Private household demand for vehicles on alternative fuels and drive trains: A review

European Transport Research Review

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 149-164

  Turcksin, Laurence ^a   Mairesse, Olivier ^a   Macharis, Cathy ^a  

^a VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Alternative fuels and drive trains; Consumer preferences; Environment; Private households; Review

Indexed keywords

CONSUMER PREFERENCES; DRIVE TRAIN; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS; ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS; IN-DEPTH UNDERSTANDING; PRIVATE HOUSEHOLDS; RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES;

PURCHASING; RESEARCH; REVIEWS; TAXATION;

ALTERNATIVE FUELS;

EID: 84883744868     PISSN: 18670717     EISSN: 18668887     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12544-013-0095-z     Document Type: Article

References (95)

1. Abley J (2000) Stated Preference techniques and consumer decision making: new challenges to old assumptions. Cranfield University, pp 40.
2. Achterberg P, Houtman D, van Bohemen S, Manevska K (2010) Unknowing but supportive? Predispositions, knowledge, and support for hydrogen technology in the Netherlands. Int J Hydrog Energy 35: 6075-6083.
3. Ahn J, Jeong G, Kim Y (2008) A forecast of household ownership and use of alternative fuel vehicles: a multiple discrete-continuous choice approach. Energy Econ 30: 2091-2104.
4. Ajzen I (1985) From Intentions to Actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl J, Beckman J (eds) Action-control: from cognition to behavior. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 11-39.
5. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50: 179-211.
6. Anderson NH (1981) Foundations of information integration theory. Academic, NJ.
7. Anderson S, Stradling SG (2004) Attitudes to car use and modal shift in Scotland. Report of National Centre for Social Research, Scotland: Scottish Executive Social Research. Available at: http://www. scotland. gov. uk/Publications/2004/03/19062/34290.
8. Armitage CJ, Conner M (2001) Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. Br J Soc Psychol 40: 471-499.
9. Axsen J, Kurani KS (2010) Anticipating plug-in hybrid vehicle energy impacts in California: constructing consumer-informed recharge profiles. Transp Res D 15: 212-219.
10. Axsen J, Mountain DC, Jaccard M (2009) Combining stated and revealed choice research to stimulate the neighbor effect: the case of hybrid-electric vehicles. Resour Energy Econ 31: 221-238.
11. Axsen J, Kurani KS, Burke A (2010) Are batteries ready for plug-in hybrid buyers? Transp Policy 17: 173-182.
12. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Ozdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar, Ltd., Cheltenham, p 458.
13. Beggs SD, Cardell NS (1980) Choice of smallest car by multi-vehicle households and the demand for electric vehicles. Transp Res A 14(A): 389-404.
14. Beggs SD, Cardell NS, Hausman J (1981) Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. J Econom 17: 1-19.
15. Bettman J, Luce M, Payne J (1998) Constructive consumer choice processes. J Consum Res 25(3): 187-217.
16. Bhatt CR (2005) A multiple discrete-continuous extreme value (MDCEV) model: role of utility function parameters, identification considerations, and model extensions. Transp Res B 42(3): 274-303.
17. Bhatt CR, Sen S, Eluru N (2009) The impact of demographics, built environment attributes, vehicle characteristics, and gasoline prices on household vehicle holdings and use. Transp Res B 43: 1-18.
18. Blamey RK, Bennett JW, Louviere JJ, Morrison MD, Rolfe J (2000) A test of policy labels in environmental choice modelling studies. Ecol Econ 32: 269-286.
19. Bontekoning YM, Macharis C, Trip JJ (2002) Is a new applied transportation research field emerging? A review of intermodal rail-truck freight transport literature. Transp Res A 38(1): 1-34.
