IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v30y2013icp56-62.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What drives range preferences in electric vehicle users?

Author

Listed:
  • Franke, Thomas
  • Krems, Josef F.

Abstract

While research has shown that limited-range electric vehicles (EVs) satisfy the range needs of a sizeable share of the driving population, car buyers seem to prefer vehicles with high available range. The objective of the present research was to advance understanding of the factors that influence the range preferences of potential EV customers who had the opportunity to test an EV. Data from 79 participants who had driven an EV for 3 months was assessed in a field study setting. Range preferences of those users were found to be substantially higher than their average range needs. Regression analyses indicated that higher average range needs, higher range of the driver′s familiar combustion vehicle (CV), and greater experienced range anxiety were related to higher range preferences. Furthermore, we found that range preferences decreased over the first 3 months of EV use. Finally, indicators of average range needs were more strongly associated with range preferences as EV experience increased. Thus, only customers with EV experience seem to rely on accurate estimates of their range needs when constructing their range preferences. Implications for strategies aimed at enhancing customer appraisal of limited range mobility and determining optimal EV range are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Franke, Thomas & Krems, Josef F., 2013. "What drives range preferences in electric vehicle users?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 56-62.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:30:y:2013:i:c:p:56-62
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.07.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X13001005
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.07.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Greene, David L., 1985. "Estimating daily vehicle usage distributions and the implications for limited-range vehicles," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 347-358, August.
    2. Kurani, Kenneth S & Turrentine, Tom & Sperling, Daniel, 1994. "Demand for electric vehicles in hybrid households: an exploratory analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 1(4), pages 244-256, October.
    3. repec:cdl:uctcwp:qt1c29r4hr is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Franke, Thomas & Krems, Josef F., 2013. "Interacting with limited mobility resources: Psychological range levels in electric vehicle use," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 109-122.
    5. McManus, M.C., 2012. "Environmental consequences of the use of batteries in low carbon systems: The impact of battery production," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 288-295.
    6. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Fetene, Gebeyehu M. & Hirte, Georg & Kaplan, Sigal & Prato, Carlo G. & Tscharaktschiew, Stefan, 2016. "The economics of workplace charging," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 93-118.
    4. Bogdan Ovidiu Varga & Arsen Sagoian & Florin Mariasiu, 2019. "Prediction of Electric Vehicle Range: A Comprehensive Review of Current Issues and Challenges," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-19, March.
    5. Golob, Thomas F. & Gould, Jane, 1998. "Projecting use of electric vehicles from household vehicle trials," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 441-454, September.
    6. Yuan, Xinmei & Li, Lili & Gou, Huadong & Dong, Tingting, 2015. "Energy and environmental impact of battery electric vehicle range in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 75-84.
    7. Giansoldati, Marco & Danielis, Romeo & Rotaris, Lucia & Scorrano, Mariangela, 2018. "The role of driving range in consumers' purchasing decision for electric cars in Italy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(PA), pages 267-274.
    8. Yan, Jianghui & Tseng, Fang-Mei & Lu, Louis Y.Y., 2018. "Developmental trajectories of new energy vehicle research in economic management: Main path analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 168-181.
    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. Philippe Fevrier & Sebastien Gay, 2005. "Informed Consent Versus Presumed Consent The Role of the Family in Organ Donations," HEW 0509007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    12. Bryce, Cormac & Dowling, Michael & Lucey, Brian, 2020. "The journal quality perception gap," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    13. Boon, L.N. & Brière, M. & Rigot, S., 2018. "Regulation and pension fund risk-taking," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 23-41.
    14. Andrea Baranzini & Stefano Carattini & Linda Tesauro, 2021. "Designing Effective and Acceptable Road Pricing Schemes: Evidence from the Geneva Congestion Charge," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 417-482, July.
    15. Stefano D’Angelo & Angelo Cavallo & Antonio Ghezzi & Francesco Di Lorenzo, 2024. "Understanding corporate entrepreneurship in the digital age: a review and research agenda," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 18(12), pages 3719-3774, December.
    16. Silvia Jordan & Corinna Treisch, 2010. "The perception of tax concessions in retirement savings decisions," Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 2(3), pages 157-184, October.
    17. Erica Mina Okada, 2010. "Uncertainty, Risk Aversion, and WTA vs. WTP," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 75-84, 01-02.
    18. Chéron, Emmanuel & Zins, Michel, 1997. "Electric vehicle purchasing intentions: The concern over battery charge duration," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 235-243, May.
    19. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim, 2024. "Consideration sets and reference points in a dynamic bargaining game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 381-403.
    20. Urs Fischbacher & Simeon Schudy, 2014. "Reciprocity and resistance to comprehensive reform," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 160(3), pages 411-428, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:trapol:v:30:y:2013:i:c:p:56-62. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description .

    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.