.
    5. Hensher, David A., 2008. "Empirical approaches to combining revealed and stated preference data: Some recent developments with reference to urban mode choice," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 23-29, January.
    6. Kenneth E. Train & Clifford Winston, 2007. "Vehicle Choice Behavior And The Declining Market Share Of U.S. Automakers," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 48(4), pages 1469-1496, November.
    7. Brownstone, David & Bunch, David S. & Train, Kenneth, 2000. "Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 315-338, June.
    8. Choo, Sangho & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2004. "What type of vehicle do people drive? The role of attitude and lifestyle in influencing vehicle type choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 201-222, March.
    9. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    10. Cinzia Cirillo & Renting Xu & Fabian Bastin, 2016. "A Dynamic Formulation for Car Ownership Modeling," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(1), pages 322-335, February.
    11. Hoen, Anco & Koetse, Mark J., 2014. "A choice experiment on alternative fuel vehicle preferences of private car owners in the Netherlands," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 199-215.
    12. Paolo Iodice & Adolfo Senatore, 2016. "Atmospheric pollution from point and diffuse sources in a National Interest Priority Site located in Italy," Energy & Environment, , vol. 27(5), pages 586-596, August.
    13. Ahn, Jiwoon & Jeong, Gicheol & Kim, Yeonbae, 2008. "A forecast of household ownership and use of alternative fuel vehicles: A multiple discrete-continuous choice approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 2091-2104, September.
    14. Bunch, David S. & Bradley, Mark & Golob, Thomas F. & Kitamura, Ryuichi & Occhiuzzo, Gareth P., 1993. "Demand for clean-fuel vehicles in California: A discrete-choice stated preference pilot project," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 237-253, May.
    15. Bhat, Chandra R., 2008. "The multiple discrete-continuous extreme value (MDCEV) model: Role of utility function parameters, identification considerations, and model extensions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 274-303, March.
    16. Bhat, Chandra R., 2005. "A multiple discrete-continuous extreme value model: formulation and application to discretionary time-use decisions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 679-707, September.
    17. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    18. Hackbarth, André & Madlener, Reinhard, 2011. "Consumer Preferences for Alternative Fuel Vehicles: A Discrete Choice Analysis," FCN Working Papers 20/2011, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN).
    19. Ziegler, Andreas, 2012. "Individual characteristics and stated preferences for alternative energy sources and propulsion technologies in vehicles: A discrete choice analysis for Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1372-1385.
    20. Allenby, Greg M. & Rossi, Peter E., 1998. "Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 57-78, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tapia, Rodrigo J. & de Jong, Gerard & Larranaga, Ana M. & Bettella Cybis, Helena B., 2020. "Application of MDCEV to infrastructure planning in regional freight transport," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 255-271.
    2. Ziyue Wang & Juan Zhang & Huiju Zhao, 2020. "The Selection of Green Technology Innovations under Dual-Credit Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-22, August.
    3. Elena Magaril & Romen Magaril & Hussain H. Al-Kayiem & Elena Skvortsova & Ilya Anisimov & Elena Cristina Rada, 2019. "Investigation on the Possibility of Increasing the Environmental Safety and Fuel Efficiency of Vehicles by Means of Gasoline Nano-Additive," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-10, April.
    4. Isabel C. Gil-García & Mª Socorro García-Cascales & Habib Dagher & Angel Molina-García, 2021. "Electric Vehicle and Renewable Energy Sources: Motor Fusion in the Energy Transition from a Multi-Indicator Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-19, March.
    5. Dongnyok Shim & Jungwoo Shin & So‐Yoon Kwak, 2018. "Modelling the consumer decision‐making process to identify key drivers and bottlenecks in the adoption of environmentally friendly products," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(8), pages 1409-1421, December.
    6. Kim, Ju-Hee & Kim, Hyo-Jin & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2019. "Willingness to pay for fuel-cell electric vehicles in South Korea," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 497-502.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kyuho Maeng & Sungmin Ko & Jungwoo Shin & Youngsang Cho, 2020. "How Much Electricity Sharing Will Electric Vehicle Owners Allow from Their Battery? Incorporating Vehicle-to-Grid Technology and Electricity Generation Mix," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-25, August.