20. Brownstone D, Small K (2005) Valuing time and reliability: assessing the evidence from road pricing demonstrations. Transp Res A 39(3): 279-293.
21. Brownstone D, Bunch DS, Golob TF, Ren W (1996) A transactions choice model for forecasting demand for alternative-fuel vehicles. Res Transp Econ 4: 87-129.
22. Brownstone D, Bunch DS, Train K (2000) Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative fuel vehicles. Transp Res B 34(5): 315-338.
23. Bunch DS, Bradley M, Golob TF, Kitamura R, Occhiuzzo GP (1993) Demand for alternative-fuel vehicles in California: a discrete-choice stated preference pilot project. Transp Res A 27: 237-253.
24. Calfee JE (1985) Estimating the demand for electric automobiles using disaggregated probabilistic choice analysis. Transp Res B 19(4): 287-301.
25. Carson RT (2000) Contingent valuation: a user's guide. Environ Sci Technol 34: 1413-1418.
26. Caulfield B, Farrell S, McMahon B (2010) Examining individuals preferences for hybrid electric and alternatively fuelled vehicles. Transp Policy 17: 381-387.
27. Chéron E, Zins M (1997) Electric vehicle purchasing intentions: the concern over battery charge duration and risk of failure. Transp Res A 31: 235-243.
28. Cooper HM (1989) Integrating research: a guide for literature reviews. Applied social research methods series 2. Sage Publications, Newbury Park.
29. Dagsvik JK, Wennemo T, Wetterwald DG, Aaberge R (2002) Potential demand for alternative fuel vehicle. Transp Res B 36: 361-384.
30. Eagly AH, Chaiken S (1993) The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publications.
31. Eggers F, Eggers F (2010) Where have all the flowers gone? Forecasting green trends in the automobile industry with a choice-based conjoint adoption model. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. doi: 10. 1016/j. techfore. 2010. 06. 014.
32. Erdem C, Sentürk I, Simsek T (2010) Identifying the factors affecting the willingness to pay for fuel-efficient vehicles in Turkey: a case of hybrids. Energy Policy 38: 3038-3043.
33. Ewing GO, Sarigöllü E (1998) Car fuel-type choice under travel demand management and economic incentives. Transp Res D 3(6): 429-444.
34. Ewing GO, Sarigöllü E (2000) Assessing consumer preferences for clean-fuel vehicles: a discrete choice experiment. J Public Policy Mark 19(1): 106-118.
35. Flamm B (2009) The impacts of environmental knowledge and attitudes on vehicle ownership and use. Transp Res D. doi: 10. 1016/j. trd. 2009. 02. 003.
36. Gjoen H, Hard M (2002) Cultural politics in action: developing user scripts in relation to the electric vehicle. Sci Technol Hum Values 27(2): 262-281.
37. Glazer A, Klein DB, Lave C (1995) Clean on paper, dirty on the road: troubles with California's smog check. The University of California Transportation Center. J Transp Economics Policy, pp 11.
38. Golob TF, Gould J (1998) Projecting use of electric vehicles from household vehicle trials. Transp Res B 32(7): 441-454.
39. Gould J, Golob TF (1998) Clean air forever? A longitudinal analysis of opinions about air pollution and electric vehicles. Transp Res D 3(3): 157-169.
40. Gredler M (1992) Designing and evaluating games and simulations: a process approach. Kogan Page, London.
41. Green PE, Srinivasan V (1990) Conjoint analysis in Marketing: new development with implications for research and practice. J Mark 54: 3-19.
42. Greene DL (1996) Survey evidence on the importance of fuel availability to the choice of alternative fuels and vehicles. Energy Stud Rev 8(3): 215-231.
43. Hanly N, MacMillan D, Wright RE, Bullock C, Simpson I, Parsisson D, Crabtree B (1998) Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. J Agr Econ 49(1): 1-15.
44. Hanly N, Mourato S, Wright RE (2001) Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? J Econ Surv 15(3): 436-462.
