Conditional-logit Bayes estimators for consumer valuation of electric vehicle driving range

Resource and Energy Economics

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 429-450

  Daziano, Ricardo A ^a  

^a Cornell University   (United States)

Author keywords

Battery electric vehicles; Bayesian discrete choice; Heterogeneity distributions; Range anxiety

Indexed keywords

BATTERY ELECTRIC VEHICLES; CONSUMER VALUATIONS; DISCRETE CHOICE; HETEROGENEITY DISTRIBUTIONS; LOW EMISSION VEHICLES; POSTERIOR DISTRIBUTIONS; RANGE ANXIETIES; STATISTICAL BEHAVIOR;

ELECTRIC VEHICLES; ESTIMATION;

CONSUMER BEHAVIOR;

BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; ELECTRIC VEHICLE; HETEROGENEITY;

CALIFORNIA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84878850448     PISSN: 09287655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2013.05.001     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. 2 emissions. Climatic Change 2012, 113(3):679-697.
2. Beggs S., Cardell S., Hausman J. Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. Journal of Econometrics 1981, 17(1):1-19.
3. Beggs S.D., Cardell N.S. Choice of smallest car by multi-vehicle households and the demand for electric vehicles. Transportation Research Part A 1980, 14(5-6):389-404.
4. Bolduc D., Khalaf L., Yélou C. Identification robust confidence set methods for inference on parameter ratios with application to discrete choice models. Journal of Econometrics 2010, 157(2):317-327.
5. Brownstone D., Bunch D.S., Train K. Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles. Transportation Research Part B 2000, 34(5):315-338.
6. Bunch D.S., Bradley M., Golob T.F., Kitamura R., Occhiuzzo G.P. Demand for clean-fuel vehicles in California: a discrete-choice stated preference pilot project. Transportation Research Part A 1993, 27(3):237-253.
7. Burda M., Harding M., Hausman J. A Bayesian mixed logit probit model for multinomial choice. Journal of Econometrics 2008, 147(2):232-246.
8. Calfee J.E. Estimating the demand for electric automobiles using fully disaggregated probabilistic choice analysis. Transportation Research Part B 1985, 19:287-301.
9. Chib S., Greenberg E., Chen Y. MCMC methods for fitting and comparing multinomial response models. Econometrics 1998, (February (9802001)). EconWPA.
10. Daly A., Hess S., de Jong G. Calculating errors for measures derived form choice modelling estimates. Transportation Research Part B 2011, 46(2):333-341.
11. Damien P., Wakefield J., Walker S. Gibbs sampling for bayesian non-conjugate and hierarchical models by using auxiliary variables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 1999, 61(2):331-344.
12. Daziano R.A., Chiew E. Electric vehicles rising from the dead: data needs for forecasting consumer response toward sustainable energy sources in personal transportation. Energy Policy 2012, 51:876-894.
13. de Jong G., Daly A., Pieters M., van der Hoorn T. The logsum as an evaluation measure: review of the literature and new results. Transportation Research Part A 2007, 41(9):874-889.
14. Dimitropoulos A., Rietveld P., van Ommeren J.N. Consumer valuation of changes in driving range: a meta-analysis, Working paper 2013, Tinbergen Institute.
15. Ewing G.O., Sarigöllü Car fuel-type choice under travel demand management and economic incentives. Transportation Research Part D 1998, 3(6):429-444.
16. Frühwirth-Schnatter S., Frühwirth R. Data augmentation and MCMC for binary and multinomial logit models. Statistical Modelling and Regression Structures 2010, 111-132. Physica-Verlag HD. T. Kneib, G. Tutz (Eds.).
17. Geweke J. Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to the calculation of posterior moments (with discussion). Bayesian Statistics 4 1992, 169-193. Oxford University Press. J.M. Bernardo, J.O. Berger, A.P. Dawid, A.F.M. Smith (Eds.).
18. Golob T.F., Torous J., Bradley M., Brownstone D., Crane S.S., Bunch D.S. Commercial fleet demand for alternative-fuel vehicles in california. Transportation Research Part A 1997, 31:219-233.
19. Hess S., Train K.E., Polak J.W. On the use of a modified Latin hypercube sampling (MLHS) method in the estimation of a mixed logit model for vehicle choice. Transportation Research Part B 2006, 40:147-163.
20. Hess S., Fowler M., Adler T., Bahreinian A. A joint model for vehicle type and fuel type choice: evidence from a cross-nested logit study. Transportation 2012, 39(3):593-625.
21. Hidrue M.K., Parsons G.R., Kempton W., Gardner M.P. Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and their attributes. Resource and Energy Economics 2011, 33(3):686-705.
22. Kavalec C. Vehicle choice in an aging population: some insights from a stated preference survey for California. The Energy Journal 1999, 20(3):123-138.
23. Koop G., Poirier D.J. Bayesian analysis of logit models using natural conjugate priors. Journal of Econometrics 1993, 56(3):323-340.
24. Lancelot F.J., Lau J.W. Flexible choice modelling based on Bayesian nonparametric mixed multinomial logit models, Working paper 2004, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
25. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontier in Econometrics 1974, Academic Press, New York, NY. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
26. McFadden D., Train K.E. Mixed MNL models of discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics 2000, 15:447-470.
27. National Automobile Dealers Association NADA DATA Report 2010.
28. Neal R.M. Slice sampling. Annals of Statistics 2003, 3:705-767.
29. Nixon H., Saphores J.D. Understanding household preferences for alternatives-fuel vehicle technologies. Report 10-11 2011, Mineta Transportation Institute, San José, CA.
30. Pearre N.S., Kempton W., Guensler R.L., Elango V.V. Electric vehicles: how much range is required for a day's driving?. Transportation Research Part C 2011, 19(6):1171-1184.
31. Raftery A.E., Lewis S.M. One long run with diagnostics: implementation strategies for Markov chain Monte Carlo. Statistical Science 1992, 7:493-497.
32. Rossi P.E., Allenby G.M., McCulloch R. Bayesian Statistics and Marketing 2005, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, West Sussex, UK.
33. Sándor Z., Train K. Quasi-random simulation of discrete choice models. Transportation Research Part B 2004, 38(4):313-327.
34. Scott S. Data augmentation, frequentist estimation, and the Bayesian analysis of multinomial logit models. Statistical Papers 2011, 52(1):87-109.
35. Scott S. Data augmentation for the Bayesian analysis of multinomial logit models. Proceedings, American Statistical Association Section on Bayesian Statistical Science 2003.
36. Small K., Rosen H. Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econometrica 1981, 49:105-130.
37. Sonnier G., Ainslie A., Otter T. Heterogeneity distributions of willingness-to-pay in choice models. Quantitative Marketing and Economics 2007, 5(3):313-331.
38. Tompkins M., Bunch D.S., Santini D., Bradley M., Vyas A., Poyer D. Determinants of alternative fuel vehicle choice in the continental United States. Transportation Research Record 1998, 1641:130-138.
39. Train K., Hudson K. The impact of information in vehicle choice and the demand for electric vehicles in California. Project report 2000, National Economic Research Associates.
40. Train K., Sonnier G. Mixed logit with bounded distributions of correlated partworths. Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA. R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.).
41. Train K., Weeks M. Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness to pay space. Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, chapter 1 2005, 1-16. Springer Publisher, Dordrecht. R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.).
42. US Department of Transportation Summary of fuel economy performance 2010, http://www.nhtsa.gov/.
43. US Environmental Protection Agency Alternative fuel conversion 2011, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/altfuels/altfuels.htm.
44. Wakefield J.C., Gelfand A.E., Smith A.F.M. Efficient generation of random variates via the ratio-of-uniforms method. Statistics and Computing 1991, 1:129-133.