IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ekd/008007/8575.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Individual preference for the alternative fuel vehicles and their attributes in Poland

Author

Listed:
  • Milan Scasny
  • Milan Scasny
  • Iva Zverinova
  • Mikolaj Czajkowski

Abstract

Low-carbon vehicles due to their relatively lower fuel intensity directly affect CO2 emissions and are thus technologic solutions that may mitigate climate change. Electric vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles can be a component of a smart grid and thus could help to accommodate more electricity from renewable energy in the grid. Overall effect on GHG and local air pollutants of course will depend on fuel mix used to generate electricity. Alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) are usually more expensive than conventional cars. Besides the purchase costs, other characteristics of vehicles are also important for a car driver. The purpose of this study is to contribute to the literature that have examined individual preferences for various characteristics of passenger vehicles, including passenger vehicles with very small market share or which recently do not appear at the market. With the onset of alternative fuel vehicles on the market, large amount of studies focusing on consumer preferences of AFVs have been already conducted worldwide. Consumers’ demand for vehicle described with several specific characteristics can be modelled using existing data on market penetration or consumption decisions, i.e. through analysis of revealed preferences. However, if the supply of certain durable goods is constraint or almost zero as is the case for new device or not yet existing technology, potential demand can be examined using stated preferences technique. In our case, the main aim of this survey is to review individual traveller’s preferences for passenger vehicle, specifically for a vehicle that is recently characterized by negligible market penetration. In other words, the stated preferences, as elicited via a stated preference surveys, for the demand for cars with alternative drive technologies are examined. There are several stated preference studies on consumers’ preferences for the uptake of alternative fuel vehicles. However, our study is the first of this kind that has ever been conducted in a post-transition CEE country, in Poland. We surveyed 2,600 individuals in order to elicit preferences for the passenger AFV technologies. We specifically examine individual preferences for three types of alternative technologies (hybrid vehicle - HV, plug-in electric vehicle - PHEV, and electric vehicle - EV) and a conventional car that vary in technology characteristics (driving range, refuelling/recharging time), policy incentives (free parking, public transportation, and availability of fast mode infrastructure) and costs (purchase price, operational and fuel cost), following partly a design by Hoen and Koetse (2012). Our sampling allows us to analyse the preferences for segment of new car buyers as well as buyers of second-hand cars that dominates passenger vehicle market in Poland. Individual preferences are elicited by using the labelled discrete choice experiments (Hensher, Rose, Greene, 2005; Carson and Louviere, 2011). The choice cards include always four technology-specific alternatives and we ask to choose the best option eight times. The choice sets are based on efficient design with the priors estimated from the pilot study (N=400). Our econometric model is based on a random utility framework. We assume that respondents chose a vehicle alternative if their willingness to pay for such vehicle is greater than the cost of this alternative. The corresponding indirect utility function is additive in vehicle’s characteristics and costs. We assume that the random component is an independent and identically distributed type I extreme value error term with a scale parameter equal to 1. It implies that the statistical model of the responses is a conditional logit that is linear in the parameters, and the probability is the contribution to the likelihood of the conditional logit model. In order to analyse preference heterogeneity, we allow controlling for the effect of socio-demographics or other respondent-specific indicators, and also estimate random parameter (mixed) logit.We reveal that the Polish consumers have the lowest preference for hybrid cars, followed then by PHEVs and EVs. In general, we found similar preferences among Polish respondents as found elsewhere in the literature. Driving range and recharging time are quite important attributes of a car which Polish consumers intend to buy. On average, Polish drivers are willing to pay about 3,000 zł for each 100 kms of driving range, and the drivers who intend to buy a second-hand car value the driving range less (about 2,000 zł) than respondents who intend to buy a new car (5,000 zł). As expected, the coefficient on recharging time is negative and significant; on average, Polish drivers are willing to pay slightly less than 1,000 zł for each hour saved for recharging. Again, the new car buyers are willing to pay more than the second-hand car buyers. Their willingness to pay (WTP) for availability of fast mode recharging infrastructure is almost one order of magnitude larger than their WTP for reducing the recharging time by one hour. Providing other benefits, such as free parking and public transport, increases the probability to choose the AFVs. References: Carson, R. T., Louviere, J. J. (2011). A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches. Environmental and Resource Economics, 49(4), 539–559. doi:10.1007/s10640-010-9450-x Hensher, D., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H. (2005). Applied Choice Analysis. Cambridge University Press. Hoen, A., Koetse, M.J. (2014). A choice experiment on alternative fuel vehicle preferences of private car owners in the Netherlands. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 61, pp. 199-215.

Suggested Citation

  • Milan Scasny & Milan Scasny & Iva Zverinova & Mikolaj Czajkowski, 2015. "Individual preference for the alternative fuel vehicles and their attributes in Poland," EcoMod2015 8575, EcoMod.
  • Handle: RePEc:ekd:008007:8575
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ecomod.net/system/files/EcoMod-AFV_fullpaper.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hidrue, Michael K. & Parsons, George R. & Kempton, Willett & Gardner, Meryl P., 2011. "Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and their attributes," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 686-705, September.
    2. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
    3. 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.
    4. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 1-30.
    5. Brownstone, David & Train, Kenneth, 1998. "Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 109-129, November.
    6. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    7. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Rose, John M. & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A. & Collins, Andrew T., 2008. "Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 395-406, May.
    10. Horne, Matt & Jaccard, Mark & Tiedemann, Ken, 2005. "Improving behavioral realism in hybrid energy-economy models using discrete choice studies of personal transportation decisions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 59-77, January.
    11. Martin Achtnicht, 2012. "German car buyers’ willingness to pay to reduce CO 2 emissions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(3), pages 679-697, August.
    12. 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.
    13. Couper, Mick P. & Kapteyn, Arie & Schonlau, Matthias & Winter, Joachim, 2007. "Noncoverage and nonresponse in an Internet survey," Munich Reprints in Economics 20093, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    14. Erdem, Cumhur & Sentürk, Ismail & Simsek, Türker, 2010. "Identifying the factors affecting the willingness to pay for fuel-efficient vehicles in Turkey: A case of hybrids," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 3038-3043, June.
    15. Dagsvik, John K. & Wennemo, Tom & Wetterwald, Dag G. & Aaberge, Rolf, 2002. "Potential demand for alternative fuel vehicles," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 361-384, May.
    16. Caulfield, Brian & Farrell, Séona & McMahon, Brian, 2010. "Examining individuals preferences for hybrid electric and alternatively fuelled vehicles," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 381-387, November.
    17. 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.
    18. Kurani, Kenneth & Turrentine, Thomas & Sperling, Daniel, 1996. "Testing Electric Vehicle Demand in `Hybrid Households' Using a Reflexive Survey," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt0sb956wq, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    19. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    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.
    21. 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).
    22. Nobuyuki Ito & Kenji Takeuchi & Shunsuke Managi, 2012. "Willingness to pay for the infrastructure investments for alternative fuel vehicles," Discussion Papers 1207, Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University.
    23. 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.
    24. Daziano, Ricardo A., 2013. "Conditional-logit Bayes estimators for consumer valuation of electric vehicle driving range," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 429-450.
    25. Daziano, Ricardo A. & Chiew, Esther, 2012. "Electric vehicles rising from the dead: Data needs for forecasting consumer response toward sustainable energy sources in personal transportation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 876-894.
    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. Kowalska-Pyzalska, Anna & Kott, Joanna & Kott, Marek, 2020. "Why Polish market of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) is the smallest in Europe? SWOT analysis of opportunities and threats," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    2. Tamara L. Sheldon & J. R. DeShazo & Richard T. Carson, 2019. "Demand for Green Refueling Infrastructure," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(1), pages 131-157, September.
    3. Loría, Luis Enrique & Watson, Verity & Kiso, Takahiko & Phimister, Euan, 2019. "Investigating users' preferences for Low Emission Buses: Experiences from Europe's largest hydrogen bus fleet," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. Anders Jensen & Elisabetta Cherchi & Juan Dios Ortúzar, 2014. "A long panel survey to elicit variation in preferences and attitudes in the choice of electric vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 41(5), pages 973-993, September.
    5. Dimitropoulos, Alexandros & Rietveld, Piet & van Ommeren, Jos N., 2013. "Consumer valuation of changes in driving range: A meta-analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 27-45.
    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. 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.
    8. Loría, Luis Enrique & Watson, Verity & Kiso, Takahiko & Phimister, Euan, 2019. "Investigating users' preferences for Low Emission Buses: Experiences from Europe's largest hydrogen bus fleet," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Alexandros Dimitropoulos & Piet Rietveld & Jos N. van Ommeren, 2011. "Consumer Valuation of Driving Range: A Meta-Analysis," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-133/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    10. Ricardo A. Daziano & Martin Achtnicht, 2014. "Forecasting Adoption of Ultra-Low-Emission Vehicles Using Bayes Estimates of a Multinomial Probit Model and the GHK Simulator," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(4), pages 671-683, November.
    11. J�r�me Massiani, 2013. "The use of Stated Preferences to forecast alternative fuel vehicles market diffusion: Comparisons with other methods and proposal for a Synthetic Utility Function," Working Papers 2013:12, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    12. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    13. 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.
    14. Jose J. Soto & Victor Cantillo & Julian Arellana, 2018. "Incentivizing alternative fuel vehicles: the influence of transport policies, attitudes and perceptions," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1721-1753, November.
    15. Petschnig, Martin & Heidenreich, Sven & Spieth, Patrick, 2014. "Innovative alternatives take action – Investigating determinants of alternative fuel vehicle adoption," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 68-83.
    16. Axsen, Jonn & Mountain, Dean C. & Jaccard, Mark, 2009. "Combining stated and revealed choice research to simulate the neighbor effect: The case of hybrid-electric vehicles," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 221-238, August.
    17. Daina, Nicolò & Sivakumar, Aruna & Polak, John W., 2017. "Modelling electric vehicles use: a survey on the methods," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 68(P1), pages 447-460.
    18. J�r�me Massiani, 2013. "SP surveys for electric and alternative fuel vehicles: are we doing the right thing?," Working Papers 2013_01, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    19. Bigerna, S. & Bollino, C.A. & Micheli, S. & Polinori, P., 2017. "Revealed and stated preferences for CO2 emissions reduction: The missing link," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 68(P2), pages 1213-1221.
    20. Bergantino, Angela Stefania & Capozza, Claudia & Intini, Mario, 2018. "Empirical investigation of retail gasoline prices," Working Papers 18_4, SIET Società Italiana di Economia dei Trasporti e della Logistica.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Poland; Energy and environmental policy; Microsimulation;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ekd:008007:8575. 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: Theresa Leary (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecomoea.html .

    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.