45. Heffner RR, Kurani S, Turrentine TS (2007) Symbolism in California's early market for hybrid electric vehicles. Transp Res D 12: 396-413.
46. Heffner RR, Kurani KS, Turrentine TS (2007) Symbolism and the adoption of fuel-cell vehicles. World Electr Vehicle Assoc J 1: 24-31.
47. Hensher D (2010) Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay. Transp Res B 44: 735-752.
48. Hickman R, Ashiru O, Banister D (2010) Transport and climate change: simulating the options for carbon reduction in London. Transp Policy 17: 110-125.
49. Horne M, Jaccard M, Tiedemann K (2005) Improving behavioral realism in hybrid energy-economy models using discrete choice studies of personal transportation decisions. Energy Econ 27: 59-77.
50. Hoyos D (2010) The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecol Econ 69: 1595-1603.
51. Jensen KL, Clark CD, English BC, Menard RJ, Skahan DK, Marra AC (2010) Willingness to pay for E85 from corn, switchgrass, and wood residues. Energy Econ 32: 1253-1262.
52. Johansson-Stenman O, Martinsson P (2006) Honestly, why are you driving a BMW? J Econ Behav Organ 60: 129-146.
53. Kahn ME (2007) Do greens drive hummers or hybrids? Environmental ideology as a determinant of consumer choice. J Environ Econ Manag 54: 129-145.
54. Kurani K, Turrentine T, Sperling D (1994) Demand for electric vehicles in hybrid households: an exploratory analysis. Transp Policy 1(4): 244-256.
55. Kurani K, Turrentine T, Sperling S (1996) Testing electric vehicle demand in 'hybrid households' using a reflexive survey. Transp Res D 1(2): 131-150.
56. Lane B, Potter S (2007) The adoption of cleaner vehicles in the UK: exploring the consumer attitude-action gap. J Clean Prod 15: 1085-1092.
57. Lois D, López-Sáez M (2009) The relationship between instrumental, symbolic and affective factors as predictors of car use: a structural equation modeling approach. Transp Res 1(43): 790-799.
58. Louviere J, Hensher DA (1982) On the design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modelling. Transp Res Rec 890: 11-17.
59. Louviere J, Woodworth G (1983) Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. J Mark Res 20: 350-367.
60. Lundquist Noblet C, Teisl MF, Rubin J (2006) Factors affecting consumer assessment of eco-labeled vehicles. Transp Res D 11: 422-431.
61. Martin E, Shaheen SA, Lipman TE, Lidicker JR (2009) Behavioral response to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and refuelling: results of California drive clinics. Int J Hydrogen Energ 34(20): 8670-8680.
62. Mau P, Eyzaguirre J, Jaccard M, Collins-Dodd C, Tiedemann K (2008) The "neighbor effect": simulating dynamics in consumer preferences for new vehicle technologies. Ecol Econ 68: 504-516.
63. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the future, Washington, DC.
64. Mogas J, Riera P, Bennett J (2006) A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modeling with second-order interactions. J For Econ 12: 5-30.
65. Mourato S, Saynor B, Hart D (2004) Greening London's black cabs: a study of driver's preferences for fuel cell taxis. Energy Policy 32: 685-695.
66. O'Garra T, Mourato S, Pearson P (2005) Analysing awareness and acceptability of hydrogen vehicles: a london case study. Int J Hydrog Energy 30: 649-659.
67. Peters A, Gutscher H, Scholz RW (2011) Psychological determinants of fuel consumption of purchased new cars. Transp Res F. doi: 10. 1016/j. trf. 2011. 01. 003.
68. Petrolia DR, Bhattacharjee S, Hudson D, Herndon CW (2010) Do Americans want ethanol? A comparative contingent-valuation study of willingness to pay for E10 and E85. Energy Econ 32: 121-128.
69. Popp M, van de Velde L, Vickery G, van Huylenbroeck G, Verbeke W, Dixon B (2009) Determinants of consumer interest in fuel economy: lessons for strengthening the conservation argument. Biomass Bioenergy 33: 768-778.