    2. Hackbarth, André & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Willingness-to-pay for alternative fuel vehicle characteristics: A stated choice study for Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 89-111.
    3. Gabriela D. Oliveira & Luis C. Dias, 2019. "Influence of Demographics on Consumer Preferences for Alternative Fuel Vehicles: A Review of Choice Modelling Studies and a Study in Portugal," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-33, January.
    4. Shin, Jungwoo & Hwang, Won-Sik & Choi, Hyundo, 2019. "Can hydrogen fuel vehicles be a sustainable alternative on vehicle market?: Comparison of electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 239-248.
    5. Woo, JongRoul & Choi, Jae Young & Shin, Jungwoo & Lee, Jongsu, 2014. "The effect of new media on consumer media usage: An empirical study in South Korea," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 3-11.
    6. Danielis, Romeo & Scorrano, Mariangela & Giansoldati, Marco & Rotaris, Lucia, 2019. "A meta-analysis of the importance of the driving range in consumers’ preference studies for battery electric vehicles," Working Papers 19_2, SIET Società Italiana di Economia dei Trasporti e della Logistica.
    7. Oliveira, Gabriela D. & Roth, Richard & Dias, Luis C., 2019. "Diffusion of alternative fuel vehicles considering dynamic preferences," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 83-99.
    8. Park, Soyeong & Maeng, Kyuho & Shin, Jungwoo, 2023. "Efficient subsidy distribution for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles based on demand segmentation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 186(PA).
    9. Ahn, Jiwoon & Jeong, Gicheol & Kim, Yeonbae, 2008. "A forecast of household ownership and use of alternative fuel vehicles: A multiple discrete-continuous choice approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 2091-2104, September.
    10. Jung-Kyu Jung & Jae Young Choi, 2022. "Choice and allocation characteristics of faculty time in Korea: effects of tenure, research performance, and external shock," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2847-2869, May.
    11. Kim, Junghun & Seung, Hyunchan & Lee, Jongsu & Ahn, Joongha, 2020. "Asymmetric preference and loss aversion for electric vehicles: The reference-dependent choice model capturing different preference directions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    12. Byun, Hyunsuk & Shin, Jungwoo & Lee, Chul-Yong, 2018. "Using a discrete choice experiment to predict the penetration possibility of environmentally friendly vehicles," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 312-321.
    13. Koo, Yoonmo & Kim, Chang Seob & Hong, Junhee & Choi, Ie-Jung & Lee, Jongsu, 2012. "Consumer preferences for automobile energy-efficiency grades," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 446-451.
    14. Ko, Sungmin & Shin, Jungwoo, 2023. "Projection of fuel cell electric vehicle demand reflecting the feedback effects between market conditions and market share affected by spatial factors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    15. Huh, Sung-Yoon & Lee, Hyejin & Shin, Jungwoo & Lee, Donghyun & Jang, Jinyoung, 2018. "Inter-fuel substitution path analysis of the korea cement industry," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 4091-4099.
    16. Kim, Sung Hoo & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2023. "Finite mixture (or latent class) modeling in transportation: Trends, usage, potential, and future directions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 134-173.
    17. Fanchao Liao & Eric Molin & Bert van Wee, 2017. "Consumer preferences for electric vehicles: a literature review," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(3), pages 252-275, May.
    18. Kwon, Yeongmin & Son, Sanghoon & Jang, Kitae, 2018. "Evaluation of incentive policies for electric vehicles: An experimental study on Jeju Island," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 404-412.
    19. Helveston, John Paul & Liu, Yimin & Feit, Elea McDonnell & Fuchs, Erica & Klampfl, Erica & Michalek, Jeremy J., 2015. "Will subsidies drive electric vehicle adoption? Measuring consumer preferences in the U.S. and China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 96-112.
    20. Tanaka, Makoto & Ida, Takanori & Murakami, Kayo & Friedman, Lee, 2014. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for alternative fuel vehicles: A comparative discrete choice analysis between the US and Japan," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 194-209.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:3:p:607-:d:133616. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

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

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

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

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

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