IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Willingness-to-Pay for Alternative Fuel Vehicle Characteristics: A Stated Choice Study for Germany

Listed author(s):
  • Hackbarth, André

    ()

    (E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN))

  • Madlener, Reinhard

    ()

    (E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN))

In the light of European energy efficiency and clean air legislations, as well as an ambitious electric mobility goal of the German government, we examine consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs), based on a Germany-wide discrete choice experiment among 711 potential car buyers. We estimate consumers’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) and contingent variation (CV) for improvements in vehicle purchase price, fuel cost, driving range, refueling infrastructure, CO2 emissions and governmental monetary and non-monetary incentives, hereby accounting for diminishing marginal returns for some of the attributes and taking taste differences in the population into account by applying a latent class model with 6 distinct consumer segments. Our results indicate that almost 36% of the consumers are open-minded towards at least one AFV option, with 15% being AFV-affine insomuch that they show a high probability of choosing AFVs despite their current shortcomings. Our results suggest that German car buyers’ WTP for improvements of the various vehicle attributes varies considerably across consumer segments and that the vehicle features have to meet some minimum requirements so that AFVs are shortlisted. Furthermore, the CV values show that decision-makers in the administration and industry should focus on the most promising consumer group of ‘AFV aficionados’ and their needs, that some vehicle attribute improvements could increase AFV demand rather cost-effectively, and that consumers would accept surcharges for some vehicle attributes at a level, which could enable their economic provision and operation (e.g. fast-charging infrastructure), while others might need governmental subsidies to substitute the insufficient consumer WTP (e.g. battery capacity).

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.fcn.eonerc.rwth-aachen.de/global/show_document.asp?id=aaaaaaaaaaigjcb
File Function: Full text
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN) in its series FCN Working Papers with number 20/2013.

as
in new window

Length: 60 pages
Date of creation: Dec 2013
Handle: RePEc:ris:fcnwpa:2013_020
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.eonerc.rwth-aachen.de/fcn
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Kenneth Gillingham & Karen Palmer, 2014. "Bridging the Energy Efficiency Gap: Policy Insights from Economic Theory and Empirical Evidence," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 8(1), pages 18-38, January.
  2. 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.
  3. Meghan R. Busse & Christopher R. Knittel & Florian Zettelmeyer, 2013. "Are Consumers Myopic? Evidence from New and Used Car Purchases," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(1), pages 220-256, February.
  4. 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.
  5. Small, Kenneth A & Rosen, Harvey S, 1981. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 105-130, January.
  6. 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.
  7. de Jong, Gerard & Daly, Andrew & Pieters, Marits & van der Hoorn, Toon, 2007. "The logsum as an evaluation measure: Review of the literature and new results," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 874-889, November.
  8. 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.
  9. Musti, Sashank & Kockelman, Kara M., 2011. "Evolution of the household vehicle fleet: Anticipating fleet composition, PHEV adoption and GHG emissions in Austin, Texas," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 707-720, October.
  10. Martin Achtnicht, 2012. "German car buyers’ willingness to pay to reduce CO 2 emissions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(3), pages 679-697, August.
  11. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, March.
  12. Hunt Allcott & Nathan Wozny, 2012. "Gasoline Prices, Fuel Economy, and the Energy Paradox," NBER Working Papers 18583, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. Atabani, A.E. & Badruddin, Irfan Anjum & Mekhilef, S. & Silitonga, A.S., 2011. "A review on global fuel economy standards, labels and technologies in the transportation sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4586-4610.
  18. 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.
  19. Junyi Shen, 2009. "Latent class model or mixed logit model? A comparison by transport mode choice data," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(22), pages 2915-2924.
  20. Parsons, George R. & Hidrue, Michael K. & Kempton, Willett & Gardner, Meryl P., 2014. "Willingness to pay for vehicle-to-grid (V2G) electric vehicles and their contract terms," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 313-324.
  21. Stephane Hess & Mark Fowler & Thomas Adler & Aniss Bahreinian, 2012. "A joint model for vehicle type and fuel type choice: evidence from a cross-nested logit study," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 593-625, May.
  22. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, March.
  23. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
  24. 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.
  25. Helfand, Gloria & Wolverton, Ann, 2011. "Evaluating the Consumer Response to Fuel Economy: A Review of the Literature," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(2), pages 103-146, May.
  26. Daziano, Ricardo A. & Achtnicht, Martin, 2012. "Forecasting adoption of ultra-low-emission vehicles using the GHK simulator and Bayes estimates of a multinomial probit model," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-017, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  27. John K. Dagsvik & Gang Liu, 2006. "A Framework for Analyzing Rank Ordered Panel Data with Application to Automobile Demand," Discussion Papers 480, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
  28. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
  29. 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.
  30. Beck, Matthew J. & Rose, John M. & Hensher, David A., 2013. "Environmental attitudes and emissions charging: An example of policy implications for vehicle choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 171-182.
  31. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
  32. Chris Kavalec, 1999. "Vehicle Choice in an Aging Population: Some Insights from a Stated Preference Survey for California," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 123-138.
  33. 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.
  34. Hunt Allcott, 2013. "The Welfare Effects of Misperceived Product Costs: Data and Calibrations from the Automobile Market," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 5(3), pages 30-66, August.
  35. 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).
  36. David Greene, 2010. "Why the New Market for New Passenger Cars Generally Undervalues Fuel Economy," OECD/ITF Joint Transport Research Centre Discussion Papers 2010/6, OECD Publishing.
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. 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.
  41. Angel Bujosa & Antoni Riera & Robert Hicks, 2010. "Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 477-493, December.
  42. 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.
  43. Michael Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "Comparing Alternative Models Of Heterogeneity In Consumer Choice Behavior," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(6), pages 1018-1045, September.
  44. Hess, Stephane & Rose, John M., 2009. "Allowing for intra-respondent variations in coefficients estimated on repeated choice data," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 708-719, July.
  45. Emily Lancsar & Elizabeth Savage, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 901-907.
  46. Axsen, Jonn & Orlebar, Caroline & Skippon, Stephen, 2013. "Social influence and consumer preference formation for pro-environmental technology: The case of a U.K. workplace electric-vehicle study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 96-107.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ris:fcnwpa:2013_020. 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: (Hendrik Schmitz)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.