70. Potoglou D, Kanaroglou PS (2006) An internet based stated choices household survey for alternative fuelled vehicles. Centre for Spatial Analysis, Canada, p 21.
71. Potoglou D, Kanaroglou PS (2006) Household demand and willingness to pay for alternative fuelled vehicles. Centre for Spatial Analysis, Canada, p 30.
72. Potoglou D, Kanaroglou PS (2007) Household demand and willingness to pay for clean vehicles. Transp Res D Transp Env 12(4): 264-274.
73. Purcher J, Renne JL (2003) Socioeconomics of urban travel: evidence from the 2001 NHTS. Transp Q 57(3): 49-77.
74. Ricci M, Bellaby P, Flynn R (2008) What do we know about public perceptions and acceptance of hydrogen? A critical review and new case study evidence. Int J Hydrog Energy 33: 5868-5880.
75. Roche MY, Mourato S, Fischedick M, Pietzner K, Veibahn P (2010) Public attitudes towards and demand for hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles: a review of the evidence and methodological implications. Energy Policy 38: 5301-5310.
76. Schulte I, Hart D, van der Vorst R (2004) Issues affecting the acceptance of hydrogen fuel. Int J Hydrog Energy 29: 677-685.
77. Schwartz SH (1977) Normative influence on altruism. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental psychology. Academic, New York.
78. Schwartz SH, Howard JA (1981) A normative decision-making model of altruism. In: Rushton PJ, Sorrentino RM (eds) Altruism and helping behaviour: social, personality, and developmental perspectives. Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
79. Segal R (1995) Forecasting the market for electric vehicles in California using conjoint analysis. Energy J 16: 89-111.
80. Solomon BD, Johnson NH (2009) Valuing climate change protection through willingness to pay for biomass ethanol. Ecol Econ 68: 2137-2144.
81. Sperling D, Setiawan W, Hunderford D (1995) The target market for methanol fuel. Transp Res A 29(1): 33-45.
82. Steg L, Vlek C, Slotegraaf G (2001) Instrumental-reasoned and symbolic-affective motives for using a motor car. Transp Res F 4: 151-169.
83. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L (1993) Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ Behav 25(3): 322-348.
84. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L (1999) A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Res Hum Ecol 6(2): 81-97.
85. Tedeshi RG, Cann A, Siegfried WD (1982) Participation in voluntary auto emissions inspection. J Soc Psychol 117: 309-310.
86. Thesen G, Langhelle O (2008) Awareness, acceptability and attitudes towards hydrogen vehicles and filling stations: a greater Stavanger case study and comparisons with London. Int J Hydrog Energy 33: 5859-5867.
87. Tompkins M, Bunch D, Santini D, Bradley M, Vyas A, Poyer D (1998) Determinants of alternative vehicle choice in the continental United States. J Transp Res Board 1641: 130-138.
88. Turrentine TS, Kurani KS (2007) Car buyers and fuel economy? Energy Policy 35: 1213-1223.
89. Ulmer JD, Huhnke RL, Bellmer DD, Cartmell DD (2004) Acceptance of ethanol-blended gasoline in Oklahoma. Biomass Bioenergy 27: 437-444.
90. Urban G, Weinberg B, Hauser J (1994) Premarket forecasting of really new products. J Mark 60: 47-60.
91. van de Velde L, Verbeke W, Popp M, van Huylenbroeck G (2010) The importance of message framing for providing Information about sustainability and environmental aspects of energy. Energy Policy 38: 5541-5549.
92. van Mierlo J, Macharis C (2005) Goederen-en Personenvervoer: vooruitzichten en breekpunten. Garant, Antwerpen, Apeldoorn.
93. van Mierlo J, Timmermans JM, Matheys J, van den Bossche P (2006) Milieuvriendelijke voertuigen. VWEC, Mobiliteit en (groot) stedenbeleid, pp 447-490.
94. van Rijnsoever F, Farla J, Dijst MJ (2009) Consumer car preferences and Information search channels. Transp Res D 14: 334-342.
95. Venkatachalam L (2004) The contingent valuation method: a review. Environ Impact Assess Rev 24: 89-124.