A choice experiment on alternative fuel vehicle preferences of private car owners in the Netherlands

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice

Volumn 61, Issue , 2014, Pages 199-215

  Hoen, Anco ^a   Koetse, Mark J ^b  

^a PBL NETHERLANDS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AGENCY   (Netherlands)

^b INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Alternative fuel vehicles; Car choice; Choice data; Consumer preferences; Electric cars

Indexed keywords

ALTERNATIVE FUELS; ELECTRIC AUTOMOBILES; LOGISTIC REGRESSION;

ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES; CHOICE DATA; CONSUMER PREFERENCES; ELECTRIC CARS; MIXED LOGIT MODELS; STATED CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

FUEL CELLS;

ALTERNATIVE FUEL; CAR OWNERSHIP; ELECTRIC VEHICLE; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FUEL CELL; LOGIT ANALYSIS; TRANSPORTATION MODE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

NETHERLANDS;

EID: 84896267871     PISSN: 09658564     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2014.01.008     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. ACEA, 2012, ACEA Tax Guide 2012. European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA), Brussels, Belgium.
2. Ahn J., Jeong G., Kim Y. A forecast of household ownership and use of alternative fuel vehicles: a multiple discrete-continuous choice approach. Energy Econ. 2008, 30:2091-2104.
3. Azar C., Sandén B.A. The elusive quest for technology-neutral policies. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2011, 1:135-139.
4. Bakker S. The car industry and the blow-out of the hydrogen hype. Energy Policy 2010, 38:6540-6544.
5. Batley R.P., Toner J.P., Knight M.J. A mixed logit model of U.K. household demand for alternative-fuel vehicles. Int. J. Transp. Econ. 2004, 31:55-77.
6. Beck M.J., Rose J.M., Hensher D.A. Behavioural responses to vehicle emissions charging. Transportation 2011, 38:445-463.
7. Beggs S., Cardell S., Hausman J. Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. J. Econometrics 1981, 16:1-19.
8. Brownstone D., Bunch D.S., Train K. Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles. Transport. Res. Part A 2000, 34:315-338.
9. 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. Transport. Res. Part A 1993, 27:237-253.
10. Bunch, D.S., Brownstone, D., Golob, T.F., 1995, A dynamic forecasting system for vehicle markets with clean-fuel vehicles. Working Paper UCI-ITS-WP-95-21, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Irvine, USA.
11. Calfee J.E. Estimating the demand for electric automobiles using fully disaggregated probabilistic choice analysis. Transport. Res. Part B 1985, 19:287-301.
12. Carlsson F., Johansson-Stenman O., Martinsson P. Do you enjoy having more than others? Survey evidence of positional goods. Economica 2007, 74:586-598.
13. Caulfield B., Farrell S., McMahon B. Examining individuals preferences for hybrid electric and alternatively fuelled vehicles. Transp. Policy 2010, 17:381-387.
14. CBS, 2013a. Statline Web Publication. CBS Statistics Netherlands, The Hague. http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL%26PA=81128NED%26D1=a%26D2=0%26D3=a%26D4=0%26D5=a%26D6=0%26D7=l%26VW=T.
15. CBS, 2013b, Statline Web Publication. <>. http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/default.aspx?DM=SLNL%26PA=71107NED%26D1=0%26D2=a%26D3=0%26D4=0%26D5=a%26D6=a%26VW=T.
16. Chrzan, K., Orme, B., 2000. An overview and comparison of design strategies for choice-based conjoint analysis. Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series. Sequiem, USA. <>. http://www.skimgroup.com/images/stories/technicalpapers/Design-of-Conjoint-Experiments/desgncbc.pdf.
17. Dagsvik J.K., Liu G. A framework for analyzing rank-ordered data with application to automobile demand. Transport. Res. Part A 2009, 43:1-12.
18. Dagsvik, J.K., Wetterwald, D.G., Aaberge, R., 1996. Potential Demand for Alternative Fuel Vehicles. Discussion Paper No. 165, Statistics Norway, Oslo, Norway.
19. Dimitropoulos A., Rietveld P., Van Ommeren J.N. Consumer Valuation of Driving Range: A Meta-analysis, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper 2011-133/3 2011, Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam.
20. Eberle U., Müller B., Von Helmolt R. Fuel cell electric vehicles and hydrogen infrastructure: status 2012. Energy Environ. Sci. 2012, 5:8780-8798.
21. European Commission, 2011. Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area: Towards a Competitive and Resource Efficient Transport System (White Paper), COM (2011) 144 Final, Brussel.
22. Ewing G.O., Sarigöllü E. Car fuel-type choice under travel demand management and economic incentives. Transport. Res. Part D 1998, 3:429-444.
23. Grüning, M., Witte, M., Boteler, B., Kantamaneni, R., Gabel, E., Bennink, D., Van Essen, H., Kampman, B., 2011. Impacts of Electric Vehicles - Deliverable 3: Assessment of the Future Electricity Sector. Publication Number 11.4058.05, CE Delft, Delft, The Netherlands.
24. Hensher D.A., Greene W.H. Choosing between conventional, electric and LPG/CNG vehicles in single-vehicle households. The Leading Edge of Travel Behaviour Research 2001, 725-750. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
25. 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. Transport. Res. Part B 2006, 40:147-163.
26. Hidrue M.K., Parsons G.R., Kempton W., Gardner M.P. Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and their attributes. Resour. Energy Econ. 2011, 33:686-705.
27. Hoen A., Geurs K.T. The influence of positionality in car-purchasing behaviour on the downsizing of new cars. Transport. Res. Part D 2011, 16:402-408.
28. Horne M., Jaccard M., Tiedemann K. Improving behavioral realism in hybrid energy-economy models using discrete choice studies of personal transportation decisions. Energy Econ. 2005, 27:59-77.
29. Kemp R. Technology and the transition to environmental sustainability: the problem of technological regime shifts. Futures 1994, 26:1023-1046.
30. Mabit S.L., Fosgerau M. Demand for alternative-fuel vehicles when registration taxes are high. Transport. Res. Part D 2011, 16:225-231.
31. Maness M., Cirillo C. Measuring future vehicle preferences stated preference survey approach with dynamic attributes and multiyear time frame. Transport. Res. Rec.: J. Transport. Res. Board, No. 2285 2012, 100-109. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.
32. Mau P., Eyzaguirre J., Jaccard M., Collins-Dodd C., Tiedemann K. The 'Neighbor Effect': simulating dynamics in consumer preferences for new vehicle technologies. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 68:504-516.
33. PBL, 2009. Getting into the Right Lane for 2050. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, The Netherlands.
34. Potoglou D., Kanaroglou P.S. Household demand and willingness to pay for clean vehicles. Transport. Res. Part D 2007, 12:264-274.
35. Thomas C.E. Fuel cell and battery electric vehicles compared. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2009, 34:6005-6020.
36. Train K.E. EM algorithms for nonparametric estimation of mixing distributions. J. Choice Modell. 2008, 1:40-69.
37. Von Helmolt R., Eberle U. Fuel cell vehicles: status 2007. J. Power Sources 2007, 165:833-843.
38. Zhang T., Gensler S., Garcia R. A study of the diffusion of alternative fuel vehicles: an agent-based modeling approach. J. Prod. Innov. Manage 2011, 28:152-168.
39. Ziegler A. Individual characteristics and stated preferences for alternative energy sources and propulsion technologies in vehicles: a discrete choice analysis for Germany. Transport. Res. Part A 2012, 46:1372-1385.