IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/itsdav/qt02n9j6cv.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Combining stated and revealed choice research to simulate the neighbor effect: The case of hybrid-electric vehicles

Author

Listed:
  • Axsen, Jonn
  • Mountain, Dean C.
  • Jaccard, Mark

Abstract

According to intuition and theories of diffusion, consumer preferences develop along with technological change. However, most economic models designed for policy simulation unrealistically assume static preferences. To improve the behavioral realism of an energy-economy policy model, this study investigates the "neighbor effect," where a new technology becomes more desirable as its adoption becomes more widespread in the market. We measure this effect as a change in aggregated willingness to pay under different levels of technology penetration. Focusing on hybrid-electric vehicles, an online survey experiment collected stated preference (SP) data from 535 Canadian and 408 Californian vehicle owners under different hypothetical market conditions. Revealed preference (RP) data was collected from the same respondents by eliciting the year, make and model of recent vehicle purchases from regions with different degrees of HEV popularity: Canada with 0.17% new market share, and California with 3.0% new market share. We compare choice models estimated from RP data only with three joint SP-RP estimation techniques, each assigning a different weight to the influence of SP and RP data in coefficient estimates. Statistically, models allowing more RP influence outperform SP influenced models. However, results suggest that because the RP data in this study is afflicted by multicollinearity, techniques that allow more SP influence in the beta estimates while maintaining RP data for calibrating vehicle class constraints produce more realistic estimates of willingness to pay. Furthermore, SP influenced coefficient estimates also translate to more realistic behavioral parameters for CIMS, allowing more sensitivity to policy simulations.

Suggested Citation

  • 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," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt02n9j6cv, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdl:itsdav:qt02n9j6cv
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/02n9j6cv.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Norton, Bryan & Costanza, Robert & Bishop, Richard C., 1998. "The evolution of preferences: Why 'sovereign' preferences may not lead to sustainable policies and what to do about it," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 193-211, February.
    2. Chris Bataille, Mark Jaccard, John Nyboer and Nic Rivers, 2006. "Towards General Equilibrium in a Technology-Rich Model with Empirically Estimated Behavioral Parameters," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 93-112.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, June.
    4. James Banks & Richard Blundell & Arthur Lewbel, 1997. "Quadratic Engel Curves And Consumer Demand," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 79(4), pages 527-539, November.
    5. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    6. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2003. "Rebate versus matching: does how we subsidize charitable contributions matter?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(3-4), pages 681-701, March.
    7. Greene, David L. & Patterson, Philip D. & Singh, Margaret & Li, Jia, 2005. "Feebates, rebates and gas-guzzler taxes: a study of incentives for increased fuel economy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 757-775, April.
    8. Mark K. Jaccard & John Nyboer & Crhis Bataille & Bryn Sadownik, 2003. "Modeling the Cost of Climate Policy: Distinguishing Between Alternative Cost Definitions and Long-Run Cost Dynamics," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 49-73.
    9. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, January.
    10. 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.
    11. Train, Kenneth, 1985. "Discount rates in consumers' energy-related decisions: A review of the literature," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 10(12), pages 1243-1253.
    12. Douglas Davis & Edward Millner & Robert Reilly, 2005. "Subsidy Schemes and Charitable Contributions: A Closer Look," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(2), pages 85-106, June.
    13. Adam B. Jaffe & Robert N. Stavins, 1994. "Energy-Efficiency Investments and Public Policy," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 43-66.
    14. 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.
    15. Mau, Paulus & Eyzaguirre, Jimena & Jaccard, Mark & Collins-Dodd, Colleen & Tiedemann, Kenneth, 2008. "The 'neighbor effect': Simulating dynamics in consumer preferences for new vehicle technologies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 504-516, December.
    16. Nic Rivers & Mark Jaccard, 2005. "Combining Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Energy-Economy Modeling Using Discrete Choice Methods," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 83-106.
    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. 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.
    2. Mau, Paulus & Eyzaguirre, Jimena & Jaccard, Mark & Collins-Dodd, Colleen & Tiedemann, Kenneth, 2008. "The 'neighbor effect': Simulating dynamics in consumer preferences for new vehicle technologies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 504-516, December.
    3. Martin Achtnicht, 2012. "German car buyers’ willingness to pay to reduce CO 2 emissions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(3), pages 679-697, August.
    4. 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.
    5. Takanori Ida & Kayo Murakami & Makoto Tanaka, 2012. "Keys to Smart Home Diffusion: A Stated Preference Analysis of Smart Meters, Photovoltaic Generation, and Electric/Hybrid Vehicles," Discussion papers e-11-011, Graduate School of Economics Project Center, Kyoto University.
    6. Sykes, Maxwell & Axsen, Jonn, 2017. "No free ride to zero-emissions: Simulating a region's need to implement its own zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate to achieve 2050 GHG targets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 447-460.
    7. Fox, Jacob & Axsen, Jonn & Jaccard, Mark, 2017. "Picking Winners: Modelling the Costs of Technology-specific Climate Policy in the U.S. Passenger Vehicle Sector," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 133-147.
    8. 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).
    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. Rogers, Abbie A. & Cleland, Jonelle, 2010. "Comparing Scientist and Public Preferences for Conserving Environmental Systems: A Case of the Kimberley’s Tropical Waterways and Wetlands," Research Reports 107579, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    11. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    12. 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.
    13. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    14. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    15. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    16. Mariel, Petr & Ayala, Amaya de & Hoyos, David & Abdullah, Sabah, 2013. "Selecting random parameters in discrete choice experiment for environmental valuation: A simulation experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 44-57.
    17. Elizabeth Kinter & Thomas Prior & Christopher Carswell & John Bridges, 2012. "A Comparison of Two Experimental Design Approaches in Applying Conjoint Analysis in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(4), pages 279-294, December.
    18. Brand, Christian & Anable, Jillian & Tran, Martino, 2013. "Accelerating the transformation to a low carbon passenger transport system: The role of car purchase taxes, feebates, road taxes and scrappage incentives in the UK," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 132-148.
    19. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    20. John Rose & Iain Black, 2006. "Means matter, but variance matter too: Decomposing response latency influences on variance heterogeneity in stated preference experiments," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 295-310, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    UCD-ITS-RP-09-19; Engineering;

    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:cdl:itsdav:qt02n9j6cv. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Lisa Schiff). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/itucdus.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.