A forecast of household ownership and use of alternative fuel vehicles: A multiple discrete-continuous choice approach

Energy Economics

Volumn 30, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 2091-2104

  Ahn, Jiwoon ^a   Jeong, Gicheol ^b   Kim, Yeonbae ^b  

^a Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI)   (South Korea)

^b Seoul National University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Alternative fuel vehicle; Bayesian approach; Conjoint analysis; Multiple discrete continuous choice

Indexed keywords

ALTERNATIVE FUELS; AUTOMOBILES; DIESEL FUELS; ESTIMATION; FUELS; GASOLINE; LIQUID FUELS; PASSENGER CARS; PETROLEUM PRODUCTS; POLLUTION; STEEL METALLURGY; VEHICLES;

ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES; CONJOINT ANALYSIS; CONSUMER PREFERENCES; DIESEL FUEL CONSUMPTION;

LEAKAGE (FLUID);

ALTERNATIVE FUEL; BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; ENERGY MARKET; ENERGY USE; ESTIMATION METHOD; FUEL CONSUMPTION; HOUSEHOLD ENERGY; TRAFFIC EMISSION;

EID: 48249108013     PISSN: 01409883     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2007.10.003     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Allenby G.M., and Rossi P.E. Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity. Journal of Econometrics 89 (1999) 57-78
2. Alvarez-Farizo B., and Hanley N. Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms: an example from Spain. Energy Policy 30 (2002) 107-116
3. Batt C., and Katz J. A conjoint model of enhanced voice mail services: implications for new service development and forecasting. Telecommunications Policy 21 (1997) 743-760
4. Bhat C.R. A multiple discrete-continuous extreme value model: formulation and application to discretionary time-use decisions. Transportation Research: Part B 39 (2005) 679-707
5. Bhat C.R., and Castelar S. A unified mixed logit framework for modeling revealed and stated preferences: formulation and application to congestion pricing analysis in the San Francisco Bay area. Transportation Research: Part B 36 (2002) 593-616
6. Bhat C.R., and Sen S. Household vehicle type holdings and usage: an application of the multiple discrete-continuous extreme value (MDCEV) model. Transportation Research: Part B 40 (2006) 35-53
7. Brownstone D., and Train K. Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns. Journal of Econometrics 89 (1999) 109-129
8. Brownstone D., Bunch D.S., and Train K. Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles. Transportaion Research: Part B 34 (2000) 315-338
9. Byun S.-K., Lee J., Lee J.-D., and Ahn J. Wireless data communication technology choice. In: Cooper R., and Madden G. (Eds). Frontiers of Broadband: Electronic and Mobile Commerce (2004), Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg 149-164
10. Calfee J., Winston C., and Stempski R. Econometric issues in estimating consumer preferences from stated preference data: a case study of the value of automobile travel time. Review of Economics and Statistics 83 (2001) 699-707
11. Chiang J., Chib S., and Narasimhan C. Markov chain Monte Carlo and models of consideration set and parameter heterogeneity. Journal of Econometrics 89 (1999) 223-248
12. Dagsvik J.K., Wennemo T., Wetterwald D.G., and Aaberge R. Potential demand for alternative fuel vehicles. Transportation Research: Part B 36 (2002) 361-384
13. Ewing G., and Sarigollu E. Assessing consumer preferences for clean-fuel vehicles: a discrete choice experiment. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 19 (2000) 106-118
14. Green P.E., and Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research 5 (1978) 103-123
15. Hensher D.A. Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of the practice. Transportation 21 (1994) 107-133
16. Hensher D., Louviere J., and Swait J. Combining sources of preference data. Journal of Econometrics 89 (1999) 197-221
17. Horne M., Jaccard M., and Tiedemann K. Improving behavioral realism in hybrid energy-economy models using discrete choice studies of personal transportation decisions. Energy Economics 27 (2005) 59-77
18. Huber J., and Train K. On the similarity of classical and Bayesian estimates of individual mean partworths. Marketing Letters 12 (2001) 259-269
19. Kim J., Allenby G.M., and Rossi P.E. Modeling consumer demand for variety. Marketing Science 21 (2002) 229-250
20. Kim, Y., Jeong, G., Ahn, J., Lee, J-D., forthcoming. Consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles in South Korea. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management.
21. Korean Association for Natural Gas Vehicles (KANGV), 2005, http://www.kangv.org/world/ngv02.asp.
22. Korean Development Institute (KDI; public and private infrastructure investment management center). The Survey on the Environmental Cost Estimation of the Preliminary Feasibility Study in the Transportation Project (2002), Korean Development Institute, Seoul
23. Louviere J., Train K., Ben-Akiva M., Bhat C., Brownstone D., Cameron T.A., Carson R.T., DeShazo J.R., Fiebig D., Greene W., Hensher D., and Waldman D. Recent progress on endogeneity in choice modeling. Marketing Letters 16 (2005) 255-265
24. Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MOCT), 2007, http://www.moct.go.kr.
25. Roe B., Boyle K.J., and Teisl M.F. Using conjoint analysis to derive estimates of compensating variation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31 (1996) 145-159
26. Slothuus U., Larsen M.L., and Junker P. The contingent ranking method: a feasible and valid method when eliciting preference for health care?. Social Science and Medicine 54 (2002) 1601-1609
27. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (2003), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge